Gargle My Balls, Numbnuts

i explicitly do not want palestinians or arabs or anyone to be genocided. i want a just and equal peace for literally every ethnic, racial, religious group, no exceptions. i do not believe jews are better than arabs. i believe palestinians have a right to self-determination in palestine, just as much as jews have a right to self-determination in israel. if i say something is antisemitic, it is not because i think it is antisemitic to criticize israel or support palestinians.

if you say i believe any of the above or am advocating for genocide or violence against palestinians or hate people for being pro-palestine, you are lying.

if you hear me say the word antisemitism, and kneejerk to believing i want people to die, you need to take a timeout and chill.

if you hear me criticize or disagree with popular palestinian narratives, that does not make me islamophobic or anti-palestinian or anti-arab. criticizing israel is not antisemitic; neither is criticizing palestine anti-palestinian. anti-islamism is not islamophobia.

yes, accusations that use tropes that have historically been used to genocide jews are in fact antisemitic regardless of intent or who or what you are criticizing.

This post talks about a new DM feature in youtube. What it fails to mention is that as part of this new feature is that when you send someone a link to a video, and they open it in the youtube app, they will see who sent them the link. Specifically, your channel name.

If your google account name is your real name, so is your channel name by default.

This means the new default behavior is that everyone you send a youtube link to will see your full name if they open it in the mobile app.

To turn this off:

Go to your youtube app settings

Go to Privacy

Turn off "Channel visibility for shared links"

Michaela Joffe (joffeorama.bsky.social‬):

I know that fascist attacks on "obscenity" and "pornography" are a very dangerous threat to queer people and art, but the idea that all expressions of all kinks must be treated as default value neutral, or even good, as a result is absurd. porn is art, and so it is open to criticism.

you cannot have it both ways. if porn, kink and obscenity is worth protecting, and I believe they are, that means you can't whine and cry foul when it is criticized and analyzed. your desires, like everything else, exist in larger contexts, and sometimes they are homophobic, misogynist and racist.

the idea that all expressions of human desire are equivalent, and exist free from any larger historical, cultural, artistic or interpersonal contexts… that is absurd. why would desire alone be unique in that way? why would kink be different from every other human expression? ridiculous.

[The above are stills of Lisa Diamond talking. Transcription follows: "Often, our fantasies involve things that are taboo, things that are forbidden, things that we feel that we can't express in everyday life. That doesn't mean you actually want it in your everyday life. But there's a lot of variability in sexual fantasies, and they don't tell you anything reliable about you. If you have fantasies that disturb you or scare you, and you wonder what they mean, they don't mean a lot. So, don't worry so much about them." ~Lisa Diamond, feminist psychologist.]

The thing is, the "criticism" the person in screenshots is talking about is not criticism. It's censure. They cherry-picked some of the kinks and fantasies that they knew would cause an immediate emotional reaction in their audience, that would cause a knee-jerk disgust, and relied on that to support their argument. They're appealing to your disgust.

Pornography is art, but they're not talking about art when they say "fantasies" and "roleplay". Those aren't art. Those are people's private thoughts and private bedroom activities--which are NOT, actually, open to criticism. You don't get to criticise what people do in their private homes OR the privacy of their own thoughts, because it doesn't involve you.

Be VERY attentive to the words here. Be very attentive to the motivations behind the choices this person is making in their word-choices. They're being VERY sneaky and using several tactics to make it seem like what they're saying is just common sense, that it's NOT fascist, because they've lampshaded fascism in the opening sentence to make you think what they're talking about is Different. They take care to be saying "art" and "pornography" several times to get you nodding along, before suddenly switching to "fantasies" and "roleplay", BUT using words that are an Easy No and immediately provoke strong disgust emotions in the target audience drawn in by the opening sentence, and so tries to get around you noticing they've switched from the word "art" to the words "fantasy" and "roleplay". Pay attention! Do not let your emotions drive the car and that includes Disgust!

