#Community vs. Individualism

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Collectivism

The philosophy of collectivism is a worldview that emphasizes the importance of groups, communities, or societies over individual interests. It holds that the well-being and goals of the collective should take precedence over the desires and rights of individual members. Collectivism is often contrasted with individualism, which prioritizes individual autonomy and personal freedom.

Key Aspects of the Philosophy of Collectivism:

Primacy of the Group:

Social Unity: Collectivism stresses the importance of social cohesion and unity, arguing that individuals are inherently connected to their communities and that their identities and purposes are largely shaped by their social relationships.

Shared Goals: In collectivist thought, the goals of the group, whether a family, community, nation, or humanity as a whole, are prioritized over personal ambitions. The success of the group is seen as a reflection of individual success.

Moral and Ethical Foundations:

Altruism and Cooperation: Collectivism often promotes altruism, the idea that individuals should act in ways that benefit others, sometimes at the expense of their own interests. Cooperation and mutual support are considered essential for the well-being of the group.

Responsibility to Others: Ethical collectivism holds that individuals have a moral duty to contribute to the common good and to support the welfare of others in their community or society.

Political and Economic Implications:

Socialism and Communism: Collectivist philosophies are often associated with political and economic systems like socialism and communism, where resources and power are distributed in ways intended to benefit the collective rather than individuals. These systems advocate for collective ownership or control of the means of production and seek to reduce inequality.

Welfare State: In more moderate forms, collectivism can be reflected in the welfare state, where the government plays a significant role in ensuring social security, healthcare, education, and other public goods, based on the principle that society as a whole is responsible for the well-being of its members.

Cultural and Social Dimensions:

Cultural Collectivism: In some cultures, collectivism is deeply ingrained in social norms and values. For example, many Asian, African, and indigenous cultures emphasize family, community, and collective responsibility over individualism.

Collective Identity: Individuals in collectivist cultures often see themselves as part of a larger whole and may prioritize group harmony and consensus over personal expression or dissent.

Critiques and Challenges:

Loss of Individual Freedom: Critics of collectivism argue that it can lead to the suppression of individual rights and freedoms, as the needs of the collective may override personal liberties. This can result in authoritarianism or the erosion of personal autonomy.

Homogenization and Conformity: Another critique is that collectivism can encourage conformity and discourage diversity and innovation, as individuals might feel pressured to align with group norms and expectations.

Philosophical Justifications:

Communitarianism: Communitarianism is a philosophical approach that emphasizes the value of community in shaping individuals' identities and values, and it often supports collectivist principles by arguing that individuals are best understood in the context of their social relationships.

Ethical Theories: Ethical theories like utilitarianism can support collectivism to the extent that they promote the greatest good for the greatest number, which may require individuals to sacrifice their interests for the benefit of the collective.

Historical and Contemporary Examples:

Traditional Societies: Many traditional societies operate on collectivist principles, with strong emphasis on family ties, communal land ownership, and collective decision-making.

Modern Collectivist Movements: Modern movements advocating for environmental sustainability, social justice, or economic equality often embody collectivist principles by focusing on the well-being of the broader community or the planet.

The philosophy of collectivism offers a perspective that values the interconnectedness of individuals and the importance of collective well-being. While it provides a framework for fostering social unity, cooperation, and shared responsibility, it also raises important questions about the balance between individual rights and collective interests, and how best to achieve social harmony without sacrificing personal freedom.

[multi-lefaiye]

MAZZAKARR - THE LORD OF SLAUGHTER

HERE WE GOOOOO MAZZY BOY LORE DUMP!!! this isn't all the lore i've come up with for this character and the fictional religion surrounding him, but i figured this is the best general overview i can offer at this time.

CONTENT WARNINGS FOR THE LORE DUMP: child abuse, cannibalism, torture, and murder. all just mentions, but still, tread lightly if any of that bothers you.

art/writing/random lore taglist: @anexor @skitzo-kero @invaderskoodge @vacantgodling @chaieyestea

@albatris @void-botanist @kk7-rbs @moonflowerrss @corvus-rose

@angsty-prompt-hole @astral-runic @paradoxspir1t

--

(also, a lot of specific terminology and locations mentioned here are related to locations in d&d, but you don't need to know those to understand this i think)

Names / Titles. Mazzakarr, The Apex Predator, The Lord of Slaughter, The Master of the Hunt, The Father (many variations of these titles are acceptable)

Pronouns. He/Him

Domains. Death, Strength, Bestial, Blood

Home Plane. Mazzakarr is a prisoner in Carceri, specifically in the realm of Cathrys. Once, however, he was a spirit of the Beastlands.

