manicInsomniac

anais-ninja-bitch

bundibird

I dont really care if you use the term bisexual or pansexual, but what i DO care about is that you understand that bisexuality at NO stage in history was EVER trans-exclusionary. Bisexuality has always included trans folks, and non-binary folks, and the entire spectrum of gender between male and female, as well as Definitively Gender and agender. It has ALWAYS meant "attraction to more than one gender." It has NEVER meant "attraction to cis men and women only."

So, pan, bi, use whichever label you will. But do NOT buy into the recent-years innacurate concept that bisexuality is attraction to cis men and women only, because thats literally never been the case.

bundibird

@brassmama exactly.

^^ Like. Its literally right there in the middle of the flag.

And by contrast, this is what the pan flag colours mean:

So literally its just......

bi colours = "same gender, opposite gender, and other genders"
pan colours = "men, women, and nb people."

Those two things are...... not all that different to each other.

The purple has always, literally since the flag was created, meant "more genders."

And bisexuality included "more genders" in the definition before the bi flag was created, too. Thats why they included the purple bar in the first place, because it was reflective of bisexual people's attraction to and relationship with gender.

If you feel that pansexual suits you better, or you like the pan flag more, then thats fine -- but don't spread the misconception that bisexuality is remotely exclusionary. Because its literally never been.

anais-ninja-bitch

guerrillatech

patrocles

i don’t normally like to add onto posts but i thought this thread was pretty insightful (link)

fizzywrench

(via Jovishark)

rednines

Whatever you think of the music Imagine Dragons are exmormon and the lead singer is a huge donor to LGBT groups in Utah. His like sole political cause is like fighting the astronomically high lgbt youth suicide here in Utah. I fucking hate this webbed site

iwilleatyourenglish

yeah, this tweet thread fucking sucks.

1. i don’t like Imagine Dragons’ music and i think it is arguable that much of it’s a commercial product, but their members are, as stated above, more or less ex-Mormon.

the lead singer, Dan Reynolds, has discussed his active struggle with his faith and the cult of Mormonism. leaving a cult--especially one that practices shunning--is extremely difficult and can take years. and yet, despite this, he’s made it his mission to help combat issues affecting the LGBT+ community, including conversion therapy, LGBT+ youth suicide, and LGBT+ homelessness.

he has been a consistent and active ally to the point that he has an annual music festival called Loveloud that is dedicated to raising awareness about LGBT+ issues, featuring and promoting LGBT+ artists, and raising money for several charities. he has also donated his own money to LGBT+ organizations and gave his $1 million childhood home to Encircle, an LGBT+ advocacy group in Utah.

the guitarist, Wayne Sermon, has also given talks at conferences dedicated to assisting Mormons in leaving the cult and healing from their trauma.

2. the Lumineers have a history of holding shows solely so they can donate all profits to various charities and causes, including Planned Parenthood in Texas after Republican efforts to defund PP, Dakota Access Pipeline protestors, and LGBT+ charities in North Carolina following the passing of anti-LGBT+ legislation. a lot of their music that doesn’t make it to the radio focuses on issues like poverty, the working class, addiction, and trauma.

3. Marcus Mumford has explicitly stated that he doesn’t actually identify as a Christian, despite using Christian imagery in some of his songs. a person’s parents being Evangelical conservatives should not be an indictment on them. he and the other band members also kicked out their guitarist when he started spewing alt-right talking points and supporting Andy Ngo. i’m still not totally sure i trust his politics--he strikes me as pretty centrist--but good lord, he’s not an Evangelical.

do y’all not realize that you’re allowed to dislike music for purely surface level reasons? like that it doesn’t have to be that it’s made by terrible people--you can just seriously not like how it sounds?

making up bullshit theories where you falsely charge people--especially people actively fighting for progress--with being part of some kind of conservative religious extremist conspiracy theory to justify “i don’t like how they sound” is fucking awful and appalling. go outside.

dzamie

Really not a fan of tumblr's renewed obsession with "if I don't like it, it must be morally corrupt." Especially with the "shadowy cabal of ne'er-do-wells" flavor, which has a history of being Not That Great for certain communities.

lemuel-apologist

I didn't want to get angry about this post, but I think rednines and iwilleatyourenglish are right. I didn't spend my adolescence being forbidden from listening to Imagine Dragons at youth activities for y'all to say that Mormons love them. In my experience, the only ones who do are the "progressives," the Jacks, and the ones on their way out.