This is sneaky and underhanded and it's how the whorephobic Neo-Hays Code fascism pipeline starts! You are being recruited!

Your FANTASIES? Private thoughts that affect only you.

Your ROLEPLAY? Private activities that affect only you and other consenting partners.

These are not "pornography" these are not "art", and therefore other people who are not involved do not get to have an opinion. It does not matter how "uncomfortable" you are with the idea that literally anything and everything is someone's kink--that's a you problem.

Once something becomes art that is public, you are allowed to offer up criticism, analysis, and commentary. But merely offering moral censure--because to be clear, that's exactly what this is--is not even all that valid to do on art. You can, of course; it's just you getting angry at the art, and saying it offends you and then sometimes it means saying it SHOULD also offend everybody else. But that's just your opinion at that point. Until you actually do real criticism, "this is bad and you should feel bad" is still only at the level of analysis as "well I hated that picture". Okay you're allowed. But it's not critical analysis, it's not commentary, it's not applying any kind of actual real critical thinking to the art.

You don't get to criticise what people do in their private homes OR the privacy of their own thoughts, because it doesn't involve you.

TBH your hypothetical situation is ridiculous because YOU WOULDN'T KNOW. You wouldn't KNOW what someone was thinking in their own home unless you were in their home and they TOLD YOU. And then it wouldn't be a thought anymore.

Nobody is telepathic.

Everyone has had thoughts, fantasies, and ideas that are “problematic” one way or another. You simply can’t measure character in a heap of synapses.

You measure it in meaningful choice. Uncoerced choice.

For what it’s worth, I disagree that fantasies aren’t about very much. I think it’s really normal to have fantasies about heavy shit just like it’s normal to watch media of heavy shit.

Rape fantasies? So, so normal, especially in a society that tells people that everything they do and think is wrong. Rape fantasies aren’t to glorify being raped. They’re a fantasy about having access to sexual experiences without the responsibility of pressured choice in a culture that judges every action — and every thought, apparently!

When you start thinking of it that way, a lot more types of fantasies make sense. Some are pressure release valves for omnipresent racial tension. Some are about struggling or playing with bodily autonomy, about letting out a more visceral and primitive side, about freedom and catharsis.

I’ll critique media (porn) all day long, but I’m reminded of this quote from the West Wing:

“President Bartlett, if children can get porn on the streets for five dollars (I can’t remember the specific amount), is that too high a price to pay for free speech?”

I agree that they mean something psychologically to you personally. They do not, however, define you. They are as you say, a way to explore or react to things.

I know people who have the kinks they have because those kinks turn the parts of their disabilities they hate, the parts that take their ability to function, into something their dom wants.

I have a bunch of my kinks in response to not having enough to eat for the first 30 years of my life. I have others because they're me acting out the fantasy of being attractive and perisex. And I even have the very, very, very, VERY common element of rape in a lot of my fantasies, because of the exact same reason a lot of women do: because I was raised with the idea that "good girls say no and don't like sex" while having a libido and all the associated shaming and censure of my actual body I could not control the shape or size of. I have a medical kink because it helps me take control of my medical trauma, which I have a lot of.

But also?

People don't need to have "a legitimate reason" to have a kink. They don't. Your fantasies don't HAVE to mean anything at all other than you wanna noodle around with this idea for a while! They don't need to be justified because they're your private thoughts.

There is a very real problem that has been seeded, fanned, and spread by the SAME small group of moral police since the 80s that people's private lives should be morally censured, that fantasy is the same thing as reality. I watched it happen with the late-stage Satanic Panic and Livejournal Strikethrough of the 00s. I watched it snowball into FOSTA-SESTA and HORRIBLE regression of feminism. I watched it shut down fandom to almost nothing and make everyone feel like they have to Be Good 24/7 and police their every thought.

You can't control your feelings and random thoughts. You can't. Your brain is gonna do stuff.