Alignment. Neutral Evil.

Visage. Mazzakarr is a tall, broad being with a strongman’s physique, built of powerful muscle cushioned by body fat. He has burning hot, green-tinted skin and thick patches of dark brown fur on his body, including a mane down his back. Most strikingly, he has the head of a spotted hyena, with four glowing red slits for eyes and a grin full of jagged teeth. He wears no armor and minimal clothing, often just a pair of black trousers and heavy, adamantine-toed boots. As a prisoner in Carceri, Mazzakarr wears an enchanted metal collar around his neck, and a pair of gauntlets disguising the cuffs around his wrists. Though the chains holding him in place are invisible to mortals, he feels their presence weighing him down all the same.

Voice. Mazzakarr’s voice is a deep, booming growl, with a strangely melodic quality despite his animalistic demeanor and appearance. Many of those who hear his voice whispering to them say that it sounds almost like a lullaby, the Apex Predator’s song lulling them to embrace the ways of slaughter. Like the hyenas that share his face, however, Mazzakarr has a very distinct laugh, which echoes around the jungles of Cathrys as he stalks his prey.

Commandments / Tenets.

Fight for survival, and never allow yourself to grow complacent with what you have.

Cull and consume the weak-willed who do not fight for themselves. Only the strong must survive.

Kill or be killed. Adapt or die. Move forward or fall behind.

The First Hunter. Though his name has been lost to history, an important piece of mythos for Mazzakarrans is that of the First Hunter, the first mortal to hear the whispers of Mazzakarr and embrace the spirit of slaughter. He was a mere civilian lost in a hopeless, endless war, who had lost everything he had to an invading army. Before they could kill him, however, he fled from them, and for three days and three nights, they chased him through the wilds.

Then, one night, as the Hunter struggled to stay awake, terrified of being found and killed by those searching for him, he heard the voice of the Apex Predator.

If you want to survive, you must kill them before they kill you, Mazzakarr whispered to him. Devour those who would stand against you. Take what is yours. Fight, and you will escape.

And the First Hunter listened. When daybreak came, his pursuers found him, and he slaughtered them one by one. And then, he devoured them entirely--mind, body, and soul.

After the war finally came to an end, the First Hunter continued to spread the word of Mazzakarr, encouraging others to accept the spirit of slaughter into their hearts. Many modern Mazzakarrans see him as a prophet-like figure, the first follower of their god.

The Blood-Kin. Of Mazzakarr’s most devoted followers, none compare to the blood-kin, those chosen to share his blood and become his prophets.

At a very young age, the prospective blood-kin are selected to be taken and raised by acolytes of Mazzakarr to embrace his ideals. Each child is assigned one dedicated caretaker, who raises them in isolation from each other. It is this caretaker’s responsibility to feed and nurture the blood-kin, all the while training them to fight, to struggle, and to remain loyal to their Father, the lord of slaughter himself.

At some point in the prospective blood-kin’s youth, whenever they are ready to ascend, their caretaker will try to kill them. If they succeed in killing their caretaker to save themself, they earn the right to ascend and become one of Mazzakarr’s chosen. If they fail, they die, and their corpse is discarded to rot.

After proving themself, the prospective blood-kin is taken to the High Temple, where the ritual to bind them to their god is performed. The exact steps are kept a tight-lipped secret, but the blood-kin is to remain conscious and aware as their body is broken and reshaped by the high priests, and as Mazzakarr’s essence enters their blood.

If they survive, from that day on, they are Mazzakarr’s blood-kin. All that’s left is to choose their weapon.

As soon as the blood-kin is able to stand following the ritual, they are led to a secluded chamber, where they are presented with a wide selection of weapons from which to choose. They have only a moment to consider their choices, however, before another Mazzakarran attacks them.

Whatever weapon they instinctively grab for to defend themself is theirs from that day forward.

