#REINFORCEMENT INCOMING

[silverfootsieamphibian]

Helldiver 2 alias Freedom Simulator

[hedgewitchnecromancer]

how do i explain to my parents that there’s a difference between i have no active plans today and im actively looking for work to do like im sitting here on the couch eating breakfast at 11 you don’t need to tell me i need to do scholarships with my time i didn’t ask for that

[prophecyofgray]

my favorite part about being a tutor is that i get to say "i'm the tutorer!" and then tutor all over the place

[kelsonius]

I firmly believe differences between cishet men and women are mostly (if not fully) the result of nurture, and not acknowledging this only makes it worse

[pigaletta]

.

[capitalism-is-a-psychopathy]

Billionaires destroy more than they create

In a land often championed for its economic opportunity and equality, the American Dream promises that anyone who works hard can rise to prosperity. But for many in today’s middle and lower economic classes, that dream is fading, shadowed by a reality that feels increasingly rigged. At the heart of this issue lies a stark and glaring imbalance: billionaires, a minuscule fraction of the population, wield a staggering concentration of wealth and influence. This is not just an issue of economics but one that touches the foundations of democracy and fairness.

Imagine the economy as a massive machine, built to churn wealth throughout society. In an ideal world, this wealth would cycle effectively, where each part contributes and benefits in turn. But as billionaires amass wealth at unprecedented levels, this machine has come to function more like a funnel, siphoning resources from the broader society and concentrating them at the very top. This dynamic, driven by complex financial structures and tax strategies, isn’t merely an accumulation of personal fortunes but a systematic extraction from the economic potential of others. The capital that could have flowed through wages, education, and public infrastructure is often diverted into private bank accounts and shell companies, rarely benefiting the people who drive and build the economy day by day.

As wealth accumulates at the top, so too does political influence. Billionaires, with vast financial resources, can fund political campaigns, lobbyists, and entire networks of think tanks dedicated to shaping policy. Through these channels, they push for tax policies, regulations, and trade agreements that benefit the ultra-wealthy at the expense of middle- and lower-income families. Politicians, indebted to these donors, increasingly look to billionaire interests rather than to constituents’ needs. This creates a disturbing feedback loop: billionaires influence politics to further policies that reinforce their own wealth and power, leaving the broader populace with dwindling opportunities to influence their own government.

This concentrated power extends far beyond campaign finance and lobbying. With ownership over significant segments of media networks, billionaires control the narratives that millions consume daily. Through these media outlets, they shape public opinion, diverting attention from policies that would challenge wealth accumulation and pushing narratives that frame the ultra-wealthy as essential “job creators” or “innovators” rather than acknowledging their role in widening economic divides. Issues that might threaten their economic stranglehold are often buried, while others, that create division and distract, are amplified.

For the middle and lower classes, this confluence of wealth, media, and political power has a real impact. Stagnant wages, diminishing job security, and rising costs of living aren’t natural outcomes of a complex economy—they’re symptoms of a system shaped to benefit those at the top. Policies that could lift working-class Americans, like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, or better labor protections, are often stifled in legislative deadlock, thanks in part to the political influence of the ultra-wealthy who stand to lose from them.

So, as this cycle continues, the gap between billionaires and everyone else widens. The billions accumulated at the top no longer signify mere success but a barrier to mobility for everyone else. The middle and lower classes find themselves carrying the economic burdens, often working harder for less. Meanwhile, billionaires remain insulated, living in a different economic reality, one far removed from the struggles of the average American. This isn’t just an economic imbalance but a distortion of democracy itself, as the machinery of power and influence is pulled further from the reach of ordinary citizens and held more tightly by those whose interests rarely align with theirs.

Without addressing this imbalance, the promise of opportunity, the cornerstone of the American Dream, becomes less attainable with each passing year, not just for the lower and middle classes but for the nation’s future as a whole.

Addressing their manipulation

Billionaires and their advocates often employ a familiar set of narratives to justify their wealth and the structures that enable it. These arguments, framed in terms of the free market, capitalism, or fear of socialism, are not only misleading but often serve to distract from the deeper systemic issues at play. Below is a breakdown of these claims and the counterarguments that expose their flaws:

1. “It’s Just the Free Market at Work”

The myth of the “free market” implies that billionaires achieve their wealth purely through talent, innovation, and competition in a market where everyone has equal opportunity. But in reality, the U.S. economy is far from a genuinely “free” market.

