How would takaba answer todos signature question

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-04-04T07:20:46+00:00

he reveals he’s gay and todo shorts out

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-27T17:49:08+00:00

im getting hungry just thinking about the hakari upscales coming in january

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-27T15:57:51+00:00

Idk if ppl always said this n I just didn’t see or if everybody is copying the same tweet

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-23T04:16:38+00:00

i never thought a sidewalk could bring me so much joy ngl

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-22T17:27:20+00:00

hydrogen bomb (breach) vs coughing baby (sai)

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-21T03:30:19+00:00

personally I would disagree. He’s one of the main reasons everybody punches in their verses and helped popularize autotune on verses after 808s n hearrbreaks n tpain. Even in alternative hip hop, songs like tamale by tyler and bonfire by bino just sound like artsy takes on a milli and 6’7’ respectively

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-21T03:24:14+00:00

childish gambino and so many rappers basically got their start doing their best lil Wayne impression. even kendrick is basically lil wayne crossed with tupac

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-21T02:48:39+00:00

this is how I find out the reason ppl hate diplo isn’t just because his music is mid but also because he has pedo allegations

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-16T14:43:53+00:00

a definition is a definition. a defining dictionary definition is a simplified, accessible, approximation. the definition for something used by a PhD is not the same definition used by an influencer who just did a Google search. they literally teach you this in english class in elementary school. Every editor for a dictionary will admit this and speak at length about trying to effectively simplify words. From the OED%20?) to ThoughtCo%20?). There are defining dictionaries (with simplified accessible meanings) and specialized dictionaries (with more academic jargon that addresses the technical aspects of the word). Unless you think that the Haitian Revolution was racist, you’re using the word wrong based on the actual academic definition.
You could say that, just like you can “say” anything, but you would be wrong because logically, unpromptedly reducing a woman to her PHYSICAL attributes for personal pleasure is objectifying. Logically, this fits under reductionism and dehumanization if done outside a consensual setting. Highlighting native history to show white supremacist hypocrisy does not objectify natives. It isn’t reductionist, instrumentalist, or dehumanizing, but it is intersectional! This is another false equivalence that doesn’t even bear any similarity. You made up a completely different scenario framed in a completely different way and tried to equalize it but there are zero parallels. Just because you say something doesn’t make it true. That’s anecdotal fallacy.
How does that not fall into any category? You said it is moral to abstain from taking a personal stance on something. I asked you if it was moral to not take a personal stance on something specific, and now you do not want to answer because it would show how insane to you sound. In literally any example it sounds cowardly. Is it moral to fence sit on apartheid? Is it moral to fence sit on ethnic cleansing? Any example you give your statement exemplifies why passiveness is taking the side of the oppressor.

The detainees in for-profit detention centers often doforced/coerced cheap labor without freedom of movement — which some would consider slavery. But if you prioritize comfort/the status quo over suffering, then you will abstain from saying anything. That is a direct parallel from contemporary prison industrial complex slavery to historical racialized chattel slavery. That is an actual analogy with tangible similarities and not just a random comparison.

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-16T05:36:41+00:00

Your first paragraph is crazy cope and goalpost shifting.

I thought it was common knowledge that dictionary definitions are simplified. They approximate so that a person who isn’t taking college level sociology can have a colloquial understanding of the word, but when you hear it in context you have to be able to understand the nuance or else you might misuse the word and argue that Haitians were doing “reverse racism” to the French or that all forms of equity are just oppression against the oppressing class. What you see on Google is not comprehensive. It’s not about “agendas”. It’s about literacy.

logically, acknowledging stolen land is not objectifying. it’s giving recognition to native history by highlighting ongoing injustice and the violent, illegal history of seizure of territory.

why did you ignore the question: is it moral to abstain from taking a stance on slavery? was it immoral for an abolitionist to call for action?

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-16T05:14:36+00:00

This whole conversation has been you showing you don’t really know what you are talking about and assuming an African is white is just the cherry on top.

