Muh Soginee

Did you know all heterosexual sex is rape and you don't need to have sex to reproduce?
Well I guess the second part is literally true now but--
wow it sure wasn't like 50 years ago, even.
This is Witchwind, a lesson in what is wrong with feminism.
I don't even know--

My previous post of the series was about how emotional/sexual attachment to men (‘heterosexuality’) exists only within the context of OPPRESSION, GENOCIDE or globally organised violence against women by men as a class. Which means that this emotional bond to men can’t be anything else than an uncontrolled chemical response to that inescapable violence and oppression. A response to which men have conditioned us through a fine-tuned system of repression, deprivation, constraints and reward, grooming and brainwashing – aimed to modify our behaviour to ensure our long-term submission. Within this inescapable subordination to men, we can only fear them or trauma-bond to them: therefore love does not exist towards men.

So there you have it I suppose. All those happily married women?
Actually rape victims.

One aspect I haven’t talked yet about men’s heterocage is the role pleasure plays in securing our sexual submission. In other words, how sexual pleasure with men is manufactured – it’s not pleasure but dissociation from the invasion, pain or fear. It’s always worth reminding FCM’s definition of fear and trauma-bonding inherent to intercourse:

FCM is "FactCheckMe", another blogger of this ilk, apparently.
Get ready for acronyms. I've actually done my research on this and I'll provide translations where I can but I get the feeling that won't always (or even usually) be possible.

as i think has been made abundantly clear by now, women are literally putting their lives and physical and mental wellbeing on the line, every fucking time they engage in PIV. (sorry! really, i am). if its not the very reasonable fear of being raped at some point during the encounter, its the fear of disease, and the dread, absolute dread of an unintended or unwanted pregnancy. and that last one applies even in wanted encounters with trusted partners, does it not?

PIV is "penis in vagina" which is a decidedly juvenile label for the subject but okay.
Every time I see "PIV" All I think is "benis in fagina :DDDDDDDDDDDDD"

every single act of intercourse, from somewhat pre-menstruation to somewhat post-menopause. or…until your mate gets his nads snipped…and even then. fear, and dread. foreboding, terror, and bargaining with god. counting the days. … when women have PIV with men, we are encountering a life-threatening situation, with another person, by definition. not surprisingly, we form intense bonds with our war-buddies, these men with whom we have literally faced death and disfigurement. terror.

So are you war buddies or are they rapists?
Because I still keep in contact with people I played FFXI with. It's like we went through a war together.
They are the opposite of people I would call terrorists or rapists.

Before I go any further I just want to pull up again some basics on consent, violence and oppression, because that applies to every situation of violence: no matter how much you think you want, enjoy or choose to submit to an act of violence, violence excludes choice by definition, so it’s never something you could have chosen.

There you go.
Women are incapable of making informed consent.
Know who else can't make informed consent?
Children.
This is coming from a feminist.

Consent is meaningless and irrelevant with regards to defining men’s violence and describing the objective reality of it. The only ones to choose and want are those who do the violence: men. They choose to resort to violence because they want to obtain something from us that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to obtain (using us as their dick receptacles, control our reproduction). Will, calculation, intent and choice of means to achieve their end are all on their side. Saying that we choose and want it is a reversal and lie. The illusion of our choice protects men not us, because deception and reversal is in part how they maintain their rule.

Man.
I feel like a Predator alien now.
This is maybe the most hardcore description of men ever.
Bringers of terror.
We choose where to deliver death.
How can you be a feminist reading this?
Clearly men have it going on.

#1. The pleasure we experience during intercourse isn’t natural, but groomed. Men teach us how to instantaneously associate the fear, pain and/or invasion of the penetration to clitoral stimulation, so we dissociate from it – cut it off – and think it’s pleasurable. 

Haha oh wow.
I didn't know humans invented sex.
I thought species before humans had been reproducing via intercourse for millions of years.

Clitoral stimulation may function in the exact same way as dissociation in a situation of sexual violence because it sends dissociative drugs to the brain. Dissociation is a drug, so this reaction to PIV may become an addiction, a rush we crave for like cocaine.

If the clitoris is specifically there to shield women from their violation and rape--
makes you wonder why mammals evolved it in the first place. It sounds maladaptive from that description.
Or maybe men forced women to evolve them.