Counterpoints:

• Government Subsidies and Tax Breaks: Many billionaires’ businesses rely heavily on taxpayer-funded subsidies, special tax breaks, and other forms of government assistance. Large corporations frequently lobby for policies that grant them tax advantages, including offshore loopholes and capital gains tax breaks. This creates an environment where they aren’t competing on equal ground but rather with significant state support, distorting the market in their favor.

• Anti-Competitive Practices: Many large corporations, especially in tech and finance, engage in monopolistic behavior, buying out competitors or using aggressive tactics to drive them out of the market. This concentration of power stifles competition, contradicting the notion of a “free” market where anyone can succeed if they work hard.

• Inherited Wealth and Privilege: A significant portion of billionaire wealth is inherited rather than self-made. Generational wealth compounds, giving the ultra-wealthy an enormous head start over those without similar family resources. This challenges the idea that wealth accumulation is simply the product of individual merit or a fair market.

2. “This Is What Capitalism Is Supposed to Look Like”

The argument here suggests that capitalism is an inherently competitive system, where the most successful rise to the top, benefiting everyone through innovation and job creation. This narrative hinges on the idea of “trickle-down economics,” where the wealth of the richest eventually spreads throughout society.

Counterpoints:

• Trickle-Down Economics Doesn’t Work: Decades of evidence show that wealth rarely “trickles down” to the rest of society in any meaningful way. Income inequality has only widened, with wages stagnating for most workers while billionaire wealth has soared. Billionaires tend to reinvest wealth in ways that concentrate their holdings, like in stocks, rather than in ways that benefit the broader economy.

• Wealth Extraction, Not Wealth Creation: Many billionaires achieve and maintain their fortunes through rent-seeking behavior—extracting wealth from existing resources rather than creating new value. Hedge funds, private equity, and real estate empires often profit by cutting costs (like labor) rather than by innovating or producing new goods and services. This dynamic benefits investors but hurts workers and consumers.

• Capitalism Can Take Other Forms: The capitalism practiced in the U.S. today, sometimes called “neoliberal capitalism,” focuses on minimal regulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and privatization. However, other countries demonstrate that capitalism can function with stronger social safety nets, wealth redistribution policies, and tighter regulations on corporate power. Nordic countries, for example, balance capitalism with robust welfare systems, ensuring a more equitable distribution of wealth and services.

3. “Without Billionaires, There Would Be No Innovation or Job Creation”

A popular myth is that billionaires are essential “job creators” and “innovators” whose wealth ultimately benefits society by funding new businesses and creating employment. This claim positions billionaires as indispensable to economic growth.

Counterpoints:

• Public Funding Fuels Innovation: Many of the biggest technological advances, including the internet, GPS, and medical breakthroughs, were developed with public funding rather than billionaire investments. Government research grants and subsidies often lay the groundwork for major innovations that billionaires later profit from. In other words, society bears much of the financial risk, while billionaires reap the rewards.

• Small Businesses Create Most Jobs: Small businesses, not billionaires or large corporations, are responsible for most job creation in the United States. Big corporations often eliminate jobs through automation, outsourcing, or consolidation. They may employ a large workforce, but they also tend to exploit workers through low wages, precarious employment, and cost-cutting measures.

• Billionaires Accumulate Wealth Through Wealth, Not Innovation: Many billionaires maintain their wealth not by creating jobs or innovating but by using their existing capital to generate more wealth, often through financial instruments that have little to do with actual economic productivity. Stock buybacks, dividends, and passive investments grow their fortunes without necessarily contributing to broader economic prosperity.

4. “Any Alternative Is Socialism or Communism”

When calls arise for higher taxes on the wealthy, stricter regulations, or broader social programs, the response is often to invoke the fear of “socialism” or “communism.” This argument seeks to paint any attempt at wealth redistribution or regulation as a slippery slope toward total government control.

