Anyone confused as to why JKR is against asexuality, first you must understand that TERF ideology depends solely on maintaining societal binaries, and when TERFs talk about sex (as in, intercourse) they need to categorise sex in the same boxes they place gender. For example, sex is between man and woman for procreation purposes, and when it isn’t between man and woman, then binaries must still stand. Biological men must have sex with biological men, and only be attracted to perisex cis male genitalia. Biological women must have sex with biological women, and only be attracted to perisex cis female genitalia.

Anyone with sexualities outside of these binaries are inherently a threat to TERF ideology. Bisexual people are a threat to the ideology, because they blur the lines of sexual attraction and the seemingly pressing need for specific genitalia. You never see JK Rowling include bisexual women in her crusade against trans women in women’s spaces, because her slogan of “women don’t want to sleep with women who have penises” probably wouldn’t work nearly as well if one is to include women who don’t have a particular preference (obviously, bisexual people can 100% have a preference, as can lesbians, but JK Rowling isn’t exactly one for nuance).

Therefore, asexual people are also a threat to this binary by simply not engaging with it. By not wanting to have sex, she again loses a demographic of people who give a shit about genitalia, and that is all that matters to her. The only sexualities that she cares to include in her “activism” are the ones that can be used to maintain biological sex. Lesbians are used as a weapon, while all other sexualities are thrown under the bus.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to JKR fans who identify with these sexualities that eventually she will turn on them too. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

very funny to me when people act like animal farm and 1984 are revolutionary anti government texts that the Powers That Be dont want you to read when they have literally been a part of every standard middle/highschool english lit cirriculum in the usa and beyond for decades. precisely because theyre such convenient primers to propagandize that Commies = Bad. the government is quite literally making kids read them

also, animal farm is not just anti-communist, but anti-revolution in general. the whole point of the story is if you overthrow your oppressor the new order will just become the same as the one it replaced! the story offers no suggestion of how the animals could have overthrown the farmer without the pigs becoming exactly like them, it just seems to begin and end with "never overthrown your oppressor because you'll end up right back where you started anyways." bleak and ugly story.

Not to be super English major about it, but Animal Farm was NOT an “anti-revolution” story. According to Orwell, it was inspired specifically by the Russian Revolution that led to the Stalinist regime. The story of animal farm is essentially what happened to the Russian people: they had a revolution against the tyrannical ruling class, only for the very people who had promised them freedom to turn into tyrants themselves.

The moral of the story is not “don’t have a revolution,” it’s that you should always be suspicious of those who promise you this utopian idea of freedom while still aiming to maintain power. The pigs never wanted to actually make everyone free, they just wanted to be the ones in charge. The novel details every small instance of the farm sliding further and further into fascism until it’s too late for anyone to do anything about it.

And 1984 doesn’t have much to do with communism at all. It’s about totalitarianism and fascism. There’s nothing pro-capitalist about the book. A totalitarian government like Big Brother’s could exist in either a capitalist or communist society. The point is the control they have over their people, and how important the flow of information is to that control.

George Orwell literally risked his life fighting fascists, so I think it’s pretty unfair to reduce his books to “anti-commie” propaganda. He was intensely critical of any state that maintained too much power over its people, and at the time, one of the worst examples of that was the recent communist revolution in Russia, which deposed a monarchy to install a dictator in its place.

orwell didn't pick up a gun to shoot fascists in spain alongside anarchist revolutionaries and write The book on it just so y'all can pretend the man favored inaction and the status quo.

Any game can be a time loop game if you’re bad enough at it

Why did “be critical of your media” turn into “find all its flaws and hate it” why did people become allergic to FUN

Because people confuse “critical as in critical thinking” with “critical as in criticizing something,” so they think that “look for something bad, no matter how far-fetched” is what “being critical” means.

They also don’t realize that “literary criticism” means…

Okay. What literary criticism IS, is like taking a mechanical clock apart to see all the gears and learn how it fits together and approach your next clock with more knowledge of what makes it tick.

What they THINK literary criticism means is, you take the clock apart and beat all the pieces with a hammer, then scream at it because it doesn’t tick for you the way it used to.

OMG SOMEBODY PUT IT IN WORDS

I explained the concept of "blorbo from my shows" to my 71 year old immigrant grandfather because I referenced it in passing and I thought nothing of it, until today when he said "I think I'll watch peaky blinders tonight and see my blorbo from my shows" referring, of course, to Cillian Murphy playing Tommy Shelby

English isn't his first language so he's not super in touch with modern slang, so I've been accidentally teaching him to talk like a tumblr user. His favorite thing to say lately is "me when I'm a little hater" when he's like talking shit about the neighbor's son

REMINDER: luigi mangione has been accused of killing the CEO, not convicted, and the evidence presented is extremely questionable. luigi mangione is NOT the claims adjuster until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, and the widespread presumption of his guilt makes it much more likely he will be falsely convicted.

