cicero-not-cisero

[cicero-not-cisero]

knuckle tattoos that say OKAY YAY❤️

[cicero-not-cisero]

we need block appeal on this site i need to be able to argue my merit to people who hate me for one (1) thing i said so that i can reblog their good posts

[cicero-not-cisero]

some loser: humans are innately selfish creatures

my psych book:

[cicero-not-cisero]

[cicero-not-cisero]

We've Released a Free Demo for Despair Dilemma: A Death Game Mastermind TTRPG

Despair Dilemma is a Tabletop Roleplaying Game designed to replicate the stories of Death Game narratives like DanganRonpa, Zero Escape, Squid Game, and others. In these games, people are trapped in a life-or-death scenario and must fight, scavenge, or argue for the sake of their victory and survival. Players take the role of the masterminds and narrative forces pushing the characters to the brink.

Taking control of forces like “The Massacre's Edge” and “The Traitor's Sabotage”, players will vie for control of the story and work to achieve the goals laid out on their Plot Sheet. 

With the crowdfunding campaign launching in March, we've released a FREE demo kit you can use to get started playing right away! Check it out here: https://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/double-summon-games/despair-dilemma-a-death-game-mastermind-ttrpg

[cicero-not-cisero]

I love when fictional robots do human things that don't really make sense logistically but they do like the robot flavored version of it like drinking oil out of mugs or some shit where the only realistic explanation is they just do it for fun

[cicero-not-cisero]

[cicero-not-cisero]

Capybara Empanada

[cicero-not-cisero]

People who think sheep are killed for their wool are so hilarious to me. Does your barber slit your throat whenever you get a haircut?? Are you a returning customer to Sweeney Todd? Lmao it grows back, fools.

[cicero-not-cisero]

The guy of all time

[cicero-not-cisero]

After running a thousand errands, working hours of overtime, and being stuck in seemingly endless gridlock traffic commuting to and from their jobs, millions of Americans were disheartened to learn that it was, in fact, only Tuesday.

“Tuesday?” San Diego resident Doris Wagner said. “How in the hell is it still Tuesday?”

Tuesday’s arrival stunned a nation still recovering from the nightmarish slog that was Monday, leaving some to wonder if the week was ever going to end, and others to ask what was taking Saturday so goddamn long.

“Ugh,” said Wagner, echoing a national sense of frustration over it not even being Wednesday at the very least.

Full Story

[cicero-not-cisero]

things change & yet they stay the same

[cicero-not-cisero]

Consent models, sexual ethics, rape.

Consent as a model works best if ppl have enlightenment style rational consistent subjectivity. (Perfect self knowledge, consistent across time, coherent and unconflicted). Sober, enthusiastic, ongoing, verbal consistent is a set of guardrails to try and deal with the ways ppl fall short of enlightenment subjectivity but problems remain.

People don't have perfect self knowledge, and we regularly want to have sex we're conflicted about, have sex while drunk/high, have strong regrets that don't crystalize till after the fact, etc.

The guardrail model came in large part out of a desire to eliminate grey areas such that if something went wrong and someone got hurt, there was clear fault. But this model is deeply connected to the assumption of sex involving two parties, one active and one receptive, with the active party having a social power advantage and more or less sole responsibility regarding consent.

An underlying assumption is that if someone acquiesces to sex against their desire, it's due to coercion from the other party (who is at fault) or at least it would have sufficiently compromised the enthusiasm of the consent such that the other party should have been able to notice.

But trauma is complicated and I think it's real to say that sometimes the "party at fault" is a past abuser, or society at large, to the extent that it's anyone.

It's also completely possible that there's less-than-ideal consent without it being a huge deal, or that in the moment consent practices are as good as can reasonably be expected and someone still walks away traumatized. Or genuine negligence, that does hurt someone, but clearly doesn't belong in the same category as intentionally dismissing a partners non-consent.

If we reject state carceral systems, I'm not sure how useful it is to stay focused on blame in these types of situations.

More generally, I think one-size-fits-all models of consent really start to break down. With the mass education, public health type approach of sex ed, a one sentence check list of attributes (sober, enthusiastic ongoing and explicit) is about as much nuance as you can hope for. But it leaves a situation in which ppl are having drunk sex all the time, within scenes and ongoing relationships that have clearly chosen to accept it as legitimate, while essentially leaving a gun on the table. The ability to at any point declare consent illegitimate for a specific act since it wasn't sober.

The ongoing and enthusiastic elements are also notably ambiguous. Is that an explicit check-in every minute or so? Every 10 seconds? With each new act? How quickly do you need to catch a partner starting to dissociate before it makes you a rapist? How long can you let yourself be enraptured and lost in the act before you risk it?