Counterpoints:

• Social Safety Nets and Regulations Are Not Socialism: Social safety nets, progressive taxation, and regulations do not equate to socialism or communism; they’re features of a balanced capitalist system that seeks to prevent extreme inequality and protect public welfare. Countries like Germany, Canada, and Denmark combine regulated capitalism with strong social programs, resulting in healthier economies and greater well-being for citizens without abandoning capitalism.

• Inequality Threatens Capitalism: Growing inequality and economic instability can undermine the foundations of capitalism. A healthy capitalist economy requires a strong middle class with buying power, which excessive wealth concentration undermines. Reforms like progressive taxation, labor protections, and universal healthcare aren’t a rejection of capitalism but rather a means of stabilizing it.

• Historical Success of Mixed Economies: Many of the most successful and prosperous countries practice a mixed economy, where capitalism coexists with social policies that promote equality. The U.S. itself has employed a mixed economy model in the past, particularly after the New Deal, which implemented social safety nets, labor protections, and financial regulations that led to a period of unprecedented growth and prosperity for the middle class.

5. “They Earned It Fair and Square”

Finally, the idea persists that billionaires deserve their wealth because they “earned” it. This argument suggests that any policy aiming to redistribute wealth is fundamentally unfair, penalizing those who worked hard to succeed.

Counterpoints:

• Systemic Advantages and Wealth Hoarding: As previously mentioned, many billionaires begin with advantages—like family wealth or elite educational opportunities—that aren’t available to most people. Additionally, billionaires often employ complex strategies to avoid taxes, lobby for favorable regulations, and capitalize on government subsidies. These factors mean they haven’t earned wealth solely through hard work or merit.

• Billionaires Didn’t Build Alone: No billionaire operates in isolation; they rely on infrastructure, public education, and the work of thousands or millions of employees. A CEO’s wealth is made possible by a web of collective contributions, yet that wealth is rarely shared equitably. While billionaires might be rewarded for their role, their fortune is far from the result of individual effort alone.

In short, these narratives around billionaires often mask a more uncomfortable truth: today’s system is structured in ways that favor the ultra-wealthy at the expense of the broader population. Economic reform, rather than a threat to capitalism, is a necessary step to ensure a more just, equitable society where wealth accumulation doesn’t depend on privilege, influence, or systemic manipulation.

Making a change

Addressing the economic imbalance and the unchecked power of the ultra-wealthy presents a unique challenge, especially given the intense political polarization in the United States. For the middle and lower classes to push back effectively, they will need to build a coalition that transcends party lines and focuses on shared economic interests rather than divisive rhetoric.

1. Build Awareness Through Shared Issues, Not Ideology

The rhetoric around “free markets” and “socialism” often obscures real issues of economic struggle that affect both conservative and progressive working- and middle-class citizens alike. Instead of framing the issue in ideological terms, framing it in terms of tangible, shared grievances can help bridge the divide:

• Focus on Economic Inequality: Income stagnation, unaffordable healthcare, and housing insecurity are felt across the political spectrum. By shifting the narrative from “class warfare” to “economic fairness,” advocates can sidestep partisan language and emphasize the shared experience of economic struggle.

• Highlight the Impact of Corporate Power on Local Communities: Framing issues around how large corporations hurt small, local businesses can resonate strongly with both sides of the political spectrum. This approach often taps into conservative values around community and self-reliance, while also aligning with progressive critiques of corporate overreach.

2. Organize Around Labor Rights and Worker Protections

Historically, unions have been instrumental in improving working conditions and advocating for fair wages, and labor movements transcend political divisions. Many Americans—left, right, and center—share concerns about the erosion of workers’ rights, stagnant wages, and the declining influence of the average worker.

• Expand Union Participation and Labor Movements: Reinvigorating unions and expanding labor protections could give workers a stronger collective voice. New labor movements that focus on economic rights without overtly partisan language could attract support across the political spectrum, particularly when they champion issues like fair wages, workplace safety, and job security.

• Support Worker Cooperatives and Employee-Owned Businesses: Promoting models like worker cooperatives or employee-owned businesses can offer a compelling alternative to the current structure of corporate ownership without resorting to divisive rhetoric. These models prioritize local control and shared economic benefits, appealing to values of self-sufficiency and fairness.