The great scam of the 20^th century goes threefold: that women’s liberation consists in

1. being free to be fucked by any man
2. having orgasms in being fucked by men
3. achieving equality to men with the pill, so we can now be fucked by men without consequences, that is dissociate PIV from reproduction.

What it is about is men‘s freedom to rape more women, and diminishing men’s restrictions in raping already-owned women. They want to be able to rape even their neighbour’s wife or daughter and not get in trouble for trespassing other men’s private property.

"Women are property" - feminist blog
I suspect you're getting off on this.

 There seems to be two types of colonisation:

There's a term I have a big fucking problem with. Colonization.
I hear it all the time in relation to various shit.
How can you colonize women?
They're not a country.
 How are transsexuals part of a colonization process?
Once again: not a country.
The first time I heard this was in relation to slavery in America but once again the black people here aren't being colonized (at least not as we understand it).
Their existence here and continued racism might be a product of colonialism but you can't actually colonize people.
You colonize land.
What happens to the people already there?
I can't say but I hardly believe you can "colonize" 51% of the entire population of earth and if you can then maybe one has to wonder why women allow this.
It's at this point I'd be accused of blaming the victim.
I am not, though. I do not believe in this nonsense.
This isn't a case of individual rape. This is an absurd argument that just being a woman means you're being raped always.
If this shit is all true and the solution is as simple as walking the fuck away why haven't millions of women?

#1: one where the woman is colonised but something of the spell or the rigidity of the colonisation has been broken somewhere and she is ready for the leap. In other words, radical feminism has the potential to create connections and liberate her from invasive male presence. If talked to about radical feminism, it will immediately make sense, or very shortly after. These women are great to be around with as a radfem because convos just flow, there’s no mental blocking out to what you’re saying and you can trust that she understands the words you use, which is not a small feat in patriarchy.

PATRIARCHY.
So some women are as crazy as you, basically--
which is true--

#2: one where men have placed auto-immune defences against feminism in a woman: she is made to fear and block out feminism from her mind or some parts of it, to see it as a threat, and will eliminate, sabotage or shut it down or turn against herself and other women.  It works very much like an auto-immune disease or cancer where she is unconsciously, unwittingly acting on men’s behalf, defending their interest by destroying her healthy cells. (Men are cancer).

So if you say "wow maybe that's a little crazy" you're brainwashed.
So you're free to think what you want to as long as you agree with her.
And she's liberating you.
Remember that always. She considers herself the liberating force here.

Note. I’m writing on colonisation because I’ve been thinking a lot about relationships with non radfem (though already into feminism) women lately and how difficult these relationships are. This is a really important question to me because talking to women about feminism (spinning) and creating bonds with women in order to decolonise collectively from men is really what’s most important and what I believe feminism and liberation is based on. But sometimes I just get so much shit, and it never stops being painful and exhausting. I make friends with women, I introduce them to feminism, I’m full of hope that finally there will be women with whom to discuss and further radical feminism, just BE with them and not in dissonance as it usually is with colonised women, but at some point they end up betraying me, hurting me, they stop and stagnate in the middle of their tracks, may revert even, turn against me, because i’m too far ahead and they can’t go there yet, because they’re not ready to meet certain feminist standards, they have a boyfriend who keeps undoing what she just learned, they’re still not feminist enough to value our friendship and the feminist space we’re giving each other, they have no idea how rare and precious it is, or may still prefer male company. It hurts every time the same.

Translation: they don't think like me so I don't want to deal with them.
I’ve finally figured something out. That we’re not supposed to be angry against women, as in, our anger against women is purely manufactured by men. And if we are angry, we’re angry against the male colonisation in her, not really her, though what happens is that we confuse it with the woman and hit on her instead.
Even when a woman is shitty it's a man's fault.

This ‘embedded maleness’ or ‘incarnate male presence’ as Mary Daly called it, are insidious male ideologies that men have hammered into our psyche, like an anti-personnel landmine fastened inside us which explodes in contact of other women, so that women turn against us, instead of turning against men and feeling sorry or compassion for the pitiable state that men have put us in.

Holy shit.
I thought Kenshiro was hardcore. Men put mines in women with words.
Fuck.
So hardcore
2 stronk
Also I'm pretty sure a landmine is anti-personnel by definition.