The Blood-Kin Trials. Once the blood-kin have ascended and claimed their place as one of Mazzakarr’s most faithful, the real trial begins. For the god of strength through hardship would never simply grant someone the title of prophet, regardless of what they suffered to achieve the rank. No, they must fight for his favor.

After their ascension, the blood-kin begin a lifelong manhunt of each other. They are compelled to hunt and kill each other, to cull the unworthy who do not have the strength to carry their Father’s blood. This is their life’s purpose, what every other trial they’ve passed has been building toward.

For the most part, anything goes when it comes to the blood-kin hunting each other. They are permitted to do nearly whatever it takes to hunt and kill their “siblings.”

There are only a few rules they must follow when hunting each other, so as not to draw Mazzakarr’s ire:

A blood-kin can only be killed by another blood-kin--they cannot seek outsiders’ aid in slaughtering each other.

They cannot fight each other in the high temple; only slaughters approved by Mazzakarr himself may take place in this holiest place.

When a blood-kin is killed, their unworthy blood must be spilled, and whatever their killer chooses not to eat must be left to rot.

When there are only two blood-kin left alive, they are compelled by Mazzakarr to return to the High Temple, where they will duel to the death under the watchful gaze of their Father. Whichever one wins will then become his sole prophet, having earned the title through the slaughter of their kin.

Origins and Ascension. All Mazzakarrans are taught the story of Mazzakarr’s rise to godhood. For he did not start his existence as a god.

Many lifetimes ago, he was one of two sons of a nature deity known as Kozmas, the goddess of the hunt and the endless cycle of life and death, of predator and prey. She created her sons to represent two sides of the same coin, two different perspectives on survival in a harsh wild.

One was to represent the lone hunter, the solitary creature relying on only its own strength to survive; the other, meanwhile, was to represent the pack hunter, relying on a community of its kind and working together.

The younger son, the spirit of the lone hunter, would one day become Mazzakarr. And so, for many lifetimes, the brothers shared the wilds, dutifully following their mother’s words and watching over the many beasts of the world.

Even in his early years, the younger son was very clever, and he recognized his own strength compared to that of his brother, who was much more passive and agreeable. The lone hunter thought it redundant to have two sons, when one would have done the job just fine. It was short-sighted of their mother to create them both.

He explained all of this to the pack hunter, and the eldest son understood. Only one of them was needed to watch over the world’s creatures. And so, he gave himself to his brother, and the would-be Mazzakarr devoured him--mind, body, and soul--until there was nothing left.

With this fratricide, two souls became one, and Mazzakarr was born. He ascended to godhood, almost surpassing even his mother. And with this ascension came an all-consuming hunger, a desperate need for bloodshed and death.

Kozmas saw what had become of her sons, and she was left furious and grieving, at least as much as a god is able to feel such emotions. She was unwilling to accept Mazzakarr’s ascension, and she cast him out of the Beastlands. He was no longer her son, but a savage wearing his skin.

For the sin of murdering his brother, Kozmas confined Mazzakarr to Carceri, sentencing him to an eternity of prowling the Scarlet Jungles of Cathrys. If he was so hungry for death, he could sharpen his claws on the mortal sinners condemned to his new realm. But he would never again see the hunting grounds he once called home.

Many, many years passed, and slowly, Mazzakarr grew in power and notoriety. Soon, he came to reign over Cathrys, becoming a king rather than a mere prisoner. And as his power grew, so did his hunger for more and more of it.

And so, Mazzakarr turned his hungry gaze to the material plane.

The Devoured God. Mazzakarr’s brother’s name is lost to history, and in Mazzakarran holy texts he is only referred to as The Devoured God. In much older times, the Devoured God had followers of his own in the material plane, those who revered him and the sense of community he fostered among his disciples.

Following Mazzakarr’s ascension, his followers nearly wiped out those of the Devoured God’s, erasing all records of him and killing those who believed him. To this day, the followers of the Devoured God have yet to return, as far as anyone is aware.

Freedom From Carceri. Mazzakarr’s ultimate goal is to free himself from Carceri and to enter the material plane. Everything he does with the cult of Mazzakarranism brings him one step closer to freedom.

And when he is free, he will drown the material plane in its own blood, and remake it as he sees fit.