3. Pressure Politicians on Key Economic Policies

A key to bridging the partisan gap is to focus on policies that benefit the broader populace rather than framing them as part of any ideological agenda. The majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, support policies like fair taxation, healthcare reform, and increased access to education when framed in terms of fairness and opportunity.

• Promote Tax Reform as “Fairness,” Not Redistribution: Instead of advocating for “redistribution,” proponents can push for tax policies that ensure everyone pays their fair share. Policies like a wealth tax or higher taxes on capital gains can be framed as holding the ultra-wealthy accountable rather than demonizing them, a stance that resonates with people who value fairness and personal responsibility.

• Advocate for Antitrust Legislation: Pushing for stronger antitrust laws to break up monopolies and prevent anti-competitive practices can appeal to both sides. For conservatives, this aligns with the values of market competition; for progressives, it aligns with corporate accountability and consumer protection.

4. Engage in Alternative Media and Independent Journalism

The ultra-wealthy often own or influence major media outlets, which can shape public opinion in ways that protect their interests. For the middle and lower classes to gain a clearer view of economic issues, alternative media sources and independent journalism that aren’t beholden to billionaire interests are crucial.

• Support Independent News Outlets: A growing number of independent news organizations are dedicated to in-depth economic reporting without catering to corporate interests. Supporting these outlets allows individuals to access a range of perspectives that help reveal the true impact of policies on ordinary people.

• Utilize Social Media Responsibly to Build Cross-Party Awareness: Social media, while often a divisive force, can also be used to spread information about economic injustice. When used responsibly to share facts, case studies, and stories of economic hardship, it can cut through the rhetoric and provide people across the political spectrum with a shared understanding of the issues.

5. Prioritize Voting Reform and Campaign Finance Reform

Money in politics is one of the core reasons why economic policies favor the wealthy. Bipartisan support for reducing corporate influence in politics is possible, especially when the focus is on fairness, transparency, and accountability in government.

• Promote Campaign Finance Reform as an Anti-Corruption Effort: Campaign finance reform, which seeks to limit the influence of wealthy donors and corporations on elections, can appeal to conservatives and liberals alike who are frustrated with the influence of money in politics. Instead of framing it as an anti-capitalist measure, framing it as an anti-corruption measure can attract broader support.

• Support Voting Reforms for a More Representative Democracy: Reforms like ranked-choice voting, ending gerrymandering, and preventing voter suppression can help create a political environment that more accurately represents the will of the people rather than special interests. By creating a more representative democracy, policies that reflect the economic needs of the middle and lower classes have a better chance of being enacted.

6. Create Cross-Partisan Grassroots Coalitions Focused on Economic Issues

Many grassroots organizations are focused on economic justice, but they tend to align themselves with one side of the political spectrum, often losing potential support in the process. Building cross-partisan coalitions that emphasize shared economic challenges rather than ideological differences could foster stronger, more united advocacy for middle- and working-class issues.

• Organize Around Issues, Not Parties: Groups like the Poor People’s Campaign, which focuses on poverty and economic justice, have successfully united people across political lines around issues that transcend party loyalty. This approach allows people to focus on their shared struggles, making the movement harder for politicians to ignore.

• Build Community-Level Alliances: Many economic issues are felt acutely at the local level. By focusing on community-level initiatives that address healthcare, affordable housing, and education, people can create practical, on-the-ground solutions that don’t require alignment with national politics. These local successes can serve as models for broader change.

7. Emphasize Civic Education on Economic Policies

Finally, bridging the gap will require education and awareness. Many people accept billionaire-fueled rhetoric because they lack exposure to alternative perspectives. Civic education efforts that focus on teaching economic principles, tax policy, and the influence of corporate power can empower people to understand the real impacts of current policies on their lives.

• Create Accessible Educational Resources: Podcasts, documentaries, workshops, and community discussions can all serve as tools for demystifying economic issues. When people have a clearer understanding of how things like tax policies and wage laws work, they are better equipped to make informed decisions.

• Promote Financial Literacy and Empower Individuals: Financial literacy programs that help individuals understand budgeting, credit, and investments empower people to navigate the economy more effectively. While this doesn’t directly address systemic issues, it gives individuals a greater understanding of the forces shaping their lives and can be a first step toward broader engagement.

