jeff: what the fuck cant you see im trying to tweet. go see a doctor thats not normal or humanly possible what the fuck is wrong with you
britta: well [y/n] according to my therapy sheet, rabies tends to come hand in hand with ocd and anxiety so i already saw this coming. im breaking up with you.
annie: thats legitimately concerning. why haven’t you called 911? why are you telling me? do you only have 24 hours left to live?
shirley: well, [y/n], it’s all in jesus’ hands now
troy: [starts crying out of the blue] I KNEW YOU WERE HIDING SOMETHING FROM ME THIS WHOLE TIME [Y/N]. I’M SO SORRY? DID I GIVE YOU RABIES? WAS IT ME? DID I
abed: no you dont. that isn’t possible. this is a tumblr post. this is an inside joke, within an inside joke, made up of several other inside jokes. m̺̜̰͖̠͍̻e͕̬ta,̣͙̤ m̖̤̖̘e͍̼t̯̖͟a̸̯̞,̡̣ a͠n̝̩͢d m̬̫o̜͓͉͉͎re̡͙̫̫̹̣ ͠m̟̹̥̖e̵͉̙͔̙t͏a͖͚͓͖̼.̖̤̗͍̥ i̧̧̲̤͓̭͎̯͉̎ͩ̾̒̂̓ͦ̉͡ ā̷̷̲̼̩̤̞ͤ̋ͦ̅̀m̸̟̻͓̻̜̱ͬ̀͋͠ ́́͐ͭ̽̽ͮ҉͚̠̜̮g̜̝ͧ̄̒ͣͅo̴̡͍̪̹̙̹̬ͮ̚ͅd̘̃͑̿̾͒̆ͦͬ̏.̓ͨ̈̃ͦ̓̔̏̾͡
pierce: [says something racist + unfunny because hes chevy chase]
one of the things that fucking sucks about being decently versed in online terminology is seeing a joke or particular word usage or reference that immediately pins down exactly what shithead online circle someone’s from
Queer is dangerous to these people; they want it to be a slur.
We’re here, we’re queer, we’re dangerous to gatekeepers, and that’s a good thing
It’s especially apparent that their real issue is not with it ‘being a slur’ when we consider the term ‘MOGAI’.
This term was not a slur. It had no ‘problematic’ beginnings, has never been co-opted by straight and cis society, was for us by us, did not include anyone who did not need to be included, but it was very inclusive. So they lied about it, rejected it, and use it as an insult against people. They talk about ‘The mogai’s and ‘mogai identities’ as though they’re some kind of joke. They talk about it like it’s the worst thing you could be to them.
Again, there is nothing wrong with the term. It’s just too inclusive and encompassing for them. They can’t cause a rift in that community if that’s the acronym. They can’t cut portions out of an ever-expanding community if all the identities are contained within it automatically.
Their current reasoning is ‘it includes pedophiles’ which is a blatant lie (The original coiner was a minor at the time they coined it and they’re also a CSA survivor). The other reasoning I’ve seen is ‘it includes cis and straight women’ (It doesn’t). They have NO real reason to reject that term, especially as it was created to BE the umbrella term they claimed to want so desperately without ‘being a slur’. And yet, they do. Because it’s too inclusive. “Queer is a slur” is at this point, a deflect. They need it to be a slur because it’s too inclusive. They can’t cause a rift in the queer community if the word used for the community is all-encompassing. Just like they need MOGAI to include people it never did, so they can safely reject the label that was just too inclusive for their liking, too difficult to cause rifts in. They need these terms to be dangerous, bad, ‘problematic’ or a slur, because they need us to not have an encompassing umbrella if they are going to maintain their gatekeeping.
The ale-pushing hand of Kit Marlowe’s ghost; metaqueen Elizabeth the zeroth; Prospero, of whom Shakespeare is the lightly fictionalised equivalent; a passing bear; they are a group effort and ongoing in-joke of the time travelling community; they are the work of trees trying to decipher human behaviour, each peer-reviewed by more than a dozen larches; Bacon (two slices of); Sir Thomas More; Sir Thomas More than that; Sir Thomas Most; Stonehenge but with fingers; Don Quixote; you (having the advantage that you may have read them first); the dark lady; a vague but pen-having sense of patriotism; in a stunning twist, it was the anthropomorphic personification of the authorship question itself; Shakespeare.
genuinely no shade @ this person whatsoever i’m not poking fun but this is literally like one of the funniest combinations of words i have ever read on this website
[id: a screenshot of a reblog by jeezypetes reads “Can’t believe gorillas have the ability to kin and some of y’all still aren’t vegetarian”]
People are talking about “slime girls” on my dash in such a way that I’m honestly not sure whether they’re referring to a video game monster or a lifestyle aesthetic, and I’m kind of afraid to ask.
I’ve seen both… stick to videogame monster slime girls only… please…
Okay, now you’ve got me legitimately curious what “slime girl” as a lifestyle aesthetic actually entails.
Long story short, slime girls/goo girls are basically fantasy-type slimes ala Dragon Quest; but taking the semi-humanoid form of attractive women; made out of slime, with varying degrees of viscosity depending on the work.
If this sounds like a fetish thing, yeah that’s basically how it started. But, over time; they kinda made the jump to “regular” fantasy, and honestly that sort of drift fascinates me.
If only because I think those weird anthro planes could do something similar because I’d think they’d work really, really well for China Mielville-type New Weird fantasy…
You completely misunderstand. I know what a “slime girl” is in the fantasy monster sense. What I mean is that I’ve started running into folks talking about being a “slime girl” in such a way that it’s unclear whether they’re referring to the fantasy critter or some sort of lifestyle aesthetic (i.e,. in the same sense that being a “goth girl” is a lifestyle aesthetic).
u just got to wear bright colours and Always Be Sticky
🍓🧀 (archive) 