[alpaca-clouds]

Cyberpunk and the Individualist

Keeping the theme of Cyberpunk for this week, I want to talk about one other thing about Cyberpunk, that I super rarely see discussed.

Remember a while ago, when I talked about how western Cyberpunk always had this theme of "Japan is overtaking our economy and soon we will be Japanofied!" because of the economic anxieties towards Japan in he 70s and 80s. Which is why Cyberpunk has all those Japanese aesthetics and the Japanese megacorps and what not. It is because of this anxieties...

But... One thing that is often missed among this is the other part of that anxiety. Japan, despite being a capitalist country, is also a collectivist society. Aka a "you do stuff for the good of society" and what not country. Meanwhile western and especially American capitalism is an individualist country, where everything is about the "do your own and only your own" and the illusion "freedom!!!" 🦅

That also is why so much more people died of the pandemic in the USA than in Japan. Because while the US individualist "FREEDOM 🦅" society made a whole thing of "I feel robbed of my freedom while wearing a mask" the Japanese collectivist society was like: "Sure I am wearing a mask if I can protect society through it."

And here is the Cyberpunk thing. The protagonists in Western Cyberpunk stories are individualists. Sure, they might work in small groups, but they are not part of communities. If they start out with a community, they get divorced from the community through the story. Maybe the community gets killed or maybe they turn against the rugged individualist protagonist.

Originally a lot of western cyberpunk obviously had this idea of the noir kinda hero. The out of his luck private detective and what not. But also the street fighter, who has lost everything. A lot of the early stuff also very much focused on a male perspective - and dare I say it? - a toxic masculine approach to things.

And I think this is also where a lot of the defeatism of Cyberpunk storytelling comes from. Because Cyberpunk is of course dystopic. But it is dystopic in a way that has completely given up on things. Cyberpunk is like: "Don't even try to change the system, IT IS HOPELESS." But... Yeah, duh it is if you are working alone or in a small group. You need a community to fight the system. You need to network to do something.

I feel like the true baseline of where Cyberpunk and Solarpunk are different from each other is in fact the idea of community. Cyberpunk with its rugged individualism does not trust community - Solarpunk does.

And here I go again: We silly humans are no good on our own. We actually need community. We need more community than just our little nuclear family. So, just... open yourself up to work with others. Don't be a lonely Street Samurai.

[heycarrots]

Reading Between the Lines is Back!!!

Stitched With its Color by @etoilesombre

We’re live on Spotify and Apple Podcasts!

Etoile and I discuss their beautiful Madi and Flint story, set moments after they find out that Silver is still alive. They manage to unveil Madi in a fresh new perspective and I take Madi’s distinctive accent out for a spin!

As always, the GORGEOUS cover art is the work of the brilliant @magicbubblepipe and commission sponsored by Mary, aka VVitchqueen!

[snickerdoodlles]

there's a lot of things people blame for why fandoms feel like ghost towns these days, but no one's really talked about the way discord's contributing to it

[futurewife]

I should be giving out selfship agony aunt advice sometimes I feel a little too unserious and unbothered by it all and am very secure in and quite internally validated by my own selfships. however I am thankful for my biggest fans xxx like you do not have to follow my goofy silly fictional boy chronicles. But you do and hopefully part of this is you enjoy my vibe and personality even without the selfshipping. I'm just here to broadcast my massive crushes on guys and fantasise and virtually scrapbook in my e-shrine. me and my fictional boyfriend who loves me forever and ever cause I dreamt us up perfectly :)

[bluebudgie]

Alright gw2 peeps, here's one for all of you with a lot of alts:

All your characters of the same class (e.g. all your rangers) are stuck together in an escape room.

Which of your "class groups" is off the worst and who gets the job done with no problem?