By approaching these issues with a focus on shared struggles, fairness, and practical solutions, the middle and lower classes can work together to build a movement that transcends political divides. This movement can challenge the status quo without becoming mired in divisive ideological battles. The real strength of such an effort lies in its ability to unite ordinary people around a common vision for a fairer, more just economic system—one that serves all citizens, not just the wealthiest few.

[unavailableapple]

Like…DOES patriarchy hurt men though? There certain ways that it does but I feel like a lot of people insist it hurts men MORE. And uh…does it though?

-They have to be the breadwinner. Except they don’t…most households in the United States are two-income. It’s very difficult to have a one-income household in the modern climate of the economy. And women who still work as much as their husbands also have to come home and cook, clean, care for children, do laundry, etc.

-They aren’t allowed to dress fun. Except they are? Harry Styles gets on the cover of magazines for wearing an ugly dress. Movies like Wicked repeatedly show men in skirts. Social media is full of men wearing makeup and cute outfits and heels. I feel it’s become pretty normalized now for men to dress how they like. It’s just also normalized for them to dress comfortably, whereas I get a ridiculous amount of pushback for wearing pants, no makeup, not shaving my legs, and having short hair.

-They aren’t allowed to show emotions. Except they are? How many times has a video gone viral of a man crying because he loves his kids. All television, movies, books, etc are ever about is men’s feelings. Philosophy pretty much boils down to “men are sad”. The male loneliness epidemic is all I ever hear about…

-Men aren’t allowed to be gay. Neither are women???? I keep seeing this idea that women have an easier time being gay because they’re fetishized so much, whereas gay men are just treated as gross and weird. Sorry but like…no. Being treated like a porn search is not acceptance.

When men do experience hatred for being gay, wearing pink, or crying it’s literally because those things are womanly. Having sex with men is associated with women (that’s why “it’s not gay if you top”), pink is the “girl” color, crying is “feminine” aka WEAK. It all just reinforces the same thing: ‘woman’ is the worst thing to be.

But men are the victims here?

[northgazaupdates]

Mohammed Al-Habil desperately needs physical therapy. He was seriously injured in a series of IOF attacks, one of which also resulted in both a serious wound to his leg, and in the martyrdom of his older brother. His father was also martyred by the IOF in 2014.

Mohammed spent several months receiving treatment for his leg in a hospital, and his injuries caused him to lose all function in his wounded leg. After being discharged from the hospital, he was prescribed almost daily physical therapy.

This therapy costs $50 USD per session, and Mohammed has had to miss many sessions due to a lack of funds. He urgently needs these sessions, or else his leg will not heal properly and he will never regain full use!

I know $50/day is a lot of money. If it sounds like a lot to you, imagine the burden it is on Mohammed! Including him, three people in his family are either temporarily or permanently disabled. None of them have any way of generating income, yet they must provide for their medications, treatments, educational materials, materials to reinforce their tent against the rain and wind, food, water, and other basic necessities.

All the while, Mohammed’s health continues to be threatened, and new complications and expenses continue to arise. Now, Mohammed @mohammedalhabil2000 is very sick. He is living in a flimsy makeshift fabric tent, and is constantly soaked by the rain and chilled by the cold. This has resulted in him contracting a fever, which continues to rise. Imagine only having use of one leg, being displaced from your home, living in a tent, while being pounded by winter rains!!

Paying for therapy sessions and helping him afford medical treatments and basic needs will help protect his health. It will take a huge load off of Mohammed and his family in the short-term, as well as support his ability to move long-term. Please help protect his health by supporting his medical treatment!

If even a portion of you can give even $5 (€5 EUR), it will have an enormous positive impact on Mohammed’s life!

Thank you❤️

Link to share: https://gofund.me/326eaa2d

[galaxy-stardust]

Simon Ghost Riley x you

Gift from Simon 🐾

Part 3

The days passed too quickly. It always felt like time slipped through your fingers whenever Simon was home. Before you knew it, he was standing in the hallway, his duffle bag slung over his shoulder, Shadow sitting obediently by your feet. She had grown surprisingly disciplined with Simon’s training, though you knew her progress was also thanks to the bond you’d been building with her.

