Man, Now I'm Just Obsessed With The Idea Of Two Bro Besties Like

Man, now I'm just obsessed with the idea of two bro besties like

"Bro, can I suck your dick, like, platonically? No romo." "You sure you don't mean 'no homo', bro?"

"Nah, bro. It'll be hella gay. I just want to suck your dick as friends is all."

"How can we be just friends if you're sucking my dick, bro?"

"I'm not looking for a relationship, bro. And you're a great friend, but I don't have romantic feelings for you."

"So why do you want to suck my dick, then?"

"Because you're hot, bro. And, like, you're a good friend who's going through some stuff and I want you to feel as special as you make me feel, bro."

"Broooooooo."

"I know, bro. Me too."

[fellatio ensues]

Aymeric is the jock version of G'raha Tia.

Charismatic. From a distinguished lineage. Leader of a nation. OBSESSED WITH ME. Also, captain of the football team and Homecoming King.

So G'raha literally does dimensional time travel to save the WoL and STILL thinks he would never have a shot.

Meanwhile, Aymeric DEFINITELY at some point was like: hey can I suck your dick, like, platonically? No romo

I refuse to believe that Matoya isn't a lesbian

Refuse

matoya's fed up with gay cats taking up space in her cave😔

(full gpose + og image under the cut)

Listen, it was under duress

not beating the AFAB accusations by being an annoying harpy to hospital staff are you

Possibly the most fascinating piece of anon hate I’ve ever received. Posting it to represent pinning it up on my internet fridge with a magnet. True food for thought here.

New Alt-Right Playbook! This one's on spurious claims and how they don't even need to be ARTICULATED to follow you around.

If you wanna keep this series coming out (and maybe help it come out a little faster) do please consider backing me on Patreon or subscribing to me on Nebula.

Transcript below the cut.

Say, for the sake of argument, you are the kind of progressive leftist with a platform who gets a share of harassment - seasonal or perennial - from reactionaries. In this situation, you will, inevitably, hear one who positions themself as a reasonable moderate ask, “Why Don’t You Respond To Criticism?”

There’s a lot going on in that question, more than is obvious, and it’s worth understanding.

First is that the question is not only directed at you. It exists as a marker, showing up in your Q&A’s, comment sections, or Twitter threads, to imply to anyone paying attention to you that there is some wealth of legitimate criticism you have long ignored. There may well be a specific point this person is referring to, but it’s often left unspecified or generalized, so that the content - and the quantity - of the criticism is left to audience imagination. It is meant to publicly undermine your legitimacy.

Second, it’s meant to make you question whether there is some legitimate criticism out there in the din of people screaming at you. You’re not perfect, and a knock-on effect of being harassed is you get numbed out, unable to discern good faith from bad, often removing yourself from the streams through which your peers used to correct you because of the endless flow of garbage coming through those channels now. But the only way to verify the ambiguous claim that there is criticism worth responding to is to once again strap on waders and climb in, which is often what your critic really wants.

Third, the question isn’t really “why don’t you respond to criticism?” Odds are, you do respond to some criticism. People in your position are often addressing or pre-empting criticism all the time, arguably too much. No, what this nonspecific question is really asking is, “Why don’t you respond to my criticism?” They’ll let it sound like you’ve been ignoring everyone, but they mean “why are you ignoring me?” They are going to insist you owe them a response, that their critique, regardless of your opinion of it, is valid, and demands immediate attention. Odds are there are dozens of people saying the same, all at once.

Fourth, odds are good that you have, in fact, addressed their specific complaint, but not in a manner they will accept. This one person’s criticism is likely not unique, you may have covered it somewhere in your output purely because you know what kind of arguments are getting thrown at you and you want to cover your bases. There’s a decent chance your critic doesn’t actually consume enough of your work to have seen it. But it’s maybe even more likely that they are aware of your counter-argument - possibly one of your fans directed them to it - but don’t consider a response legitimate unless it is directed at the critic. Covering it in a different context or on a different platform doesn’t count. They are owed a statement they can respond to directly, because they want the argument to continue. Really, the question is, “Why don’t you respond to my criticism on my terms?”

Finally, even if you did respond to them by name, it’s likely your response would still be disqualified. If you were to summarize their argument in any way, they would claim you are building a straw man. If you isolated any specific critique, or pointed to the cruelty that accompanied it, they would claim you’re cherry-picking. You must, it seems, first present the criticism, full and unabridged, before you may respond to it. Which is to say: the only “correct” way to respond to criticism is to platform the critic.

And there are dozens who expect this of you. Who will tear into you for not addressing, in meticulous detail, every single critique they’ve ever tossed your way, and, in the same breath, make fun of you for talking too much. Because they don’t want to move on from “Why Don’t You Respond to Criticism?” As a rhetorical tactic, it’s pretty ace. To announce, before the argument is even stated, that it is thus far undefeated? ::chef’s kiss:: Because any response you make will keep the focus on you and not their argument. “It’s not worth responding to.” “Well why should The Accused get to decide what is and isn’t worth responding to?” “I have responded, repeatedly.” “Well why didn’t you respond in this particular way?” None of this looks at whether the argument had any credibility to begin with, only at whether your rebuttal is following procedure.

Take, for example, the hypothetical criticism that you should not listen to me because I am just four eels in a trenchcoat. How would I respond to that? What can I say that isn’t exactly what four eels in a trenchcoat would say? “I’m not even wearing a trenchcoat”? Well, the first thing four eels would do when people start to catch on is wear hoodies. Show my birth certificate, saying I was born a single entity to a human mother at a weight four newborn eels wouldn’t add up to? Well, did that work for Obama? Or did the guy saying the birth certificate was fake get elected President? And, of course, anything I have to say about how fascism has evolved on the social internet is suspect if I can’t even prove I’m human. What do fish know?? We stayed at war with Iraq for seven years after the government announced the Weapons of Mass Destruction we were looking for never existed, and some people, to this day, still think we found them. What hope would I - a warm-blooded mammal who would make very mediocre sushi - stand in the face of that? [bell chime]

So, if you ever see this claim out in the wild, “why haven’t you responded to _____,” ask: do you know what _____ is, do you yourself agree it’s a valid question, and are you sure it hasn’t already been answered? And don’t repeat the question unless you’ve got three yesses.

Story idea that I still think would be funny:

A world where like 1% of the population is randomly born with some sort of superhuman or supernatural powers, but every culture forms their own, wholly different ideas about the concept. Americans have their superhero thing with costumes and code names, and are genuinely shocked that nobody else does that. The japanese language already has a whole classification system for different 'types' of superpowers, and also a specific term for an individual whose power cannot be fit into any specific class. This information is written onto on one's passport.

The french have no set vocabulary for any of this, and the same expressions are used for saying that someone is delightful company to be around, or talented in an art form or musical instrument, and to describe a person who can control electricity with their mind or turn any metal into a liquid. It depends on context clues and the tone of one's voice.

And somewhere in rural Georgia there is a guy who could just pick up a truck and throw it on the opposite side of a lake. The locals of his home region know that they can always come to Nikoloz if there's a cow or a piece of farm equipment stuck somewhere that cannot be moved by human strength alone. He'll help, and then go back home to feed his chickens. He could do a lot more with this power, but he doesn't want to, and if you suggest this to him, he will yeet you as well.