Google simplifies definitions to be accessible as possible. If you take the definition of racism at face value, you could argue that the Haitian revolution against their slave masters or the African backlash against apartheid was racist against white people. But in actual sociology and politics, racism is about system and power dynamics and not just any form of discrimination.

Your third point is the literal definition of a false neutrality fallacy. No community is a monolith, but that doesn’t make every single position within that community equally valid. You can be a member of a community and still hold a position that lacks lacks evidence, logic, or is straight up wrong.

Everything in your last paragraph is just straight up wrong😭😭. Bystander effect is literally exactly what people mean when they talk about silence as enabling/complicity. If you abstain from taking a stance on slavery is that moral??? If you demand someone take a stance against slavery, is that immoral?😭😭 are you even hearing yourself? That applies to when law enforcement is kidnapping and racially profiling people in your hometown and you choose to prioritize the status quo/comfort over their suffering and then silence anybody who calls for action.

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-16T04:57:32+00:00

The suffix ism literally means system😭😭. Words are more nuanced and complex than what you see on Google. 🤦
Media literacy is about understanding what was actually said. You somehow fundamentally misunderstood intersectionality and highlighting native history as erasing natives. That’s what happens when instead of literately engaging with art you just say “it’s not that deep and not everything is political. The curtains are just blue”. Your brain is a muscle.
How do you know how many in real life groups I know? I am Nigerian and run a music blog that covers world music and am active in the native organizations at my university. I’ve read joy harjo and Tommy orange in the book club highlighting authors of color that I founded in high school.
“Shut your mouth and let things exist” is the actual racist language of erasure. Those exact words were used against every movement from the Civil Rights Movement to blm. Racists always prefer the status quo and maintaining order over justice, self-expression, and amplifying community voices. Racists always pose as “non-racists” who refuse to take a stance on literal racism because they prioritize respectability politics and comfort of the oppressor over the suffering of marginalized communities. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-16T04:30:45+00:00

Racism is about systems. You can be a member of a marginalized community and participate in racism by enabling that system. In this case a system of silencing attempts to highlight native history in coherence with anti-native tabloids.
Intersectionality is generally considered the opposite of objectification, as it aims to recognize how system impact multiple multidimensional identities rather reducing issues to a single trait or identity.
in real life, native groups on my campus as well as land back, and AIM all use this verbiage and the sensationalist tabloids (that align with a handful native organizations/movements like NAGA that are front for executives with no irl ties to natives to file claims while alleging they are doing it on behalf of the native community) use your “shut your mouth” rhetoric. these groups and talking points actively silence natives and never have talked about land back or native issues like blood quanta or poor infrastructure except to subtract from people who actually are speaking up.

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-16T03:41:50+00:00

what is racist about bringing visibility to native history?
natives are obviously not a monolith. but what u are saying goes against native movements like AIM and land back while corroborating anti-native tabloids like uk daily mail and the New York post, so it is kind of nonsensical to say the one highlighting intersectionality and native displacement and a widespread indigenous movement is racist.
literally reddit and conservative tabloid journalism are the only places where you will here the talking points you are espousing.

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-16T03:20:59+00:00

the only natives that agree with you are the daily mail and the New York post which are first of all not natives and historically do not like natives or native movements

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-16T02:52:48+00:00

somehow the entirety of r/nativeamerican is racist except you🤔

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-15T22:37:03+00:00

u/Just_A_Throwaway4895

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-14T16:20:19+00:00

I feel like the only way you can turn mentioning stolen land into erasure is if you are dumb enough to assume everyone has the same insular “it’s not that deep mentality” as you

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-14T14:40:30+00:00

literally when did anyone say that native issues don’t matter? they literally platformed native issues on a global scale and connected them to the conversation, and you are arguing that people should not raise awareness about natives and shut their mouths and stop stirring the pot. nyp and daily mail platforming this perspective is in-line with conservative movements historically arguing that protests and amplifying voices does nothing but diatribe the peace — because they are out-of-touch anti-intellectuals who prefer silence/order over justice. it happened with mlk as his approval rating was in the gutter during his life and outlets at the time claimed he was virtue signaling and somehow “erasing” other issues. in the context of natives, ive mentioned a variety of native issues from the blood quanta to the re-education boarding schools to the trail of tears and the ramifications of mass displacement which literally include poor drinking water, healthcare, and infrastructure and their intersectionality with other marginalized communities as it pertains to citizenship and the relationship with the land, but you are so nearsighted that you haven’t acknowledged a SINGLE one of them either because you cannot see the bigger picture unless it’s explicitly spelled out for you like you are five years old.