YES, there's an issue with this weird, corporate, uplifting "alt rock" that has been invading rock stations for the past few years. I'm sick and tired of it I miss my rock stations, etc. etc. etc. and YES, Imagine Dragons has a place in this. HOWEVER, I absolutely despise the way some of y'all talk about them.

Are there genuine criticisms to be had? Yes. Do I appreciate what has been done with Loveloud? Also yes.

And you guys need to understand that leaving Mormonism is HARD. It's HARD AS HELL. I was raised in it and I don't think I'm ever going to be able to fully shake its influence. If Dan Reynolds can do a bit of good in this fucked-up state, if he can help kids who don't know where else to turn, then he's fine by me.

ocean-stuck

too-many-plants

the-punk-innovator

passiveaggressivegummybear:
“darkvioletcloud:
“ sabelmouse:
“ This fake yarn is supposedly better for sheep.
Aimed at people who don’t know where wool comes from, it’s 100% plastic. Yes, plastic. So any garment you wash will release microfibres into...

roach-works

aupair

this kid is 14 oh my god is no one teaching children to protect themselves online anymore…

tikkunolamorgtfo

Meanwhile us olds are like: I don’t have a carrd and I’m not reading yours

missy-tusara

Please don’t advertise your personal information, anyone could find that and use it however they want.

corvidcrits

Oh my fucking god it isn’t 1998 anymore no one cares

cerayanay

??? Wtf does this mean??? 80% of employers google you before hiring you, child predators use that info to groom kids, abusers use that info against victims, police/government track activists online? Do you honestly think the internet has gotten safer since 1998????

oopsabird

also don’t tell any rando who wanders onto your blog with unknown intentions the specifics of how they can trigger you???? no????

cromode

the fact that its not 1998 anymore is exactly WHY you should be more fucking careful. do you have any idea the tools people have now compared to then? the fact that its gotten exponentially easier to find people in real life based off online info while young people have gotten extremely comfortable sharing all their personal details is deeply concerning.

im sorry no one ever taught you internet safety but that is NOT because its not important anymore. ITS MORE IMPORTANT THAN IT EVER WAS. please listen to the people whove been on the internet longer than youve been alive. our intentions are good and internet safety is vital. especially if youre queer, which i know for a fact a lot of you are.

prismatic-bell

Listen, guys and gals and nonbinary pals. I know you’re going to think this is all overblown. But give me two minutes of your time.

My current roommate and I met on Tumblr. In the first three minutes I knew her I KNEW HER ADDRESS FROM HER ETSY. She only lived three miles down and one block over from me. Once we became friends, it took me literally fifteen minutes to drive to her house.

“Okay, but you guys are friends, roommates even, you love each other, what’s the problem?”

The problem is, this story doesn’t always have a happy ending.

The problem is, in another story I’m still 32, but she’s 15 instead of 43, and I’m an asshole.

The problem is, I am an adult. If a first meeting goes wrong, I have a car, a cell phone, and a tire iron in said car that I could defend myself with. What do you have?

The problem is, if you put identifying information out in the open, it could cross paths with someone who only lives 15 minutes away. And maybe they don’t care, and maybe they’re a chill person! That’s often the case.

But maybe they’re not.

“But I don’t put that kind of information—”

Listen. I’m gonna tell you I went to high school at General McLane and grew up by the cove. I’m going to mention that I HATED walking to my bus stop because it was out by the highway. At some point in our conversations, I mention that I’m walking down to the corner to get some ice cream.

Go onto Google and see how long it takes you to figure out, within a quarter-mile radius, where I grew up.

I can tell you how long it took me, using only the information I just provided you: two minutes. I looked up the school and got the address. That gave me the town name. I put that into Google Maps. I found Edinboro Lake and another body of water near it. Zoomed in on the streets near that second body of water, and boom. Cove Drive, right next to an ice cream shop, opening onto a highway.

You now have a radius of less than two blocks where I might have lived.

Do you feel a little less safe putting that information out there? You should. Because I didn’t use any special programs, any elite hacking knowledge. I used nothing but Google, the name of a high school, and two offhand conversational mentions, and in two minutes I’d narrowed it down to a single block. Go ahead—try it yourself.

And yes—I can do this for my roommate, too, even having never been to her hometown. All I need to know is the name of her town and a story about crossing the street and a neighbor’s yard to get to the Walmart.

Do not put this information out there, guys. 95% of people you will meet online are legit. Many are delightful.

