is it really ok to punch a nazi?

(watch the whole thing)

“I would like to defeat Nazis on planet Earth first”

The white liberal part 😂😂

Nazis are a physical threat to the lives and freedoms of others. It is in their actual diatribes and in the words they say in every rally. They are not voicing an opinion, they are leveling a threat. Anyone who respects the people around them, should do all they can to put it down with absolute force. It is up to the victims to decide to be merciful, and dispense grace or mercy. It’s up to those who might bear resemblance to the Nazis to be vocal, sincere, and forceful about their disgust.

Any time someone steps on eggshells for a bigot, they become emboldened, because they perceive it to be a silent acknowledgment of their rightness. If you mean to end their rhetoric, it has to be opposed loudly and angrily.

Throw punches and throw insults, enrage them until they show their faces, and then demean them in public for being such villains. Turn what they preach into a social joke, and no one will seek to allywith them.

And the onlylder ones, the ones who recruit? As far as I’m concerned, they’re fair game.

I have a question of a sensitive nature






You know I write about all periods of time, and all the ways men used to behave but perhaps never should have.

Often I encounter this issue and seldom know how it should be handled, and so i will put it to you, because you are, after all, the audience, and the point of writing anything is to put it out as a means of communication. If something can be communicated to you in a way that is sensitive, I’d prefer to do that.

So here is the question:

When I am transcribing a conversation I have several rules I adhere to. Firstly, I only record epithets and slurs if they are central to the meaning of the story, as in the case that currently sits before me. A rich white man speaks ill of people i call friends. This upsets me. So should I transcribe the racial slurs in his words, or should I find another way to address them?

I am of two minds. On the one hand, I believe that white men, especially those with streets named after them, ought to have their bigotry exposed, even posthumously, as history should be told properly. But on the other hand, I do not want it to be perceived that I have embellished a tale with racially charged wording to somehow gain from it. It is integral to the story, so his racism ought to be accounted for, but there are several ways of doing it, I suppose.

I do not ask you for your skin color or your heritage. They matter to me only if they matter to you in a formative way, and so I do not know whom among you it is best to consult. Any advice would be welcome, but I hope that those of European descent will understand that their opinion is not valuable to me in this context.

I aim to tell history properly. I want only for that to be done in a way that communicates the injustices of the time, not in a way that unduly harms the reader. Thank you for your input.

Yes this has to do with a “Simon’s Snacks” entry, hopefully coming to you soon.

the n word and the f word (the one directed at gay men) are commonly censored, but other racial slurs (i.e. ‘chink’, ‘coolie’) I do not usually see censored… possibly because they’re shorter and therefore less recognizable if censored? or perhaps, they just aren’t as high-profile as the n word and the f word.

(to clarify, I used those two examples in particular because I am Chinese American and thought it less egregious to spout racial slurs directed towards my own minority group instead of others)

in any case, I think leaving them in is fine, since you’re just transcribing someone else’s words and are not the one who actually said them, hahah! I guess my final input is, definitely censor the n and f words, but go with your gut (hah) for other slurs :0

The sentence in question also includes a slur against Chinese people. What say you to that?

If it’s what got said, it’s what got said. Maintaining the accuracy is the biggest thing with history, especially when considering the different lenses of perspectives relative to the time periods.

I’m grateful that you’re concerned, but….it is your story, as you experience it. Your voice to be heard as you are. I don’t think I’m alone in wanting to be able to see the world through the lens you’re so meticulously providing us.

As a black chick, I’ve found that our continuous habit of trying to downplay the wrongs done or said has only served to worsen the situation…or somehow excuse what’s happened. Especially when it’s after the fact, because then it becomes a matter of my personal foibles versus the actual issue at hand.

When it comes down to it….you’ve done a lot for us gentle readers. I dare say the biggest is in helping us realize our own strengths, how much *more* we are than what we’ve been conditioned to believe. Part of that is in listening to what needs to be said.

So….say it. If people have questions (I know I always have some), they’ll ask.

History is steadily being rewritten via erasing the ills done by those guilty of them. The less of that, the better.

Looking forward to the new piece!

I agree completely.




original theory: succubi are always women, incubi are always men 

facts: in fact succubus comes from the latin word “succubare” which means “to lie under” and incubus comes from the latin word “incubare” which means “to lie on”

new improved theory: incubi are always tops and succubi are always bottoms. gender doesn’t matter at all.

addendum: if the sex demon in question is versatile, they’re a concubus, from the latin for ‘to lie with/beside’.

addendum 2: “succubus” and “incubus” are arguably ungendered words. They both scan as second declension masculine in Latin (so at the very least there is not masc/fem divide inherent in the words). However, in Latin (and many other Romance languages) if a group is made up of both masculine and feminine entities, the entire group will be grammatically classified as masculine. And so, “Succubi” and “Incubi” could each contain both masculine and feminine individuals.













a 90’s kid? don’t you mean sad adult?

70,000 people have reblogged this but no one is trying to defend themselves

There is nothing to defend

#i read a post once that described 90s kids as the generation of nostalgia #because so much technological advancement happened in such a rapid timeframe when we were growing up #that we can clearly remember having technologies that are now obsolete #like going from a corded hugeass phone to a small computer in your pocket just within our formative years is a major thing #and it sparks a nostalgia for our seemly ‘simpler’ childhoods #because so much rapid development makes it seem like it was a lot longer ago than it actually was (x)

This is the most solid explanation of our decade I have ever heard.

Oh my god

Just to add onto that, our childhood wasn’t even technology based. We grew up knowing of chalk, skateboards, jump rope, street hockey, playgrounds, butterfly collecting, etc. Slowly technology took over our lives and now there are hardly kids playing outside in the summer. We can clearly remember our childhood as it was and now we can see the clear line between it. We were the generation right smack in the middle of it all. Our parents were of non-tech and our children/young siblings will be all tech.

Not to mention, ours was the last generation that grew up with all those bright promises of “work hard, go to college, and you’ll have a successful life,” only to find those hopes abruptly dashed when the housing bubble burst. Milliennials have grown up expecting that disappointment, because for them, the problem has been there since Day One.

So 90s kids aren’t just nostalgic…we’re BITTER. And we ache for those days when we could still think that the world was boundless and full of the opportunities we were promised since the first day of kindergarten.

Rightfully bitter.

What the duck are you all talking about, I’m pissed they stopped making 3D Doritos.

Every generation goes through this in different ways, just as they eventually embrace “these damn kids and their rock and roll music” as an argument of why the world is going to hell.

You think technology has changed that? It has, but not the ways you suspect.

okay kids, buckle up bc i’m drunk and pissed and more fluent for it.

i am a VERY late nineties kid. 10/27/1998, to be exact. i grew up with chalk, board games, bikes, corded phones (my dad even made one for me, and it was clear so i could see all the circuits), hot summers and cold winters. life was fucking amazing then.

summer breaks were spent outdoors. i cannot tell you the amount of dumb games i played with my older sister before we adopted eachother. even in my freshman year of high school, with an iphone 4S (2013-2014 year), i spent my breaks outdoors as much as possible bc polar vortex. i was sledding, snowboarding, and having a good time in -80 degree F weather.

now? now i’m wasting my time inside because i have no motivation to go outside unless it’s to get more drive time so i can have freedom limited by my gas tank so i can get the fuck out of this prison that is my house.

don’t get me wrong. i love anime, my cat, SLEEP, a nice hot shower, food, the meds that keep me from killing everyone, but god damn do i miss the urge to go outside and soak up some sun.

technology brings us closer globally, but it also separates us from eachother locally.

I disagree with that statement, with some minor qualifications

Blog at

Up ↑