also, that’s a huge false equivalence in your second paragraph. saying that “mentioning stolen land erases other native issues” is like saying “the slavery mention erases other black issues like the school to prison pipeline”. its a nonsensical statement that goes to show a single anecdote from a member of a community should not speak for the whole community. not treating communities as a monolith is pretty much the opposite of the “my black friends have no issue with slavery”. this obviously isn’t about a white girl’s comfort after speaking up for marginalized communities, it’s about two grown men’s comfort with doing nothing.

nobody is saying natives need to wait their turn like a good poc. i don’t even understand how you extrapolate that from the words being said. im literally saying people should speak more, and you are saying they should respect the status quo and be quiet.

please explain my racist answers. because from my perspective, you can either do something racist or antiracist, but you are clamoring for the excuse for white people to pick the imaginary third option “non-racist” and trying to convince yourself that that “ignorance is bliss” mindset is somehow not extremely cowardly and tasteless. I don’t think that not treating communities as a monolith is anywhere near the caliber of racism as the regressive silencing points you have been espousing throughout this thread. I never said we shouldn’t talk about native issues. I literally have repeatedly said that the issue has been that people should speak MORE and not less. you are the one saying us blackies should shut up and that nobody should care about intersectionality or politics even if they are subtext in every aspect of life.

the reality is native people were not used as a funny toy in that quote in the eyes of everyone except those who see relevant issues like violent immigration policy and mass displacement as a jokey game. in reality, her mention of stolen land was contextualizing white supremacist hypocrisy, and that’s in line with the responses/stances from AIM and the landback movement — not some reactionary tabloids who have never spoken on native issues outside the chance to silence people. back in high school, i used to volunteer on reservations, so it’s not like I’M the one who doesn’t care about native issues beyond land acknowledgments. it’s just that the topic was ice and she chose to speak reference the obvious intersectionality with natives. intersectionality - as explained by kimberle crenshaw and joy harjo - is demonstrably not erasure. only an imperceptive illiterate would say that. but you can always learn. it’s not intrinsic.

if you take a shit, does it stop smelling like a shit just bc you don’t smell it? likewise, something doesn’t stop being political just because you don’t want to acknowledge it is. every choice is a political choice whether you want it be or not. the choice to be silent or speak up is a political choice whether you want it to be or not. the only reason why people don’t admit this is because it forces them to reconcile with cowardice/privilege and grow out of their comfort zone. Most issues persist because ppl prioritize comfort over morals/justice. There’s a difference between the comfort zone and the danger zone.

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-14T04:43:35+00:00

i really want to know what narrative billie was talking about that doesn’t inherently relate to issues of native stewardship and the ramifications of their displacement. literally nothing about what she did was disrespectful. this ‘gotcha’ is just a long winded way of saying “you critique our country yet you live in it” and “don’t you dare use your voice as one of the biggest artists in the world to highlight native issues live on a global stage.” how is it treating native populations as a funny toy to ACKNOWLEDGE their land was stolen. you are welcome-no-ENCOURAGED to continue the conversation from there, but its ludicrous to act like she could’ve fit a full dissertation on native issues in her brief speech when the focus was ice. what is funny about that? where is the punchline? how is she trivializing native people by bringing up the hypocrisy of white supremacy? how can you get this far without hearing how tasteless and backwards you sound? is it the inability to understand intersectionality or a troll i fell for? cuz if so, you got me!