But some are not. And those are the ones you need to watch for.

auntiesuze

THIS. Almost 20 years ago, I took a class on internet security. Nothing fancy, just an overview of the ways that people with bad intentions can gain access to your accounts and information. The number one security risk? People. You. It doesn’t matter how safe you make your systems when a tiny bit of social engineering and half a brain cell can get you to give them the info they need.

Our “final exam” was to find all of the information that we could on the teacher. Now, he supposedly knows everything that you should and shouldn’t do, right? So we shouldn’t be able to come up with much. Except, apparently I’m really good at finding info on the internet. I managed to find his hometown, high school, year of graduation, and even yearbook pictures. I passed the class, but it just goes to show that any schmoe can come up with enough info to track you down and hurt you.

araloran

That list of ‘just the basics’ filled me with a feeling of disbelief and horror.

thebibliosphere

redstarovermoundcity

still astounded by this literal weaponization of feminism against the working class. thanks for that liberal queens, yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas

pileofknives

"Sounds like your boyfriend is exhibiting some real *manager flipping through flash cards* toxic masculinity. You're being uh... *looks to other manager who's mouthing words silently* you're being gaslit, sis. Do some self care and come into work okay?"

lepidopterium

espanhois

if you're feeling bored, do this little experiment and tag with your score! you link 10 words together that are as different as possible

Ayyy 95

roach-works

itneedsmoregays

Steven Universe: Eh, I don't really feel like saying "girlfriend" or "wife". Maybe they're together. They have a special connection...

(gets violently shoved aside)

The Loud House/Craig of the Creek/The Owl House: Pfft, amateur. "My GIRLFRIEND Sam and I..." "I'm texting my GIRLFRIEND, mind your business." "Luz's new GF showed her..."

raulziito

Can we not do this thing? Do you realize that Rebecca had to fight for what we got with Rupphire and literally risked her job? and Pearl and Rose. Like, there is no need to knock other shows down because of Lumity.

missgreeneyartz

These kids today, I tell you what. In my day you had to bury your girlfriends under subtext and then end the series when the truth was revealed.

renthony

Risked her job, hell, it's an open secret now that the Rupphire wedding (which, may I remind folks, was the first queer wedding in a kids' cartoon, which is a BIG DEAL) is why everything about the rest of the series felt rushed. They had to scramble to tell the rest of the story because they took a gamble and the network retaliated by shortening their production time.

Rebecca Sugar and the crewniverse risked the entire show getting flat-out cancelled in order to show that wedding, only for people to say it "wasn't progressive enough" and was "giving in to stereotypes" to put Ruby in a wedding dress. Never mind that Ruby kept getting dubbed over as a guy in localization, Sapphire was unmistakably feminine in every version, and putting Ruby in the dress was a flagrant way to say, "fuck you, you can't pretend this is a straight couple; this is a queer couple and a queer wedding."

Dana Terrace has said that The Owl House only exists with its intended queerness because of what Rebecca Sugar and her team accomplished with Steven Universe. Hell, there are multiple members of the Steven Universe team who went on to work on the other shows mentioned in the OP--Steven Sugar, for example, who is Rebecca Sugar's brother and inspiration for SU in the first place (as well a background artist on the show), is currently an artist on The Owl House. There are people who got their start on Steven Universe who now only have the opportunity to tell more queer stories because of Steven Universe's success.

I'm not even 30 years old yet and I'm still old enough to remember when being gay was fully illegal in the United States. Not gay marriage, but literally just BEING GAY. It wasn't that long ago, and the fact that today in 2021 I can turn on the TV and watch gay cartoons intended for children? I never thought I'd see it. Fucking ever.

So let's stop pitting queer creators and media against each other, shall we?

runcibility

infinitecrime

I simply cannot feel sorry for multi-millionaire Scarlett Johansson only earning $20 million instead of $30 million or what the fuck ever because Disney recognised that large parts of the world still can't safely go to the cinema on account of the deadly pandemic and released Black Widow on Disney+ at the same time as in theatres. But then I also support anyone suing Disney for any reason, so you see my dilemma

everbecomesreal

The case isn’t really about Scarlett Johansson. It’s about setting precedent for the way actors are paid when content is released on screening services going forward, and Scarlett Johansson is pretty unique in her position of both having a valid case for breach of contract and having a large enough platform, following and wealth that suing Disney won’t completely destroy her and her career.

She offered to renegotiate her contract at the point the decision to release on Disney+ was made, and Disney refused, that is what lead to the case.