The term “fuck you” is not an insult for nothing, men know why – it’s the worst thing you can do to a human being. 

Many languages have no analogue for "fuck you" as an insult.
Not to call you wrong but most people don't speak English.

My first essentialist thought on men’s violence was that only men could ever build an entire necrophilic society around the raping and controlling of women’s reproductive capacities because only men are biologically capable of doing it, using their own biology as weapons against women – penis and semen. So I saw that patriarchy fitted to men’s biology to the extent that it is only achievable through their biological capacity to rape and impregnate women. Also, I saw their hatred of women partly as an of envy women’s reproductive power and obsession with their own incapacity to reproduce life.

Except without men women aren't reproducing either, so--

I base it on an intuition and experience: being around with women is substantially and physically different from being around with men. The physical and sensory experience is simply different, and I’m not talking about touching in just a physical way, but the physics of soul-touching and sparking. Men are incapable of spinning; in every possible sense of the term. Any energy sent to them never comes back, it’s a dead end, a black hole, it goes plop, or flop, it stops there and never moves, there is no real exchange, and at the very least we’re left with a feeling of unease. Whereas with women, especially with radical feminists, you can actually feel the spinning going on, the revitalisation, the constant movement of mind and senses, things just flow. 

I'm giving this to you slightly out of context but note that this was on the cusp of "scientific" "research".
So apparently "soul sparking" is hard science.
She also (maybe ironically) cites a study about the corpus callosum that was published 100% by men.
Also I like how her intuition and experience is equivalent to hard science, statistics and years of study and decades to centuries of real science.

When comparing male and female cognitive / sensory powers, I find the example of male shamans very interesting. In most – if not all – current traditional societies where shamanism is still practised, males monopolise this function and pass it only to their son or the next generation male. Typically, all male shamans across the world have to resort to drugs in order to “see” and thus perform their “healing” function as shaman (imitate female healing powers).

Imitate female healing powers that exist.
Fuck you.
Magic is real.

These drugs may be anything from tobacco, hallucinogenic mushrooms or other products, alcohol or also putting themselves in extreme and painful physical conditions in the aim of achieving a “second” state. What is interesting is to see that the drug-taking is primarily a male practice. Female seers, by contrast, do not traditionally need or take such drugs.

I'm pretty sure there are women magic users with a tradition of drug use. I can't be bothered to Google it so maybe I'm wrong but I'm almost positive.

I’m certain that men need these external drugs to access parts of their brain that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to access, because of their cerebral deficiency. Besides drugs always have a physical cost, they aren’t without negative consequences to the body and brain, and men often have almost as little regard to their own bodies as they have for the external world. I have always deeply distrusted drugs, saw it as a tool of control and dislike the way it shifts your consciousness in an artificial and coercive way, that makes it unsafe and unpredictable. I don’t see the need for an external product when we can simply learn to connect ourselves naturally, which is a far healthier way of doing it because it’s something that comes from you, in your own time.

I think drugs are bad so therefore fuck men who take drugs.

Despite deciding consciously that I would always avoid men and male things the best I could and only interact with women on a close basis, to protect myself as much as i could, i realised a few weeks ago how still my thoughts and my life revolved so much around men, because making a constant conscious effort to avoid men still meant men were occupying my mental space, the threat of their violence always looming in the back (or front) of my mind). Obviously men are never very far, and if they’re not physically there, they spook and infiltrate every aspect of our lives (to use a Mary Dalian word) with their death infrastructures. Reminders of men and their system are everywhere in nearly everything that surrounds us, especially if you live in a man-made flat our house in a man-made town.

So go and make your own apartment.

No woman is heterosexual. What men call heterosexuality is an institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our reproductive functions and steal our labour. Heterosexuality, or sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship to men that exists is men’s violence, physical and mental invasion – one that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love. All women’s “attraction” to men is 100% eroticised trauma bonding / stockholm syndrome.

HETEROSEXUALITY AIN'T BE REAL.
Man she's fucking wordy.
Using all these words invented by men, too.
Good grief.
Check my fucking privilege, someone.
I HAVE TOO MUCH PRIVILEGE HELP
I CAN'T CHECK IT ALL.
God this blog.
I can't handle how boring this is.
So many words devoted to "people don't think like me so I better not associate with them ever."
Wow.
Oh well.
Let's get some hateful, misogynist rape music going.