This shit is messy.

But I do think it's straightforward to acknowledge that ppl build approaches to consent with each other over the course of multiple sexual encounters. Sometimes in ways that aren't explicitly about consent (eg making plans to get drunk/high and then fuck indicating a clear openness to non-sober consent) but sometimes explicitly (eg a large portion of my reason sexual relationships have quickly hit point of checking in to be like "are you comfortable if I try stuff with your body, within reasonable bounds, without checking in and trust you to tell me if it's uncomfortable?" Cuz that's why more hot and that is in fact an important aspect of sex. But I've also had recent partners I wouldn't make that offer with, it's about a specific rapport.

A lot of my inclination lately (in a way that seems to be a trend on here) has been towards a strong model of consent. That is, if I say I'm down for something, you can act on that and vice versa. Even if it's outside the bounds of traditional consent. That we can consent to acts that include risks, that we can consent in advance to non-consent in the moment, that we (with appropriate reflection and bounding) can agree to no safe word scenes if we want to, and if we have a bad time that isn't the other parties' fault.

In all of this, I lean towards an ethic of care moreso than one of blame. That is, a strong model of consent says that if I agree to something, you aren't to blame for acting on that, but we can foster a sense of care for each other, trying to form best practices for avoiding anyone getting hurt or otherwise feeling like shit. Rather than consent by default, that is shattered by the smallest departure moving the act from the category of consensual sex into the category of rape. Consent is a baseline we establish, and then we build up practices on top of it, collaboratively, as best we can. And none of us should have to bear the paralyzing fear that letting our guard down for a moment during sex could by way of negligence turn us into a rapist.

I think this model deals well with most of sex ed style consent's issues around rational subjectivity and one-sided consent.

It does not directly address questions if coercion however, and I think there's still a lot to say about what stays private as an agreement between directly involved parties and a more general, social sexual ethics, and how this all plays out when ppl who've been fucking have a messy falling out and care evaporates rapidly. (I'll get into coercion some here but leave the other aspects for later)

Regarding coercion, I think we can still say that active and deliberate moves to push ppl towards agreeing to something they otherwise wouldn't compromise consent. Asking someone over and over again is still pushy, pushing someone towards getting high/drunk in hopes that they'll acquiesce to the kind of sex you want is different from a mutual decision that you're fine fucking high and what bounds you want to set on that.

The lower level, not necessarily deliberate shit that gets labeled as coercion is messier. If a partner gets extremely sad every time you say no to the kind of sex they want, that absolutely creates pressure. But Im gonna reject any model that puts feeling the wrong feelings and failing to fully mask them in the same category as rape. I think these kinds of patterns are the opposite of care. I still subscribe to a strong model of consent and if you agree to something because you don't want to make a partner sad, that is still agreeing to it. But ideally I think everyone involved / around such a dynamic would try and identify if such a pattern is happening and hit the breaks (eg establish a hard and ongoing no to sex).

This shit is hard, and like, uhhhh, a big part of my position here has developed out of reflecting on less-than-ideal long term sexual relationships I've had, that within traditional models I could easily class as abusive. But I ultimately think it's been more empowering and more helpful for me to shift away from those relationships being the other parties' fault and towards an approach where first and foremost, I needed to get better at knowing myself and being willing to say no, and having a hard-no response to situations that create pressure against that. While still being able to maintain that 100% my partners ideally would have been better to me. (But also, like, the ways in which I wish they'd been better to me is tied up in their own shit, and I'm not gonna say ppl need to be stable/collected/not-crazy to be allowed to fuck, or that ppl should feel guilty for being where they're at. That doesn't help anything).

[cicero-not-cisero]

[cicero-not-cisero]

Waluigi is not Luigi's Wario. Waluigi's Mario is the theoretical *Maluigi. likewise, Mario and Wario are the Ma- and Wa- counterparts respectively of Rio, who unlike *Maluigi has in fact appeared in Super Mario media before.

[cicero-not-cisero]

This made me bust out laughing

[cicero-not-cisero]

there's this fucking tik tok that i keep seeing and it's one of those "meet the friend group" shitty thirst traps and it's 6 dudes right and you got the punk boy (okay fine whatever ) and the elegant boy (what would we do without him) and then there's the fucking ventriloquist and the video just continues on to the college boy and the nerd boy (why are these two different boys?) but i'm still caught off guard by the fucking ventriloquist like this dude just straight up has a muppet of himself and he's not even like doing a ventriloquist thing he just has it and is lip syncing to the song and he has the muppet and that's him he's the ventriloquist that's his thing. there was nothing else for him to be he's just the ventriloquist of the friend group. i cannot stop thinking about this. The Ventriloquist.