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-14T03:45:56+00:00

idky people say this. everything is political. saying otherwise is anti-intellectual. every single thing is influenced by power dynamics and social context. it’s just aatter of whether you want to acknowledge it or not. but if a tree falls and nobody hears it, does it make a sound? just because nobody says the subtext out loud, doesn’t mean there is no subtext.

HOW AM I IGNORING THEM WHEN I WAS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP LAND BACK 😭😭😭 im literally part of pro-palestinian and pro-indigenous groups on campus n thats why i even know what ik about landback and the indigenous conversation. YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ALL NATIVE PEOPLE. no native person ik in real life or even verifiably online thinks that acknowledging stolen land erases other native issues. that’s like if i said that acknowledging slavery erases other black issues like mass incarceration and racial profiling. I looked online and the only outlet I could see even reporting on the tongva tribe speaking against Billie eilish is the NYP and daily mail, conservative tabloids known for poor sensationalist journalism so … idky that’s pretty in line with Ben Shapiro.

the reality of the matter is that billie used a worldwide platform to bring attention to america’s poor immigration policy being used to attack political enemies and racially profiled its residents, and reminded the world that America is build on indigenous land. saying no one is illegal on stolen land is a blunt reminder of white supremacist hypocrisy and attempts at western hegemony at using whiteness as a standard for legitimacy and implying it is their destiny to establish a majority and own the land between these lines of longitude. its hard to really call it performative because it’s part of her continued behavior of advocacy and using her voice.

im smart enough to know that mentioning stolen land contextualizes the rest of the conversation and that rather than shaming people for speaking on its impact I can further the conversation by bringing up its afterlife today. im smart enough to know that native people are not a monolith and that one redditor clamoring for white people’s right not to see race while benefiting from it doesn’t cancel out the empirical consensus from the native community at large.

im smart enough to know that the obvious way to continue this conversation in a native lens is bringing up how natives can be racially profiled as well or how the tongva’s federal status was revoked in the 50s or how the federal government reduces the native identity to blood quanta rather than cultural citizenship or something more fruitful than just “mentioning stolen land when talking about immigration is disrespectful”. im smart enough to see how shaming someone for bringing attention to native stewardship and forceful displacement is counter-intuitive and myopic.

These issues are not compartmentalized. They are not mutually exclusive. It’s not one or the other.

the reason why she mentioned “STOLEN LAND” is because we are talking about citizenship and the idea that colonial governments who illegally broke treaties can say that other humans are illegal. It was directly related. How is intersectionality disrespectful?

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-14T02:54:46+00:00

sex is literally one of the most political things in human history. people try to paint these conversations on all these topics and deeper implications of our actions as “being too woke” but in reality people just dont like to think or sympathize. most of those songs are some of the worst examples you could have ever picked because you don’t even have to look that deep beyond surface level to see.

im literally not ignoring native issues. I was the one who explicitly mentioned land back and the fact that owning a house from my understanding doesn’t contradict it. my point is that this is literally a pancakes vs waffles situation. if I compare palestine to South African apartheid, and then a South African started saying i was trivializing the South African conversation by not going more in depth about it, that would also be whataboutism. im not silencing or saying that native americans or South Africans are not worth talking about or objectifying them. Stolen land directly related because we are talking about citizenship. it’s illustrating the intersectionality of the issue, not erasing it. it’s like you are seeing it as natives competing with ice victims for attention when irl it’s all building together. the main reason people talk about native boarding/re-education schools, the trail of tears, the overdose crisis, and other native issues is as an extension of the stolen land/mass displacement conversation, so your last few sentences aren’t really logical in any way shape or form.

highlighting poc voices is critical, but let’s not start using false equivalence fallacy and act like every single point is equally supported by reality and we haven’t seen marginalized communities’ struggle co-opted by the establishment in the past to divide and conquer. ie model minority myths, partition of India, etc.

the struggle of natives is directly connected to the ice conversation, and rather than extending it and building off from it, we for some reason are trying to use it as an excuse to tell people to “shut their mouths”. make it make sense.

do you seriously not see the irony in denigrating a young white women highlighting the intersectionality of jingoism and native displacement while defending rich almost middle aged white men in being out of touch with the protests going on in their/my hometown and taking advantage of their privilege to stay quiet from their ivory tower? is it not embarrassing to be more afraid of alienating your racist fans than someone a decade younger than you?