Things you're not allowed to say

So let's mix it up a little by going back to my old friend ONTD_Feminism.
Last update: July 12.
Feminism is hard ;_;
Da Roolz:

2. No personal attacks. There is a difference between calling an idea stupid and saying the same thing about a member. And you know it. 

Yeah but telling a Commie in EVE Online his build needs improvement maybe isn't quite the same as calling him a shit-eating pig farmer.

Something that is really being talked about in my state of Texas is the prevention of a bill that would restrict abortion. 

... Speaking of shit-eating pig farmers, what's going on in Texas?
That really was the perfect segue. I didn't even plan that.
I couldn't have planned that.

It was supposed to be voted on but what happened was that a state senator named Wendy Davis stopped the bill from being passed by filibustering for 11 hours straight. She wasn't allowed to sit down, lean, eat or go off topic when discussing the bill for 11 hours. The midnight deadline was narrowly avoided and Repbulicans tried multiple times to get her off the stand. 12 minutes before the deadline Republicans were to start voting but there was so much cheering and raucous from protesters that they didn't (couldn't?) vote.

The effect this had:
delayed the vote by 24 hours.
Goooood.

The endless parade of serial-killer dramas on TV today raises an uncomfortable question: What does it mean that we as a society seem to find violence against women endlessly entertaining?

Violence period is endlessly entertaining, apparently.
Why else would all this shit sell?
Since the 10,000s BC that shit has sold.
One of the first professions you could be that wasn't hunter-gatherer was storyteller.
Most of the stories told?
Heroes killing shit dead.
A man that produced nothing except entertainment was one of the first jobs to rise out of the agricultural revolution and the barter economy.
Think about it.
The two species most related to us are chimpanzees and bonobos. Our behavior is a perfect compromise between the two.
Chimps are violent
Bonobos bang everything
welcome to the species with STDs constantly at war.
People sure don't think a lot about shit.

 The show is not subtle in its embrace of feminist themes. It purposefully paints male characters as both limited and flat. The hollow men, the stupid men who think largely with their cocks, the men who delude themselves into thinking that somehow they are worth more or are just better than women, are shown not as fully sympathetic human beings, but as dumb, or violent, or impetuous men.

Feminism: we're fighting for our equality.
We're achieving this by making men seem like violent brutes.
But we want to be equal, honest!
It's different because we're oppressed! We're allowed to say bigoted things because that's just us giving power to our gender!

You are a slave to your desires, you have no control at all, you are weak, impotent, you think you are some kind of artist, but you are not… you try to dignify what you do, but it’s just misogyny, age-old male violence against women.

In this story I'm kinda working on probably the most sadistic and violent character is a woman.
It's partially that way just so I can gauge ONTD_Feminism's reaction afterwards.
The goal is absolute moral ambiguity.
The people she hurts are thugs and criminals but she's every bit as cold and malevolent as they are.
I'm a big fan of the theme. Becoming your enemy to beat them and at what point can you no longer justify actions like that?
How much collateral damage is too much?
See good stories start with a premise like that. They don't just say "hurrr muh freedms and muh sogyny."
I'm looking at you, Tom Clancy and ONTD_Feminism, respectively.
And that's just one lesser theme in a web of statements.
At no point will it even beat you over the head with it. It's all just a facet of a larger picture I'm painting.
You see the fact is this character could even be a male. The gender is incidental to the development of the character.
Real character development stems from what a character thinks and does. Not what they look like.
The character is female for a different reason. The story necessitates her being a woman.
That's another important thing to note: make sure you develop your characters in a way that they could be no other way. Most people aren't arbitrarily nice or an asshole. They're that way due to genetics and upbringing and shit.
If you just say "hurrr wahm character because feminism" then you're a shit author who needs to stop.
When developing characters don't ask "what are they like?" instead ask "why are they not another way?" and if you don't have an answer it's a detail you don't need to include or need to rethink.
Character development is less about you jerking yourself off and more of a torturous thought experiment into the true nature of man.
This is incidentally why fanfiction sucks.
Look at that question I just asked: "why are people not other ways?"
Do you have any idea the hours of research and debate that leads to?
That's why so many authors claim all of the story came in a sudden bolt of inspiration. That's just the pieces falling into place. More than likely all (good) stories have been a 10 year internal dialogue.