Simon crouched down, scratching behind Shadow’s ears. “You take care of her, yeah?” he said to the puppy, who wagged her tail in response.

“She’s not the one you need to worry about,” you said softly, your arms crossed as you tried to keep your emotions in check.

Simon stood, his dark eyes locking onto yours. He reached out, his gloved hand brushing your cheek. “You’ll be fine, love. You’re stronger than you think.”

You swallowed hard, nodding. “I just wish you didn’t have to go.”

“I know,” he murmured, leaning down to press a kiss to your forehead. “But I’ll call when I can. And I’ll come back to you.”

With one last lingering look, he turned and walked out the door, leaving the apartment feeling colder and emptier than it had in weeks.

The first few days were the hardest. Shadow sensed your unease, staying close to you wherever you went. She’d curl up at your feet while you worked and nudge you with her nose when you seemed particularly down.

Late one night, as you sat on the couch scrolling through your phone, it buzzed with a new message.

Simon: Still awake, love?

Your heart leapt at the sight of his name. You quickly typed back.

You: Yeah. Couldn’t sleep. Are you okay?

There was a pause before his reply.

Simon: I’m fine. Long day, but I needed to hear from you.

You: I miss you.

Simon: I miss you too. Tell me about your day. How’s Shadow?

You smiled, glancing at the puppy snoozing beside you.

You: She’s doing great. She’s learned “stay” and “come” without treats now. But she keeps trying to steal my socks.

Simon: Smart girl. She’s keeping you on your toes.

You: She’s doing her best to fill the void you left.

The typing indicator blinked for a moment before his response came through.

Simon: I’m sorry I have to leave, love. You mean the world to me.

Your chest tightened, and you hesitated before typing back.

You: I know. Just come back to me in one piece, okay?

Simon: Always. Get some rest, yeah? I’ll call when I can.

Weeks passed, and Shadow grew more confident and skilled. You worked with her daily, reinforcing the commands Simon had taught her and adding new ones. She’d gone from a clumsy, playful puppy to a well-trained companion, though her mischievous streak still peeked through.

One evening, as you sat on the floor playing tug-of-war with Shadow, your phone buzzed with an incoming call. You scrambled to answer it, your heart racing when you saw Simon’s name.

“Hey,” you said, trying to keep your voice steady.

“Hey, love,” Simon’s deep voice rumbled through the phone. “How’re you holding up?”

“I’m okay. Just tired. Shadow’s been keeping me busy.”

“I’ll bet. She giving you trouble?”

“Only when she’s stealing my socks,” you said with a small laugh.

Simon chuckled. “She’s got good taste, then.”

There was a pause, the kind that felt heavy with unspoken words. Finally, you broke the silence. “How are you? Are you safe?”

“I’m fine,” he said, his voice softening. “Just tired like you. Long days, but thinking about you helps.”

Your cheeks flushed, and you bit your lip. “What do you think about?”

“You, in our bed. Curled up with Shadow. Or the way you look in the morning, hair all messy, wearing my shirt.” His voice dropped lower, sending a shiver down your spine. “I miss touching you, holding you. I miss your laugh, your smile… everything.”

Your breath hitched. “Simon…”

“I’ll be home soon,” he said, his tone filled with quiet promise. “And when I am, I’m not letting you out of my sight.”

You smiled through the tears that pricked your eyes. “I’ll hold you to that.”

The next few weeks flew by as you focused on work and Shadow’s training. She’d grown noticeably larger, her once floppy ears now standing tall. She was fiercely loyal, sticking to your side during walks and alerting you to any strange sounds in the apartment.

One evening, as you prepared dinner, Shadow suddenly perked up, her tail wagging furiously as she ran to the door. You frowned, wiping your hands on a towel before following her.

The knock on the door made your heart leap. You rushed to open it, and there he was—Simon, his duffle bag at his feet, Shadow practically vibrating with excitement as she jumped up to greet him.

“Hey, love,” he said, his voice warm and tired.

You threw your arms around him, burying your face in his chest. “You’re home.”

“I told you I’d come back,” he murmured, holding you tightly.

Shadow barked happily at your feet, and Simon chuckled. “Missed me too, did you, girl?”