The only thing that matters is what actions you take that affect other people, and what words you speak or type to other people. That's it. Your toys don't have feelings. Your private thoughts are private. Your sketchbook and your personal documents are private. What you do in your own home by yourself is private. When you get together with another consenting adult and both agree to play the same game together? That's also private and nobody's business but you and whatever other people are playing with you.

The idea that people's private lives should be subject to ANY outside and especially governmental scrutiny and control IS FASCISM. That's literally the definition of fascism!!! In conclusion:

And no shit he does. Because he’s one of them. He “speaks the language” of authoritarian dictators with no regard for human rights because he’s a mobbed-up authoritarian wannabe dictator with no regard for human rights.

And what you need to understand is that this also goes the other way: they speak his language. They can get him to fold as long as they give him big flashy airplanes, and stroke his ego and pad his wallet enough.

He talks rough, and he’ll bulldoze anyone who gets in the way of what he wants, not because he’s actually strong, but because he’s an infantile spoiled brat who demands his way. This is exactly the same reason he also rolls over and barks like a dog the second he’s promised a treat.

What he wants is not what you want, no matter how much he tries to sell you that line. He is out for himself, the rest of us be damned.

CURRENTLY SOBBING. OK SOO, RIPLEY IS GAY?!!

Also I read that there are deleted scenes of Ripley and Lambert arguing and being more overtly in a relationship. Ever since I learned that it's been my favorite ship.

Nefesh is the lowest level, basic physical life. Animals have it too.

Ruach is the part of you that governs your personality and speech.

bypass paywall

bwah :3

Gaza.

Gazans are actually the second-most pro-peace and pro-two-state-solution (and thus necessarily pro-zionism) palestinian group, after Israeli Arabs.

Sixty-five percent (65! almost two-thirds!) supported the four point Biden peace plan, of which two of the points were Saudi-Israeli normalization and meaningful progress towards a two-state solution.

Forty-two percent support a generic two-state-solution not further described, forty-three percent a more detailed package.

Sixty percent think there is a diplomatic way out of the conflict. This would seem low if not for the fact that that's exactly the same as the percent of those who think there's a militaristic way out.

All of this is taken from the 2024 Palestinian-Israeli Pulse, the most recent one.

looking at an october 2025 survey, we find the follownig:

fifty-nine percent of Gazans support the trump plan (the framing being, quote, "the plan ends to the war on Gaza, releases hostages and Palestinian prisoners, abandons the forced transfer of Gazans, allows the entry of humanitarian aid,  requires the gradual Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, requires the disarmament of Hamas, requires reforming the Palestinian Authority, and calls for the start of a political process toward the establishment of a Palestinian state")

forty-four percent of gazans support disarming hamas, compared to 55 percent who oppose it. notably, those figures in the west bank are 18% and 78% respectively.

forty-four percent of Gazans also think October 7 was "correct" (I am quoting the words they used, not denigrating the framing -- although I do think it's annoyingly vague if they mean morally or pragmatically), for reference

seventy-two percent say a family member has been killed or injured in the war, which is a little weird because it seems to have declined from march 2024? anyway.

twenty-one percent of gazans blame hamas. for reference, under twenty percent of jews globally are nonzionist, and the reason that i say twenty percent is because i don't have data on a significant proportion of the jewish population

Regarding "support and opposition to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the borders of June 4, 1967, one that would be demilitarized, with East Jerusalem as its capital, with limited land swaps so that it can live in peace with the State of Israel, with international guarantees" sixty-one percent of Gazans support that. incidentally this is roughly what ehud barak proposed in 2000 and all arafat had to do was say "yup underneath the al-aqsa mosque is the temple mount" which is A HISTORICALLY DOCUMENTED FACT and he said "fuck you it's in hebron" and then the second intifada happened and bibi said "it seems like this 'peace' stuff isn't getting us anything. let's not" and now he's been in power for a generation. ANYWAY.

and yet instead we get endless support of hamas and knee jerk opposition to compromise -- i.e., the hamas position.

Me in 2016: I’m still salty about that