cats? on MY blog?

Hollywood does not care about abuse allegations! Bill Cosby, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Sean Penn, they all had thriving careers even after their crimes became known to the public.

Depp became known for being excessively difficult to work with. He’d show up to set late, he’d show up high, he’d show up drunk, he stopped memorizing his lines and needed them fed through an earpiece! He also violently assaulted a crew member. All this probably would have been fine with The Execs, but…

Depp-fronted movies weren’t making money! The Lone Ranger bombed, Pirates 4 and 5 drastically under performed, Transcendence flopped, Crimes of Grindelwald flopped, there are like 4 other movies he starred in that flopped so hard I can’t even remember them! He stopped being a reliable moneymaker, which is the only thing Hollywood really cares about.

If anyone “ruined” his career besides himself, it was this 2018 Rolling Stone piece that revealed all his unhinged behavior to the public. But he didn’t sue Stephen Rodrick, he didn’t sue Rolling Stone, he didn’t sue the ACLU (they admitted to ghostwriting Heard’s op-ed), he didn’t sue the Washington Post for publishing it, he sued his victim. He did so in a Virginia court to take advantage of weak laws against frivolous lawsuits and he had it live streamed so that not only would she be forced to relive his abuse and assault of her in front of the entire world, but also so he could sic his vicious stans on her.

In contrast, he has done immeasurable damage to her career. She was a solid performer on the rise when they met and studios are going to regard her as toxic for years, regardless of her talent, the truth of the allegations, anything. She escaped Depp and he has spent the last 7 years abusing her via the legal system. He made legions of people complicit in his abuse. He emboldened countless abusers to copy his playbook in silencing their victims.

Fuck the Tiktokers who mocked Heard’s testimony, fuck the YouTubers that made thousands livestreaming the trial, fuck the media that portrayed this as celebrity nonsense, fuck the right wing idealogues that highjacked the discourse, fuck that non-sequestered jury, and fuck anyone who tries to paint themselves as a reasonable centrist with “well they both sound toxic to me”.

so disney is using emily gwen’s lesbian pride flag with no compensation, and she’s still in need of money. i implore anyone who cares at all about the lgbt community to donate to her instead of paying for fucking mickey mouse pins

Me, a two-leg, just happy to be there: Aww, are you serving in the meow-itary? :)

people don’t use stories about death to groom kids into murdering people. stories about people getting killed don’t teach kids that murder is fine. kids usually understand that death is sad and harmful, often because many have experienced death of family members or because the idea of it gives negative emotions.

kids don’t inherently understand that an adult pursuing them is bad. kids don’t inherently know how to get out of abusive situations. pedophiles DO use pedophilic content to groom victims, fictional content included.

So basically, a group of antis decided to prioritise fictional beings over real life, breathing ones.

Assuming you missed all of the above and so used a term as belittling as ‘drama’ unintentionally:

Here’s the thing: people do use stories about murder to encourage children into murdering people. Children usually do understand that death is sad and harmful - but not always! -, and sometimes children and teenagers do not care. Sometimes they haven’t understood the real life consequences of what they’re doing until they’ve actually done it. Children have been caught emulating violent video games by picking up weapons to use on others; teenagers have been caught trying to abduct others to kill them in the woods to summon cryptids like they’ve seen in youtube videos.

And if someone is absolutely determined to encourage a child into doing something immoral, they will use whatever that child is interested in to encourage a bond between the two of them, and groom said child.

If a paedophile (as in, a grown adult who is attracted to prepubescent children - and no other ‘meaning’ of the term as some antis would like to think) wants to groom a child, they will use whatever media or interest that child is interested in to do so. I hear a lot of antis railing against Lolita, but how many 12 year-olds and under do you know who are raptly fascinated by the works of Vladimir Nabokov? If someone had wanted to groom me as a child they would’ve talked about barbies and pokémon. Is it therefore the fault of the companies that handle those franchises that they were hypothetically used to groom me? No; that’s ridiculous.

Additionally: how dare you shift the blame from the paedophilic groomer in this scenario onto the child simply because of what media they might have consumed? Onto the people that produced that content? The only person to be blamed in this scenario is the paedophile abusing a living child.

Undoubtedly, paedophiles do use media with paedophilic content to groom children. They also use every other kind of content. We cannot, therefore, ban everything just because a paedophile might use it.