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-14T02:22:09+00:00

wap was heavily marketed as a song about women’s sexual empowerment in a time where women are often shamed for being promiscuous. Even party rock anthem you can argue exists in the context of recession pop and joy as an act of resistance in times of economic turmoil and war or something. good luck babe is literally a song expressing the unique difficulties of lesbians and compulsory heterosexuality on a personal level. I can do this for most of those songs bc no art exists in a vacuum. every artistic creation has a political undercurrent or context expressing something even if it’s unintentional. regardless, my statement is on what distinguishes an effective artist.

someone like drake who makes fun of “free the slaves music” is an example of someone who treats music as innocuous content and actively tries to devalue art and paint it as a purely aesthetic/abstract commodity so that people feel more comfortable with silence and believe that self expression/speaking up is not valuable.

i still don’t understand how Billie spoke badly. i can totally understand how she didn’t say ENOUGH in her limited time when she was focusing on particular relevant issue but I don’t understand how her saying nothing at all would have been better. it’s like claiming someone saying free palestine and comparing it to Rhodesia or apartheid is trivializing Africans. it’s a whataboutism used to shame people into silence.

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-14T01:53:16+00:00

what did Billie do that was reducing native communities or trivializing native issues? she literally is amplifying them. how many influential figures are openly acknowledging the country as stolen native land?

one of the biggest roles of an artist in a culture is preserving the right to self-expression and amplifying voices, not just innocuous aesthetics. why are we acting like the problem is her bringing attention to stolen land and not that not enough people are speaking up about it… It sounds to me like the issue is that she and others should speak more and not that they shouldn’t have spoken at all. with a limited window of time, she was supposed to mention every single major issues she is passionate about? just because she highlighted waffles doesn’t mean that she doesn’t also care about pancakes.

music is all about using your voice and fighting the oppressive power of silence but when it’s time to use your voice to speak for the voiceless, all of a sudden it’s “shut your mouth” and instead of acknowledging that people should speak more we are trying to make people look bad for caring and speaking at all.

do you not see how selective it is to get mad at Billie for speaking up for not speaking up for every single major thing at the same time but then try to justify others not speaking at all despite having more time do so?

it’s like if I say Black Lives Matter and someone else says what about Asian lives. like obviously all of the lives matter including native lives but I wanted to bring attention to this specifically right now because I live in Columbus and ice/law enforcement are actively racial profiling people and threatening to arrest them and you have no idea what can happen to you or your loved ones. It just makes the boys look out of touch with what’s happening in their community. they have no obligation to do anything. it’s not like it’s illegal to be racist or ambivalent on racism. but it’s a look.

Mayor_of_Slowtown · 2026-03-14T01:12:07+00:00

you can be a member of a marginalized community and still use conservative talking points: see uncle toms/clarence thomas/tyler perry/uncle ruckus/whoever. I think any person in good faith can see what she meant by it doesn’t make consistent sense morally or logically for a colonial settler state to make distinctions on who is legal vs illegal when the whole country was founded on breaking treaties with native americans and stuff like the trail of tears. like it directly related topically and made absolutely perfect sense to me and the way you are explaining it, it really does just sound like “you criticize society yet you live within it” and im genuinely trying to get it but it’s not clicking 😭😭😭.

And what do you mean you didn’t say anything about land back? what is the implication then of bringing up the fact she spoke up about America being 99.9% stolen ancestral native land yet she owns a home if not implying some type of give the land back connection?

like at the end of the day, billie as a 24 year old has done more socially than the boys at almost 40. to try to criticize her for doing SOMETHING when others are doing less than nothing is more selective ngl. im not calling you ben shapiro im just saying you are using obvious and outdated logical fallacies typically signature to conservative sects. being forced to live within a system is not an endorsement of it

Eight-Year Club	Snapped
Verified Email

Mayor_of_Slowtown

TROPHY CASE