Author: peasantchick

strandpowered:

greenreticule:

If Jane Austen wrote Star Trek:

Spock, the first officer whose advice was always effectual, possessed a strength of understanding, and coolness of judgement, which qualified him to be the counselor of the ship’s captain, and enabled him frequently to counteract, to the advantage of them all, that eagerness of mind in Captain Kirk which must generally have lead to imprudence. Spock had an excellent heart, positioned somewhere near his kidneys; his feelings were strong, but he knew how to govern them: it was a knowledge which his captain had yet to learn, and which one of his fellow crew members had resolved never to learn.

Dr. Leonard McCoy’s abilities were, in many respects, equal to Spock’s. He was sensible and clever; but eager in every thing; his sorrows, his joys, could have no moderation. He was generous, amiably cynical, interesting: he was everything but logical.

@bookhobbit

radical-eirini:

cyborg-sevalle:

radical-eirini:

radical-eirini:

the problem with saying stuff like “we need a healthy amount of shame in our society or whatever” is that shame has ALWAYS been used to marginalize working class people, disabled people, women, people of color, gay, trans people. Shame has always been used as a tool to make people submit to capitalism and the cisheteropatriarchy and you cannot abstract it away from that lmao… Like in your head maybe you wanna use shame to own the “degenerate freak fetishists” or whatever you want to call this group of people but in the end its not actually going to harm the people you pretend to want to harm :/ It’s going to harm basically everyone who is not perfectly in line with normative values and no you can’t just change the normative values of society while keeping this very same sense of shame (that is tied to sex) intact because sex (as in, the act) is inherently tied to gender and your conception of shame only makes sense within the normative constraints we know right now :/

so you’re going to have to rethink why you think its “shame” that we need in society and also you’re going to have to rethink why you think you can reappropriate shame in order to target the people you supposedly want to target before you say that again.

Like a lot of people seem to want to make an appeal to normalcy but then
you realize that what is “normal” is tied to the source of homophobia,
misogyny, racism, ableism, transphobia etc

because it is not you who defines normalcy but our society in general.. and like our society is not a progressive one so you cannot pretend that its possible to weaponize the concept of “normalcy” in favor of any sort of progressive goal :/

I love how many of the responses to this are “OP kinda has a point, but the specific people I do this too deserve it” when, like, the entire point is that you can’t just laser-target shame, and the other side of the coin of “what facilitates a shame-based approach to these things ends up inevitably doing harm to marginalized people” is that it also allows the intended targets recourse to avoiding that shame.

Like, “kinky cishets” or w/e your intended targets are don’t give a shit about your attempts to shame them. They have the entire institution of normative sexuality to fall back on because, whatever else they’re doing, their heterosexuality means that, at some fundamental level, their sexuality is still deemed effectively normal in a broader social context.

@everyone in the notes who didn’t properly read the post and therefore missed the central point

beachgothgay:

Film critics (as in people who apply a number-based rating system to films as to how “good” they think a movie is) are cops. If you try to argue that because a lot of people liked a movie then that means it’s good, you’re also a cop. No movie is good, stop trying to make movies happen.