New Testingstan

It's a goddamn shame that nBSG's music never won an Emmy.

ahaha so in the new star wars cartoon everyone is going to be teenagers

but will they be teenagers... with attitude?

I'll be honest, I'd watch the shit out of that.

you'll get your chance

anyway the Thundercats remake is actually pretty good, why didn't anyone tell me. Lion-o (the protag) is a terrible king and Tigra (his brother) is better at literally everything and the show goes out of its way to show this. It's pretty awesome. There's also a chunk of ambiguity, like the cat dudes keeping slaves and shit -- the second episode basically has a slave uprising destroying their city.

Of course, it's still a kid's show, so it's constantly let down by that. It's like it's skirting the edge of being something really great.

Even the little kid sidekicks aren't annoying.

contrarywise: I just rewatched an episode of stargate atlantis
I forgot how thoroughly unlikeable all the characters are (except for the scientists, they're OK)
Also the Genii rock, the show totally missed an opportunity there. They could have redone the Tokra/Earth relationship but the other way around.

just noticed that Marvel's Agents of SHIELD is on terrestrial TV here tomorrow. That's practically unheard of for a new series in my recollection. Wonder why Sky didn't snatch it up.

whoa so you're saying I'll be able to watch it legally for a change
now
can I be bothered is the question

Bad news: The glasses are not working quite as effectively as I would like, and my eyes are still experiencing some pain. The Ophthalmologist says to give them a week then schedule another appointment if I don't see any improvement.

Good News: Dad and I just landed in New York City for a four day vacation.

Am I missing something? How the fuck is Pete Homes funny enough to get his own goddamn show?

Because if the commercials for it are any indication, he's like the guy at the party who thinks he's funny but doesn't understand that everyone is laughing politely because they DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO!?!

so king of the hill rerun tonight had mr. peggy hill

and then on the big bang theory howard thought he was fat and got all emotional because he absorbed estrogen through his skin.

The skunk scratches at the front of the beehive and eats the guard bees that come out to investigate

IT'S A TRAP!

"[intersex people are] a genetic defect. That isn't society being mean, it's just... fact?"

why are you my friend

I gotta be honest I get uncomfortable when people treat having insufficiently inclusive attractions as a character flaw.

Yeah, it's not like anybody's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to sex up people you don't want, but when you call somebody a "cissexist piece of trash" for not wanting to have sex with certain people the obvious implication is their preferences are not OK and to stop being bigoted trash they need to have more "correct" preferences.

Edit: this is RE something I saw on IB's tumblr again.

I don't see why sexual preferences should be free from examination from societal biases and internalised bigotries

I mean there's such a social and mental component that it's clear those things contribute a lot?

The much more obvious one is the huge delegitimisation of black or other nonwhite (but especially black) attractiveness outside of certain fetishisations and how that intersects with the very common view in America that white people are just more attractive.

I mean yeah it's probably uncomfortable to talk about how one's sexual preferences can come from bad places but I don't think the dialogue shouldn't happen?

Infinity Biscuit wrote:I don't see why sexual preferences should be free from examination from societal biases and internalised bigotries

I mean there's such a social and mental component that it's clear those things contribute a lot?

The much more obvious one is the huge delegitimisation of black or other nonwhite (but especially black) attractiveness outside of certain fetishisations and how that intersects with the very common view in America that white people are just more attractive.

I mean yeah it's probably uncomfortable to talk about how one's sexual preferences can come from bad places but I don't think the dialogue shouldn't happen?

It's not the examination that makes me uncomfortable, it's the implication that having the preferences you do makes you a worse person.

Edit: seriously when somebody says "if you are able to be attracted to everyone EXCEPT trans and intersex people, who you can apparently identify with 100% accuracy on sight, you are a cissexist piece of trash" it sure sounds like saying these preferences are not OK to have.

Well, if you've internalised racism or transphobia or other things like that and you do refuse to confront it and try to better yourself from it, why is that different when it comes from sexual preferences as opposed to any other manifestations?