[destinyandcoins]

bruh idk what's the damage on all those spiteful writers who have to have a twist ending and change shit at the last minute when people guess what's going on. when someone speculates about an upcoming twist or catches on to what I've been doing I light up like the fucking vegas strip at dusk

[balestrem]

I think what is so interesting about marginalised groups of people is how they often times form groups that devalue individualism or competition and instead go for a form of collectivism and cooperation instead. Because in western societies individualism and competition is praised and often rewarded, while it often does a lot of damage to humans who are inherently social beings. The queer community, feminist movements (esp. intersectional feminism!), POC groups they all gather in a sort of community, a broader understanding of family, values and ideas. Looking at how people thrive in such safer spaces in communities is proof how community and cooperation is what’s beneficial to humans in general and it helps a society to grow. What I think is important, is that everybody starts to build a community around cooperation and love, in order for us to be able to heal from this capitalist hell. In order to move forward I think we need to stop pitting us against each other and instead create a world where we understand ourselves as a collective which is striving for change, peace, love, equity, kindness, respect and so much more.

[dteamain]

your feelings are valid if you are a women or poc or lgbtq+ that feels upset about this whole thing it is 100% valid.

we can play oppressor olympics with the parent companies of these sites all day long but what it all boils down to is that twitch as a sole platform is way more safe and inclusive than kick will ever be.

it’s great that sapnap feels more valued with bigots but his community does not.

[themythicalfate]

Since the current political environment is so mixed up by bad actors that the majority of people don't know what they are actually advocating for, here is a compact lesson so you know what you are voting for. These slides are from TIKhistory (mostly) who has done his own research after being disenfranchised by the left.

This is not to say that, to use the US as an example, the Republican party is 'good' or even on the right. This should show that even the Republican party is not even on the right anymore and both major parties in the US are on the left; just that the Democratic party is more left than the Republican. Both are bad if you value your individuality, personal freedom, and ability to own your own stuff without corporations breathing down your back.

[the-hopeful-realist]

The Empire Is Not Us

I vaguely remember when I first encountered sociology and wondered, ‘what’s that about.’ I had taken an ‘aptitude test’ during my first year in college. It indicated that my highest strengths were in ‘science’ and ‘social.’ My first thought was, “What’s ‘social?” When I explored the social sciences, especially sociology and psychology, I encountered a great deal of talk about the relations…

[vivalasthedas]

youtube hit piece video essays about abolute nobodies in more niche hobbies that end up driving those people completely offline and smearing their name over the most mildly shitty behaviour is wretched and way too common

[gravitascivics]

VIABILITY OF THE LIBERATED FEDERALISM, VII

With this posting, this blog continues to make its viability statement regarding the mental construct, liberated federalism.  The construct is proposed by this blogger to guide the efforts of civics educators in selecting the content they present to secondary students in American classrooms.  To date, the blog has described how the construct measures up to Eugene Meehan’s criteria[1] – the criteria’s first six concerns – and this posting will address the seventh, predictability, and eight, control.

            The criterion, predictability, asks:  Does a construct predict conditions associated with the phenomena in question?  There are two key predictive statements that can be made regarding the use of the liberated federalism model.  One, effective political behavior is conducted by associations, not individuals.[2]  Two, that dysfunctional social behavior will be lessened by shifting from an individual to communal political culture orientation.[3] 

          As this blog has related in its historical account of past and present political views (an account that starts with its posting, “Parochial’s Comprehensiveness,” April 1, 2022), the American society has moved from a more communally oriented perspective of the parochial/traditional federalism view to the individualistic, natural rights perspective, and consequently has experienced a drift to a more crime-ridden and uncivil society.[4]

          The model presented here is a compromise between the older versions of responsible citizenship and the liberated individualism the nation has adopted as its prominent political view.  Yes, this synthesis also includes ideas from critical theory – mainly its concerns for the underprivileged – but in the main, liberated federalism incorporates the communal concerns federalism promotes and the de-parochialism natural rights favors.

          And this posting has room for the last of Meehan’s criteria, that being control.  That criterion asks:  Does a construct imply ways to control the phenomena in question?  That is, does it have purpose?  The presented model identifies the relevant variables affecting both the communal harmony and the moral decision-making as pursuant to the analysis Philip Selznick[5] provides and is congruent with the ideas advanced by Amitai Etzioni,[6] Daniel Elazar,[7] Donald S. Lutz,[8] Robert D. Putnam,[9] and Michael J. Sandel.[10]

          In general, these writers provide ideas about how a communally strong, federally organized, functional society operates and maintains itself.  Insofar as their ideas are contained in the presented model and are true to their purpose, the model presented implies ways of controlling the phenomena in question:  through effective and moral political behavior.  This is placed in priority since, as often claimed in this blog, in the long run societal survival depends upon these qualities.

