LILYKEP'S BLOG

1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
kaity--did

Anonymous asked:

how did you locate and marry a man that is both seemingly willing to banter with you on tumbler AND braid your hair AND cool with your daughter being a little bit goth like you?

kaity--did answered:

I am not being snarky or rude when I say this, I am being genuine, because I think more people might need to hear this in a space and open environment: I married and had a child with a man who actually really likes me, and really wanted to be a husband and a dad, more than he wanted a wife and a child.

trilliath
miseria-fortes-viros

your weird obsession with moral purity is degrading your critical thinking skills and poisoning your ability to empathize with other people btw

miseria-fortes-viros

image

your weird obsession with moral purity is degrading your critical thinking skills and poisoning your ability to empathize with other people btw

likorys-shimenawa

#why those things specifically 💀💀💀

For the same reason Godwin's law exists. They weaponize rape and incest [and usually also pedopihlia] to make an unwinnable argument.

If you call your opponent a pedophile, who is gonna speak up that maybe you're wrong? That clearly just means they're a pedophile, too.

It also means nothing the person ever said can be correct - not even whether sky is blue, because you don't want to besaying the same things a pedophile said, do you?

It's the same ideaology as TERFs obsessing over 'evil trannies sneaking into bathrooms to rape little girls', or 'icky prochoicers using abortion as birth control'. They lap an extreme people are uncomfortable discussing, let alone arguing, and pretend that means they wont the discussion.

tachyonheart-deactivated2025120

I've been saying this in discussions around censorship for years.

When you say "all censorship is bad" and someone retorts "What about incest?" or "what about rape content?" they are trying to rhetorically back you into a corner where you cede your argument, not because you've been convinced or gained a new perspective, but because they're intimidating you with the prospect of social backlash.

zillyblog

once you cede your argument in any way (say, with fictional incest) fascists have their foot in the door.

once you cede that one kind of fiction is evil, fascists will take that same logic and apply it to everything else.

this is "think of the children" pearl clutching about trans and queer folk, D&D, video games, etc etc etc. it's weaponized fascism and you're falling for it by moralizing fiction and policing thoughts.

this doesn't mean you can have personal taste or triggers, that we shouldn't age-restrict things, tag them with warnings, or think critically about how we (individuals and society) ingest media. that doesn't mean disregarding the fact that fiction can affect reality.

it just means acknowledging the fact that you can't know a person's thoughts. all fiction can be harmless and good for something, for someone, somewhere. instead of letting fear and disgust drive your reaction, flex that empathy and sympathy and reconcile that there are minds out there that you don't understand--and that doesn't make them evil.

glorioustidalwavedefendor

image
dodger-chan

Funny thing about that last reblog: it's censored. The original quote uses "sons-of-bitches," not "scoundrels."

source

asdfcharacter

Then let us quote it right.

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending sons-of-bitches. For it is against sons-of-bitches that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. —H. L. Mencken