Ok, I know I said I was getting tired of my notifs being swamped from the david thread, but this was really not what I wanted. Damn shame it went this way. But, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. Though, I feel like I never explicitly made my stance on the matter clear. I’ll start with saying that it’s very unusual for me to have strong feelings about this whatsoever. I typically only feel strongly about a very limited set of topics. And this, quite honestly, ain’t one of them. Moreover, being on the spectrum, I struggle with empathy. That is to say, empathy that comes from the gut. It’s not that it’s absent entirely, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what makes me feel things and what doesn’t. How is that relevant? I’ll get to that, Another tangent first. I only recently (admittedly, almost a year by now) ‘came out’ as Ace. Asexuality, on the whole, is not nearly as controversial of a topic as, well, any of the other letters in the acronym. There’s the erasure, of course, but in my experience, asexuals have never faced the existential issues most of the other letters had to endure. The worst I’ve ever seen is that calling oneself ‘asexual’ was supposedly a cry for attention. Why am I saying this? Mostly to say that, although I technically fall under the acronym, I find myself falling outside of the target audience, so to speak. With me seeing myself as ‘falling outside the target audience’, to put it bluntly, I feel as though I lack the ‘gut-empathy’ for the struggles of the ‘other letters’. To add the lack of interest in the topic, and I have myself a rather unlikely cause to fight for. Where I am certainly not lacking, however, is what I myself call ‘rational empathy’. Empathy purposefully brought forth as a result of placing myself in another’s perspective. Important to note is that I have to force myself to do this, and is the only way for me to actually feel empathy somewhat consistently. However, if I can do it consistently, and with the same argumentation, it tends to turn into ‘gut-empathy.’ Precisely what is needed to be able to argue for a stance that did not come naturally to me without having to cite another’s arguments verbatim. To the best of my understanding, that’s what’s been driving me here. Specifically, GBK’s (among others’) very persistent (and, let’s be real, not exactly subtle) emphasis on the importance of representation have sparked my ‘rational empathy’, so to speak, and turned it into ‘gut-empathy’. I may not have faced the worst the world has to offer when it comes to the fight for equal rights, nor will I ever. But I’ll be damned if a stance based on “my attachment for an existing character” doesn’t sound incredibly silly to me, compared to what y’all have faced, and still do. Why am I typing this out at 2:30am? Quite honestly, I don’t even know. I’m not even sure if it makes any sense whatsoever.


Last Active


2,500 Up Votes1,000 CommentsFirst Answer1,500 Up VotesSecond Anniversary1,000 Up Votes500 Comments500 Up Votes250 Up Votes100 Comments100 Up Votes25 Up Votes10 CommentsFirst Anniversary5 Up VotesName DropperFirst Comment


  • Not much happening here, yet.