The overwhelming majority of actors, even actor’s working for Disney are not millionaires, I know that because I am a jobbing actor, and I earn less in a year then either of my siblings, both of whom have office jobs.

When you get a film or television job, in addition to what you’re paid at the time you also get something that in the UK is called royalty fees, and in the US is called residuals. This occurs when the show or film is shown or licensed on another channel or network, almost always for a set period of time, although Netflix has started buying the rights to small indie films outright.

Royalty checks can be hilariously small. A friend I trained with once got one for £2.07 because their show had just been licensed to be shown on a Thai TV network, but more often they are a lifeline for actors. Most actors work minimum wage jobs in between acting gigs, and when you also have the cost of Headshots, Self Tape equipment, travel to auditions and lost wages whenever you have to take time off to prep and travel to auditions, you understand why equity wages are so high for individual jobs, because that one episode in a soap you got paid £800-£1200 for (minus 10-20% for your agent), could be your wage for 2 months and you would be considered a fairly successful working actor, even if it was your only acting job in that time period.

The case isn’t about a multimillionaire quibbling over how many millions she is being paid, although it’s likely that had Black Widow had a prepandemic release Scarlett Johansson would have been paid closer to 200 million than the 20 million she is being paid. Although Disney is pushing that angle hard so I fully understand why you’ve fallen into their propaganda trap. It is one of the very few opportunities for actors, screenwriters, cinematographers, directors, and all the other hundreds of creatives involved in the filmmaking process to challenge some of the status quo with streaming services and really ask questions about how royalties will work in the future.

There is a reason that the unions are backing the case and that’s because the other way around, breach of contract is a huge deal, there can be penalties of hundreds of thousands of dollars for contract breaches, often on jobs where you are paid a fraction of that, and believe me, Netflix, Disney, Amazon, Universal all persue those payments, and in certain circumstances even go out of their way to blacklist the artist.

If breach of contract is a big deal when actors and other creatives do it, it should be just as big a deal when studios do it, but it isn’t because Capitalism is rarely about rewarding artists and all about bottom line profit.

This case has the potential to really change things and help millions of ordinary, jobbing actors and creatives. I am 100% on Scarlett Johansson’s side with this and any reasonable person who cares about the well-being of artists should be too.

cacopheny

^^^^^^^^ this. this right here

asparklethatisblue

she has the money for lawyers, let her set the precedent for those who don’t

bundibird

You know how an elderly lady got third degree burns to a horrifying percentage of her body because MacDonald's was serving coffee at next-to-boiling temperatures and the lid came off her cup and spilled all over her, and she wanted MacDonald's to pay for her medical fees which to her were astronomical but to a mega corp like MacDonald's was a raindrop in the ocean, and instead of just paying the med bills for this woman they went out of their way to deride her and besmirch her and turn the story into "hur dur dumb American didnt know that hot beverages are hot," and thats the version of events everyone remembers, having been successfully distracted from the truth of the matter by a targetted, vicious, loud propaganda campaign by MacDonald's?

Well that's exactly what disney is doing with this "ScarJo is being horribly insensitive about the global pandemic we're in" and their "we were merely being socially conscientious and kind to let people stream our new movies instead of having to go to the cinemas for them" campaign.

This suit isn't actually about ScarJo. Quite aside from the fact that it IS a breach of contract to do a dual release and not hand over any of the profits from the streaming release (which she is absolutely entitled to), its actually about every single actor and writer and voice actor and etc that has similar contracts with all production companies, most of whom do not have the resources that ScarJo has.

Disney knows that if ScarJo wins this, they will be forced to equitably distribute income from their streaming service to those who have the right to such things. They do not want that.

They want you to pay your monthly subscription and your $36 early access fee, and they want to pocket all of that money, even though a portion of it should be going to the actors and creators of the film.

They know that if ScarJo wins, they will not be able to hoard as luck money. So they are running a discredit campaign.

"Oh look how heartless ScarJo is, for wanting MORE money even tho she already got $20m, and EVEN THOUGH we're in a PANDEMIC and there are people DYING. Its so HEARTLESS of her."

And guess what!! Its working!!!!!! People already aren't huge fans of ScarJo, for a range of reasons, but mostly, people are falling prey to the propaganda campaign.

Don't do that. Don't be the person who thinks an old woman who wants her crazy high medical bills paid because she was handed a poorly secured cup of boiling water is actually just a money grabbing idiot. Don't be the person who spreads Disney's "we're the good guys in this actually" bullshit. Don't fall for it.

This whole thing is SO much bigger than ScarJo.