And he loved his dog so much that when he was going through some kind of horrible atrocious torturous depression he still stayed up late into the night to lay awake with his dog on his lap so it wouldn’t leave him alone
More you might like
[id: two men holding the halves of an amethyst geode, smiling. the geode is heart shaped, and both men are smiling. /end id]
babe are you ok you reblogged the two men holding the heart geode again
"Rail only works over short distances" one of the most detached from reality carbrain statements I've ever read. Rail is objectively, demonstrably better to cover long distances than it is to cover short distances. Car culture legitimately gives you some kind of brain fungus.
Writing prompt: What do you think was the commenter's original perception of this post? How did that perception change with the added context of 'proship'?
Consider this user's thought process and what preconceptions you think might have caused them to alter their opinion. Do you think that a better understanding of the word 'proship' might change their opinion again? Why or why not?
You know what, "writing prompt" was potentially a joke: but I'm Autistic so that sign can't stop me, I can't read social tone!
Antis are largely hypocritical, that already is well established through various receipts on various blogs. Their arguments are half baked, and/or rooted in fallacies. Plenty of it either utilizes strawmen or non sequitur, among others.
This is a post that an anti could've reasonably made, because what "anti" means has largely become "anti-proship." I don't actually think it means "anti-ship" anymore, that feels weirdly too broad. When someone says they're an "anti" these days, they mean they hate people who espouse pro-fiction, pro-ship, or pro-kink values.
There's a lot of mental gymnastics that come with this. Lots of them are queer or claim to be queer allies. Anti-kink sentiments though are often inherently anti-queer, intentionally or otherwise. Anything can be deemed deviant when a group of people is given the power to do so, I don't need to explain that to anyone queer reading this.
So yes! This is a post an anti could've otherwise made. "Forbidden love" is a popular trope, though it's also an incredibly broad trope. That broad nature means you can write it a million ways, even including ways some portion of antis could agree on being fiction-kosher (for lack of a better word.)
But what's this? A proshipper made the post?
That changes everything.
Antis preach like born-again-Christians at times, and part of the doctrine is that anyone who isn't them has an agenda. Familiar from places like Fox News trying to paint all queer people as deviants, or saying "happy holidays" is "destroying my religious traditions by not telling me Merry Christmas and instantly knowing I'm a god fearing Christian who only cares about Christmas." Funny how often these people make "assumed my gender" jokes...
The anti-proship version of this apparent agenda by proshippers is that they (and those like them) seek to "normalize pedophilia" in the eyes of the public (with the implication that this is for nefarious reasons the individual proshippers are more than eager to act upon once it has been normalized.) It ignores the fact that most CSA is a means of control and very infrequently based in attraction, but let's go a little deeper.
A five second google search can reveal the fact that child marriage is already legal in 43 states. From the same crowds trying to "protect children" from drag queens and trans people, also comes this. People attempting to repeal fucking child labor laws. You'd think that protecting children would mean hopping on making child marriage illegal! No loop holes, and not a single state left where it can happen.
Remember: these are also people claiming to protect children (like anti-shippers.)
"Protect the kids" is a very common way to amass followers, because it's a super easy boat to get everyone on. Everyone on some level can agree that it is a pretty good idea to protect them, they can't protect themselves! Now, what they propose to protect the children is always where things become suspect. Outlawing perceived or otherwise gender-nonconformity in public spaces, for instance!
So not only did this post go from something relatable about fiction they consume, but it went from "relatable" to "part of the agenda that wants to molest all the children." (Or whatever absurd way their mind contextualizes an apparent "organized effort to normalize the bad people who wanna touch kids.")
And in that moment, what did they do? Did they report the apparent rampant bastion of CSA-support to the authorities? Well, no. They left a mean comment meant to incite a reaction.
Because they aren't here to protect children.
They're here to be mad on the internet that you like things they don't.
They're trolls.
If they were here to protect children, they'd be rallying for sex education (so that children who are abused can communicate these things to proper adults,) they'd be protesting the fact child marriage is legal ANYWHERE, and they'd be advocating for child-friendly spaces on the internet to make a return (so that there isn't even a chance for a child to stumble upon something unsavory or harmful.)
Much like the kinds of people who watch Info Wars though: they'd rather sit around and yell at people instead over an imaginary war they're very sure they're winning.
The prompt was absolutely legitimate and I commend you for taking it as such.
Thank you for taking the time to write such and excellent and well considered response.




![stinkysweatymothgirl:
“bimihai:
“[id: two men holding the halves of an amethyst geode, smiling. the geode is heart shaped, and both men are smiling. /end id]
”
babe are you ok you reblogged the two men holding the heart geode again
”](https://64.media.tumblr.com/4cfec8a14009128eca5e0cb28d3ca67b/cdb2f81bd18d7273-a8/s1280x1920/1737b20d0e16baeeb6c92a18fa4a263a6a1e8940.jpg)