BOTCHED COUP D'ETAT LEADER YOON SUK YEOL HAS BEEN IMPEACHED CONSTITUTIONALLY AND UNANIMOUSLY, AND THE DECISION IS FINAL!!!!!🥹🥹🥹🥹🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

WE DID IT!!! WE KOREANS DID IT!!! PLEASE SPREAD THE WORDS!!! I WANT ALL INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITIES TO KNOW THAT WE DID IT🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🩵💙🩵💙🩵💙🩵💙🩵💙🩵🩵💙🩵💙🩵🩵🩵🩵🩵🩵🩵💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💛💛💛💛💛💙🩵💛💛💛💛

I'm nearly in tears. All the mental and physical pain and suffering that me and other Koreans have gone through waiting for his ousting has finally been paid off.

It was NEVER easy. I can't believe how many obstacles there actually were to come to this conclusion. Yoon and his cronies, his ruling far-right conservative party, and their blind supporters never gave up till the last minute. They took numerous cards in their sleeves to prevent this glorious day from happening.

Still, such is life. Life is full of chaos. Humans are just chaotic. Some are unbelievably great, while some others are just downright scumbag. That's just how it is. All we need to do is never give up going forward. 🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹

This is from a country that was authoritarian until 1987, I remember when their democratic movement succeeded! We have a lot to learn.

that man is my princess

no i don't want you to redirect me to your app i want to look at recipe

i am not going to a secondary location with you one of us dies here

affirmations

we’ve started regularly saying “Goose is on his wall”

When you’re on your way home from the club but one of you almost died

this is one of the most iconic posts on this web site. to me

Okay. Say you ask a small child to draw you a house, and they come up with something like this:

For the purposes of this analogy the child is shit at colouring in, because I only wanted to give the general idea.

So, we can all agree that the child who draws a house probably isn't trying to communicate anything in particular other than “look at this cool house I drew”, right?

Cool.

So… Why is it seemingly in the middle of nowhere, when most children live in houses with neighbours?

Why is the main body a square and the roof a solid triangle when that doesn't look like any house that has ever been built anywhere?

Why does it have a wood-burning stove with smoke actively coming out of the chimney, even though the sun indicates warm weather?

Why is the sun smiling? Why is it yellow?

Answer: because the child has seen picture books, and films, and the drawings of other children, and has on some level absorbed that this is what a house is meant to look like.

Face to face, the child almost certainly wouldn't know where to begin communicating “yellow is a colour culturally associated with happiness and warmth, and two dots accompanied by a curved line symbolically represent a smiling human face, so I have combined these attributes with the sun to convey that it is a very warm and pleasant day”.

Or “historically most houses in my country used fire for heat and cooking, and even though this is no longer the case for the majority of households, most media portrayals of houses are inspired by other, older, media portrayals and therefore include the chimney. I have chosen to follow this trend.”

Or even, “I have poor motor control because of my age, and large, 2 dimensional shapes are easier to draw than anything involving detail and perspective”.

Yet this is all information that you can pick up from detailed study of the house drawing.

Ultimately, it's not about what the writer intended. That's what the whole death of the author thing means.

If you think of literature like as a conversation, then think of all the analysis stuff that your English teacher keeps trying to get you to look at as like body language. It's the stuff that the other person doesn't even necessarily mean to communicate, but that can tell you a hell of a lot about what they mean.

Also, a poem written by a poet who got high is still a poem written by a poet.

People love to say dismissive bullshit like, "oh, that's just the drugs talking" but actually, drugs can't fucking talk! It is always the human being doing the talking regardless of how intoxicated they are. The drugs are not creating the poetry. The poet's mind is creating the poetry. A person doesn't stop being a person just because they took something.

David Bowie said he was so high the year he wrote the album Hunky Dory that he didn't remember writing it (in fact he said he didn't remember anything about the year).

This is the album that includes "Life on Mars?", which many people consider to be some pretty cutting commentary on Marxism and capitalism.

Bowie himself could not tell you what that song is about, or if it's about anything at all. But quite a few people have found a lot of meaning in it.

My teenager is working on a big art project for school and they said their meanings tend to be very surface level

Their work is about flora and fauna is a mix of bone motifs, animal shapes and natural flora intertwining to create one beast that symbolises the land

And when I pointed out that it seemed to me like a commentary on how the ecosystem works and every part is reliant on another and how life and death are two sides of the same coin they didn't go "no I was just doing surface level nature is cool" they went "oh yeah! I can see it now!"

And I've had that experience as well

Sometimes artists don't know the meaning until other people point it out

evermore is such an insane album when you really think about it. like. love isn't forever. friendship isn't forever. trust isn't forever. family isn't forever. even a marriage isn't forever. but then she ends on evermore (song) and it's like: you know what else isn't forever? pain. suffering. heartache. she just flips the script of the entire album on the LAST SONG and cements the complexity of its core message in 5 minutes. and i'm supposed to be normal about that

SHARING THIS WITHOUT THE UPDATE IS EVIL

From our first tournament!