Yet, the show then runs into the same problem it creates for viewers. This argument forces the viewer to ask: If violence against women is nothing more than violence, plain and simple, then why is it at the center of this show? Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to send this message while entertaining us with violence against women?

That'd be a good question to ask if the show didn't clearly suck.
Kind of self defeating, too, because the only conclusion is "wow we are complete assholes."
I know what my first question would be: "why is violence against men normal but violence against women horrific?"

Creepshot is dedicated to posting pictures of women in stages of undress taken without their consent or knowledge, basically.

Don't undress when people are around.
Check your surroundings.
A post about the existential angst of multiculturalism causing misogyny-- (OH NO)--

This was inspired by a question on my Christianity & Sexuality exam about the detrimental effects of pornography on society.
Because pornography elevates the levels of the same chemicals also activated during drug use and falling in love, porn can become an addiction for those who use it. Addictions are harmful not only to those who suffer from them, but to the friends and families of the addicts as well. Addicts tend to isolate themselves, and curing addiction is a long, arduous, and often painful process - but it can be done. The viewing of pornography does have everlasting effects, however, and those who view pornography - both women and men - view women differently than those who have not used pornography.

Oh yeah I remember these debates in pussy sensitivity.
Also Christianity & Sexuality are you fucking kidding me?
There's a wasted tuition if I've ever seen it.

Simply put, pornography encourages the ongoing objectification of and violence toward women. Women in the sex industry are routinely viewed as sexual objects created for men’s pleasure. Real sex is devalued by the viewing of pornography, because no actual sex could live up to the air-brushed fantasies that porn presents as reality.
It’s not like being a porn-worthy bombshell is any better. Women from the sex industry are viewed as a lower from of life and degraded by both men and women for their perceived “choice” - although in many cases there is no alternative, or the alternatives are just as bad if not worse.  

Never mind the Youtube channel with literally millions of views devoted to talking to porno whores and how most of them agree it has been a positive experience for them.
I guess they're fucking liars or delusional because they don't agree with your petty gender politics.
I don't judge them.
Hell some of them are even college educated.
You get ahead however you can.
They're not traitors or cowards so I have no problem with them.

Men and women both not in the sex industry view it as their right to pass judgment on prostitutes, call girls, dominatrices, escorts, and porn stars. Apparently holding any one of these jobs means you have given up your right to be treated as a human being.
And yet the Madonna-Whore Complex is enforced, not just by pornography but by the media. One has only to look advertisements of any medium to realize that sex sells - and not just any sex, but female sexuality. Girls must not actually have sex, yet somehow be an expert on the subject in the bedroom. They must appear moral and innocent, yet have a kinky wild side.

Let me be the first to say: I don't give a shit what you do or think. Just shut up about it.

"Dead Island: Riptide is the sequel to Dead Island, the survival horror video game that has players stranded on a tropical island with a zombie outbreak. To promote the game, publishers Deep Silver are offering a special “Zombie Bait Edition” which includes the console game, artwork, a weapons pack, and a statue of a woman’s bikini-clad torso with her head and arms chopped off. And so help me god, they’re comparing it to the Venus de Milo. The graphic image is after the jump [at the source] and probably NSFW.

Zombies don't care about your feminism m8.

Why Are There No Women In Tolkien's World?  

Uhh.

I did not read The Hobbit or the The Lord of the Rings trilogy as a child, and I have always felt a bit alienated from the fandom surrounding them. Now I think I know why: Tolkien seems to have wiped women off the face of Middle-earth.

Uhh.
I do like how you say you haven't even read it and yet you're an expert on feminism and The Lord of the Rings.
Here's another important woman character.

I suppose it’s understandable that a story in which the primary activity seems to be chopping off each other’s body parts for no particular reason might be a little heavy on male characters —

>No reason
>prevent the conquering of Middle Earth by the devil
Yeah that's true no reason at all.

although it’s not as though Tolkien had to hew to historical accuracy when he created his fantastical world. The problem is one of biological accuracy. Tolkien’s characters defy the basics of reproduction: dwarf fathers beget dwarf sons, hobbit uncles pass rings down to hobbit nephews. If there are any mothers or daughters, aunts or nieces, they make no appearances.