          The next posting will add two criteria to Meehan’s list.  They are the criteria, abstract level, and motivation.  These last two more directly address the concerns of teachers.

[1] For readers wishing to read the previous postings relating these viability claims that the blog is making, they can read the last six postings found in the online site http://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/.  As for Meehan’s criteria, see Eugene J. Meehan, Contemporary Political Thought:  A Critical Study (Homewood, IL:  Dorsey Press, 1967).  To date, the blog has reviewed comprehensiveness, power, precision, consistency/reliability, isomorphism, and compatibility.

[2] Philip Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth:  Social Theory and the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1992).

[3] Michael Walzer, On Toleration (New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press, 1997).  The predictions this model would make are qualitative because the model does not provide quantitative values to variables it identifies.

[4] As for individualistic view being dominant, see Jean M. Twenge, Generations:  The Real Differences between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents – and What They Mean for America’s Future (New York, NY:  Atria Books, 2023).

[5] Philip Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth:  Social Theory and the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1992).

[6] Amitai Etzioni, The Spirit of Community:  Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda (New York, NY:  Crown Publisher, 1993)

[7] Daniel J. Elazar, “How federal is the Constitution? Thoroughly.”  In a booklet of readings, Readings for classes taught by Professor Elazar (1994, 1-30) prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute. Conducted in Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

[8] Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA:  Louisiana State University Press, 1988).

[9] Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone:  The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY:  Simon and Schuster, 2000).

[10] Michael J. Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent:  America in Search of a Public Philosophy (Cambridge, MA:  The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996).

[cigaretteparfum]

i just clocked why sometimes but not all the time when i see someone being like, "yes but this group isnt the one doing this" or something along those lines, i get so annoyed but again, only sometimes.

like for example if someone's saying like, idk, "girls got the not like other girls syndrome bc they want to be accepted by guys around them" and someone swoop in being, "guys werent the one making them do that though" am more or less just like. yea. yea, i get what the op was saying but this commenter isnt wrong and thus not annoying.

but if the op was like, "our culture and society place so much value in male approval that a lot of girls developed not like other girls syndrome for that approval" and then a person swoops in giving the same counter as before am like, oh my god shut up literally reread the whole thing again.

cause like, am personally more of the mindset that if youre speaking in public thats on you to minimise as much potential misunderstanding as possible. i mean it's also still on you on private convos but like those are usually more with people you already know so it's whatever, they prolly already got what you meant. and unless the person is a massive asshole clarification is prolly just "huh wdym" "like, this, yknow??" kinda deal. but in public, or with strangers, since they dont know anything about you, and with the tendency of people easier to get confrontational, disclaimers or just clear phrasing in general is like, a courtesy ig. less headache for you too; if someone misunderstands what you said it's easier to be like, "i literally cannot be any clearer than this, this is a you problem" when you've communicated what you meant well enough.

which is why am not exactly a fan of generalisation in public/strangers. like, unless it's pretty clear that it wasnt meant to be taken seriously. i get what people mean when they say stuff like, idk, "men aint shit" but also like ... if you say that unironically, and in what's supposed to be a genuine/serious convo about stuff, and you dont elaborate further.... like i get what youre getting at but also people saying, "not all men" arent wrong either. and i'll be honest as much as i dont disagree with the sentiment behind the slogan and why it came to be at all, whenever these things happen and the usual debate ensues am just like. this is silly. it's silly. am sorry. none of you are having the same conversation with one another. yes, sorry, the person saying not all men was correct actually. no, you werent talking about that, but ostensibly by the phrasing you were. so just. have fun now, i guess.

so when, now, the person is clearly not talking about men, or any group, let alone generalising anyone, and is instead pointing out to the larger entity that affects everyone by making things harder for one group and easier for another ... but not talking about individuals ... to have someone swooping in to be like "not all men/[insert any other demographic]" it's like. youre the silly one here actually. youre clowning so hard but no one attends your gig. sad. embarrassing. literally no one is talking about that. if someone points out the system benefits you thats not someone pointing their finger at you. this isnt about you. like legitimately shut up.

yknow???

[yeahivegotanaccount]

Being siblings is translating for eachother.