so i’m doing a rewatch of the mcu in in-universe timeline order and let me tell you, the discourse about captain marvel being military propaganda really feels odd when you watch the first iron man movie right after. like i know all of the mcu is military propaganda to some extent bc military funding and there were the brie larson air force ads but the iron man movie is literally “a journalist who calls tony stark out for being a war profiteer still wants to sleep with him” and “tony’s first act as iron man is to mow down a bunch of middle eastern terrorists”
thor 1 loki drove a brand new bmw that odin gave him for his sweet 16 until he crashed it into a tree when he found out it cost less than thor’s first car
avengers 1 loki drives a “sports” car with blacked out windows and an intentionally loud exhaust
dark world loki has no license and longboards around town at 3am
ragnarok loki has a 1960s restored bronco he got from being a sugar baby
tva loki drives a prius and carpools to work with his husband mobius
this influx of lgbt people wanting to accept everything as ‘valid’ without questioning anything out of fear of being seen as bigoted has not gone well to say the least
I also believe it’s a result of this dumb idea that you need a label and a flag for everything. “I’m a bi lesbian bc I’m a lesbian but sometimes I’m attracted to men” putting aside the idea that you might just be bi… just say you’re questioning. just call yourself gay if no specific label applies, or queer if that’s cool with you, or just nothing at all because you do not need a label. a bi elder being seen as a lesbian for being with women back in their day is not the same person as you, early 20s, eating up shit you find on random carrds on the internet
this absolutely goes for lesbians struggling with comphet too and I don’t even need to explain why trying to make comphet into an actual label is not a good thing
it’s crazy how “adults should be mindful of kids in online spaces” is such a controversial topic and by that i mean that i hope that anyone that disagrees with that never interacts with any children ever
KAFJGJDJFSJFKSKGLHJKL???????????????
The problem is that any variation of “think of the children” with no additional contest is mostly used by people to silence minorities, oppress victims, and generally promote censorship. It is a historical fact that “think of the children” is, generally speaking, a dog whistle for “things I don’t like shouldn’t exist.”
Examples include teaching kids about the existence of gay people, teaching kids about racism (this one is current, Florida just made it illegal to teach critical race theory in school), and the justification is *always* some variant of “think of the children”. This was the justification used to ban homosexuality in the Soviet Union, it was ta justification for the war on drugs, it was used as a justification for segregation.
This next part is going to sound a bit rude but I mean it in the most neutral, non judgemental way possible. If you don’t know this, then you are ignorant of one of the most important, widespread, and effective manipulative political tactics there is. And most critically, it relies on your ignorance for its effectiveness. People push conservative values by claiming they are “thinking of the children”, which gives them the weight of every person who ever “thinks of the children”. People start to think “well if it is for the children…” and “I saw this person I trust say that too, so they must support these kinds of measures too!”. It spreads a specific type of group think that pushes conservative, right wing agendas.
This is why the statement “adults should be mindful of kids in online spaces” absent explicit clarification is controversial, because people who are not ignorant of this political tactic know that this is one of the most effective methods of pushing conservative politics. The first thing you should do when someone says any variation of “think of the children” is question their motivation, because the vast majority of the time time it is pushing some right wing political goal.
People who say “adults should be mindful of kids in online spaces” without explicit clarification are either ignorant, careless, or manipulative.
The people who are careless or ignorant are usually relying on the Shirley Exception. That is to say, their internal thought process goes like this: “Oh, I mean we should take appropriate measures to protect children. Surely everyone will understand that I don’t mean to go *that* far. Surely they will know there are exceptions and appropriate lines. I don’t need to clarify because surely everyone will understand.”
And that is how we end up with critical race theory banned in public schools.
It is not so much that “adults should be mindful of kids in online spaces” is controversial, it is that the only way to stop this particular right wing tactic is to immediately shut down ANY use of “think of the children” without explicit clarification.
TL:DR
Using any variation of “think of the children” without explicit clarification supports right wing political goals. This is true no matter what a person’s real intentions might have been when using “think of the children”.
This video is a perfect example of what I am talking about. It outlines how “Think about the children” style rhetoric is being used to discriminate against trans people, especially trans teenagers. Many, many people are supporting these bills almost entirely on the strength of the idea that they are meant to protect children because innocuous statements like “we need to protect children” or “we need to be mindful of kids” are like off switches for critical thinking. If you ignorantly parrot them then you are contributing to this bigotry - in the same way you are still contributing to racism if you say something racist out of non malicious ignorance - and people will rightly call you out on it.
This is a real problem and y’all need to get basic political awareness. This is politics 101 stuff, if you don’t know these basics you probably are not ready contribute to political discourse.
methinks….people underestimate how makeup is an actual real psychological trauma and im not being hyperbolic. being incapable of seeing your bare face in the mirror w/o being shook to your core and spiralling into a chain of negative emotions that ruins the rest of ur day? viscerally fearing being observed w/o makeup so much it informs how and when and IF you dare to move in public spaces? how many women fear intimate relationships bc they cant stomach the thought of someone seeing them w/o makeup? being so alienated from your own body that either exposing it or being exposed to it renders u depressed disturbed and disgusted sounds like textbook trauma responses to me
every person who wears makeup has to deal with the beauty culture around it to some extent, and, certainly, the beauty industry profits off of and exacerbates insecurities, but not everyone who wears makeup has a Visceral Loathing of their face without it. it’s hyperbolic to say makeup in and of itself is traumatic, and does a disservice to people who do have trauma responses around it by framing those responses as the inevitable result of wearing makeup and not as a disordered relationship with it