Except Galadriel whose lineage the book spends a protracted amount of time describing.
She gives up her immortality when Gil-Galad dies?
It's kind of a pivotal moment in the story.
Your knowledge of this story really is breathtaking, though. I see you spent a lot of time studying this and didn't just say "I don't like it because muh sogyny."

Trolls and orcs especially seem to rely on asexual reproduction, breeding whole male populations, which of course come in handy when amassing an army to attack the dwarves and elves.

Trolls are, as I recall, depicted as reproducing through unknown means and possibly just split like amoebas.
Orc women are depicted as sex slaves and that's a large part of the reason Orcs are deemed evil and misguided.
Really you're on the same side if you'd stop being unreasonable for two seconds.
I found three women in a cast that is quite large but has relatively few major characters and all of them are fairly big players.
What the fuck more do you want?

Named /= significant character. In the movies, there's really only Eowyn, Arwen, and Galadriel. The only other one I can think of offhand is Goldberry. 

>Only three
>Number of important male protagonist (because if a woman had been evil they'd be crying harder so we won't count that): nine
3:1 ratio don't bitch.

Also it's one thing to name a female character and say she's important to the world. If they are never given lines to speak, it's hardly worth mentioniong. Also, tt's another thing to include 15 main characters in the Hobbit (13 dwarves, a hobbit and the wizard, basically) and 10 or so in the LOTR and NONE of them are female. That lack is keenly felt as a young female reader, let me tell you.

Apparently you haven't read it either because we just named 3.
KEEP UP WITH THE CONVERSATION.
That's it women aren't allowed to read books.
I am banishing you all to illiteracy and bare feet.
Deal with it.

Saudi Arabia implements electronic tracking system for women   

You say primitive barbarians I say forward thinkers.

21 THINGS TO STOP SAYING UNLESS YOU HATE FAT PEOPLE

I hate everyone.
Part of everyone is fat people.

1. Stating a specific size, shape, or weight that’s less okay.

Example: “Women who are a little bigger are more attractive, but 400 pounds? No.”

Example: ”It’s okay to be plus-size as long as you don’t have fat rolls.”

Nope.
A woman over 105 pounds is not a woman for me.
Can't possibly be under 105 because you're 6'0"?
Keep walking.

Fat acceptance is for all fat people. If you draw a line – 400 lbs, 500 lbs, “apple”-shaped, people with mobility issues, etc – and say that people on one side of the line are okay and people on the other side aren’t, you are part of the problem.

The line is drawn at over 5'3" and over 105.
Deal with it.

18. Focusing on (usually heterosexual) attractiveness in general.

Example: “At least being bigger means you have bigger boobs, too!”

Example: “It’s okay, honey, men like women with a few curves.”

Not me.
I have two words:
"fuck"
and "off".
Welcome to why I was popular in pussy sensitivity.

At a recent presentation, I asked all of the gay male students in the room to raise their hand if in the past week they touched a woman’s body without her consent. After a moment of hesitation, all of the hands of the gay men in the room went up. I then asked the same gay men to raise their hand if in the past week they offered a woman unsolicited advice about how to “improve” her body or her fashion. Once again, after a moment of hesitation, all of the hands in the room went up.

HOMOSEXUALS.

First there was the "Bic for Her" pen. Then there was the Fujitsu "Floral Kiss" lady-computer (complete with a built-in scrapbooking app and bedazzled keyboard!).

Honda just took things to the next level by producing the Honda Fit "She's" — a pink car made specifically for women that's marketed as "adult cute."


The $17,500 car, currently only being sold in Japan, has loads of lady-friendly features. 

Japan.
A nation with sense.

Apart from pink aesthetics and a dainty heart to replace the apostrophe in "She's," design features include: A windshield that helps prevent wrinkles, and a "plasmacluster" air conditioning system that Honda says will improve skin quality.

If you don't like the pink tone, don't worry. A Honda executive told Yomuri Shinbun newspaper that it's also in brown and white, to match the driver's eyeshadow.

10/10.
Would laugh again.
What's wrong with wanting a car that matches your eyeshadow?
That might be important to Japanese women.
An article on how awesome Dredd was (even feminists agree!)--
Ehh I think I'm done here.
I certainly don't miss Livejournal.