And are you differentiating this from other issues wrt bigotry? It's not an issue to be examined by who's good and who's bad, but which actions and beliefs cause harm and lessen people's lives unfairly and stuff like that.

Just as I mentioned last time this came up, it works both ways. Both desexualisation and fetishisation act as tools of oppression (and are often found together) and while any individual who acts out through it is obviously not intending for it to be an act of oppression, a lack of malice or the lack of a big effect from every small instance doesn't change the macro effect.

Are you any more comfortable seeing how, say, fetishisation of black people or trans people or so on is something that should be addressed?

Infinity Biscuit wrote:It's not an issue to be examined by who's good and who's bad, but which actions and beliefs cause harm and lessen people's lives unfairly and stuff like that.

He's expressing concern about people getting labeled as 'who's good and who's bad', as opposed to an actual dialogue.

Infinity Biscuit wrote:Well, if you've internalised racism or transphobia or other things like that and you do refuse to confront it and try to better yourself from it, why is that different when it comes from sexual preferences as opposed to any other manifestations?

Because people don't have a right to other people's bodies in the same way they have a right to fair hiring, fair treatment by law enforcement and justice system, safety from harm and harassment etc.. I don't think the "don't be a dick" standard extends to having an obligation to give people a "fair hearing" as potential romantic/sexual partners.

It's not an issue to be examined by who's good and who's bad

Except that person you reblogged very much expressed it in terms of people being bad:

"what this post is saying is that if you are able to be attracted to everyone EXCEPT trans and intersex people, who you can apparently identify with 100% accuracy on sight, you are a cissexist piece of trash."

I can hardly thinking of a clearer example of stating things in terms of people being bad than calling them "cissexist piece of trash"

[quote]Are you any more comfortable seeing how, say, fetishisation of black people or trans people or so on is something that should be addressed?[/quote]
Fetishization strikes me as more intrusive on the target group, since it tends to involve consumption of fetishistic material (encouraging its production and proliferation), sexual interest in them etc. as opposed to just not wanting to do a certain kind of deeply personal thing with them, which in a lot of cases you likely statistically wouldn't be doing anyway.

I think it's hard to avoid the implicit moral condemnation here. Or, rather, if the person doesn't find being bigoted to be a moral condemnation of some kind, there's probably not many ways to convince them anyways.

In any case, finding people attractive is not demanding a right to people's bodies, and under the circumstances of daily life, trans or intersex is something entirely within the mind of the beholder. Indeed, even having sex doesn't mean that you're going to be able to instantly determine that someone is trans or intersex! So the actual attitude is that "trans and intersex people are inherently ugly". I think we can all agree that this attitude isn't one that should continue, right?

So the problem is how to explain this to people without them ignoring you. But there's not really a good way to do this, because either you're making a moral judgment about them as a person, or you're telling them that their mind is not their own and their attitudes have been imposed on them. The second is probably more accurate, but hardly more likely to convince people, I think. And portraying them as victims of an unjust society is not going to convince people who are already assured that trans and intersex people are icky.

I guess perhaps the most effective method would be to analogize this to fetishizing virginity and portraying it as an "anti-fetish" where something is given much more importance than it deserves, to creepy and prejudiced ends.

Is IB is arguing that if I am not attracted to transgendered individuals, I'm a bigot and as someone else said, a piece of cissexual trash?

If you're not attracted to them just for that fact, then... well, I wouldn't use loaded terms like bigot, but it's something you might consider examining. Please don't take that as an insult either, everyone has unexamined & internalised prejudices, it doesn't make you a bad person or anything.

I tend to think if your not attracted to a group of people, that's your business; but there's no reason to go online and say it (and doing so does open you up to being criticised as a bigot and so on). I don't know if that's the context of the original tumblr (lol) quote or what.

I have no idea if I'm attracted to a transgendered person or not. I've never met one. I just think it's an odd thing to say while simultaneously supporting the bigoted comment that someone who isn't attracted to transgenders is a cissexual piece of trash.

tumblr is an awful place full of stupid hyperbole