I absolutely believe that media - whoever it is produced by -, should always have its ‘problematic’ content tagged and warned for. But, as long as it is not hurting a real life, living breathing person, that problematic content absolutely has a right to exist.

I’d apologise for bringing up such a serious discussion on a years-old post of yours, but apparently you’re still open to harassing others over entirely fictional content so nah.

Since we’re looking at specifics, this is Thundercats nonsense about a fictional adult cat (Thistleclaw) confessing an attraction to an equally fictional younger cat (Spottedpaw) whilst she’s still an apprentice - so either a teenager, or a young adult. Ignoring the whole part where they’re cats who mature at a much faster rate than humans anyway, because human readers are meant to sympathise, if not empathise, with these characters.

Anyway, paedophilia is literally an attraction to prepubescent children. (Ignoring the part where these are cats -) If Spottedpaw is still a teenager, that’s hebephilia (if Thistleclaw is much older than her; the details were sketchy here, it could be a tiny age difference or not /shrug). At least get your terms right? (It’s really hard to ignore how quickly female cats sexually mature here.) If she’s a young adult, she’s perfectly legal (if there were laws governing the sexual activities of cats) - there’s no crime in anyone being a bit naive.

Mostly what I’ve gotten from this very specific instance is that more children should be given the birds and the bees discussion, as relating to common household pets. Seriously. It’s important for children to be educated in at least the basics of sexual health and safety, along with the general ‘and this is how cats are different from humans. And this is how rabbits are different from humans. And…etc.’ My four year-old nephew knows that just because the cat does something, doesn’t mean he should be doing it.

Regardless, for anyone with half a brain reading: please do not refer to instances that you sincerely believe to be something as awful as actual paedophilia as ‘drama’. The abuse of real, breathing individuals - and particularly children - is a terrible, grievous thing, and reducing it to something as trivial as a fandom ship-war or drama belittles the suffering people go through and have gone through, and actively makes it harder for abused individuals to get the help they need and at-risk individuals to spot the actual predators in their midst.

people don’t use stories about death to groom kids into murdering people. stories about people getting killed don’t teach kids that murder is fine. kids usually understand that death is sad and harmful, often because many have experienced death of family members or because the idea of it gives negative emotions.

kids don’t inherently understand that an adult pursuing them is bad. kids don’t inherently know how to get out of abusive situations. pedophiles DO use pedophilic content to groom victims, fictional content included.

So basically, a group of antis decided to prioritise fictional beings over real life, breathing ones.

Assuming you missed all of the above and so used a term as belittling as ‘drama’ unintentionally:

Here’s the thing: people do use stories about murder to encourage children into murdering people. Children usually do understand that death is sad and harmful - but not always! -, and sometimes children and teenagers do not care. Sometimes they haven’t understood the real life consequences of what they’re doing until they’ve actually done it. Children have been caught emulating violent video games by picking up weapons to use on others; teenagers have been caught trying to abduct others to kill them in the woods to summon cryptids like they’ve seen in youtube videos.

And if someone is absolutely determined to encourage a child into doing something immoral, they will use whatever that child is interested in to encourage a bond between the two of them, and groom said child.

If a paedophile (as in, a grown adult who is attracted to prepubescent children - and no other ‘meaning’ of the term as some antis would like to think) wants to groom a child, they will use whatever media or interest that child is interested in to do so. I hear a lot of antis railing against Lolita, but how many 12 year-olds and under do you know who are raptly fascinated by the works of Vladimir Nabokov? If someone had wanted to groom me as a child they would’ve talked about barbies and pokémon. Is it therefore the fault of the companies that handle those franchises that they were hypothetically used to groom me? No; that’s ridiculous.

Additionally: how dare you shift the blame from the paedophilic groomer in this scenario onto the child simply because of what media they might have consumed? Onto the people that produced that content? The only person to be blamed in this scenario is the paedophile abusing a living child.

Undoubtedly, paedophiles do use media with paedophilic content to groom children. They also use every other kind of content. We cannot, therefore, ban everything just because a paedophile might use it.

I absolutely believe that media - whoever it is produced by -, should always have its ‘problematic’ content tagged and warned for. But, as long as it is not hurting a real life, living breathing person, that problematic content absolutely has a right to exist.

(its real messy and my hand was cramping so i quickly finished it anyway-)