I really have an issue with the whole “the identity of the source negates the meaning of the message” mentality on Tumblr.

I see something that is a valid statement with really good point, then I’ll reblog it. I don’t really make a point to go and investigate the OP of every post I share to make sure that they are this perfect paragon of every single social issue. I’m focusing on the message itself, and not the life history of the OP.

If I post a good point about race and someone goes back to my blog and is like “Oh she’s a pornographer ew”…does that negate my statement? Does it make it any less meaningful or poignant or relatable? I don’t think so, but that’s in my opinion.

Someone’s identity or past actions doesn’t necessarily reflect their credibility on a singular statement. Especially not in making really generic “slice-of-life” posts. I am not knocking anyone for being concerned about the source of what they post necessarily; but, as seems to be a trend with many people on Tumblr, I see this whole “standard of credibility” being way mishandled in a contradictory way. Because for a website that is rampant with people not doing their own research and believing everything with a photo and a link, Tumblr is quick to negate someone’s post because of their past actions.

Of course, I’d appreciate someone notifying me if I accidentally post something from a racist or MRA blogger (though I hope I never would even accidentally do that without realizing it). But I feel like I wouldn’t want anyone going around saying “Don’t reblog this post from Talia because she likes porn/defends certain problematic kinks/whatever issue someone has with me.” Because then you’re policing/curating someone’s blog for them, when they should be empowered to post whatever they want by whoever they want with as much or as little “research” into OPs as they want.

And that’s my rant for the day.