You pulled back just enough to look at him, your hands still gripping his jacket. “You’re staying for a while this time, right?”

“For as long as I can,” he promised, his dark eyes soft as they met yours.

In that moment, with Simon back and Shadow by your side, the loneliness that had haunted you disappeared. For now, you were whole again.

[ssriuser]

unironically if people like kyle rittenhouse and daniel penny are able to walk free i see no reason why luigi mangione shouldn’t be able to walk free either. the united states has zero problems with vigilantism when it’s targeted towards poor people, black people, protesters, etc and reinforces a right wing agenda

not to mention everyday the us government wakes up and decides to play the judge, jury, and executioner towards palestinians with absolutely no consequences

and let us not forget our incoming president is a rapist convicted of multiple felonies

tired of this bullshit sentiment that’s there’s no place for violence in the us. the united states loves violence as long as it not committed towards rich people

[ragde890]

Hunter x Hunter 405 is probably the best chapter of this batch so far.

(commentary incoming)

The whole Hisoka monologue is just so good. It also reinforces Hisoka's actual obsession. A lot of people seem to misinterpret Hisoka as someone with a "fetish for powerful people". This is not completely wrong, but it is inaccurate. Hisoka's actual fetish comes from a power fantasy. It's not powerful people what turns him on: it is the fact that he will be stronger, he will defeat them. And not only that, he will destroy them. He has to come at top. That's why, when he fights Kastro, he isn't satisfied by only beating him: he has to break his mind down, killing him mentally before he kills him physically. It is also something "romantic" in his mind. He doesn't just fight these people: he forms a bond of them before destroying them. He was very fond of Gon, Machi and Chrollo, and not just on a "they're strong; I wanna destroy them" level. That's also why he killed Shalnark and Kortopi after Chrollo beat him. His ego-driven power fantasy was shattered. His bruised ego made him petty, because he is a deeply childish person.

Also, fun fact. The thing Hisoka's dancing with looks like the weird toy/trap/magical beast seen in chapter 4. Likely a coincidence as it is just a very simple design.

Then we get the confirmation of the "Bonolenov is Hisoka" theory, which I did not expect. I talked a lot about this theory and people always treated me like crazy (although I must admit that I believed the "Chrollo is Hisoka" more than this one).

The "another fake?" line is weird, though. Is it a mistranslation or is he actually implying that this second Hisoka isn't Hisoka either? It doesn't seem realistic. Although imagine we had a situation where Bonolenov and Illumi are both transformed into Hisoka and Hisoka is transformed into Illumi. Very contrived. But it'd be hilarious.

Just as a fun fact, I know Bonolenov's abilities might look inconsistent, but they're not. In the Chimera Ant Arc, his hatsu allows him to summon a small replica of the planet Jupiter to crash his opponent. Now, he can transform with it. That's because Metamorphose is a reference to Ovid's Metamorphosis!

Then we get to the Lisnorth scene.

This guy is actually the same dude that was responsible of Sarasa's death.

We can now confirm that they did get revenge. It seems that Togashi's put this here to create a parallelism between the Troupe's revenge against Lisnorth back then and their revenge against Hisoka in the present.

We also got more Heil-Ly and The Troupe in this chapter, and Morena's "Joker" is mentioned.

So hyped for whatever Togashi is cooking with this.

[probablyasocialecologist]

There is no obvious path between today’s machine learning models — which mimic human creativity by predicting the next word, sound, or pixel — and an AI that can form a hostile intent or circumvent our every effort to contain it. Regardless, it is fair to ask why Dr. Frankenstein is holding the pitchfork. Why is it that the people building, deploying, and profiting from AI are the ones leading the call to focus public attention on its existential risk? Well, I can see at least two possible reasons. The first is that it requires far less sacrifice on their part to call attention to a hypothetical threat than to address the more immediate harms and costs that AI is already imposing on society. Today’s AI is plagued by error and replete with bias. It makes up facts and reproduces discriminatory heuristics. It empowers both government and consumer surveillance. AI is displacing labor and exacerbating income and wealth inequality. It poses an enormous and escalating threat to the environment, consuming an enormous and growing amount of energy and fueling a race to extract materials from a beleaguered Earth. These societal costs aren’t easily absorbed. Mitigating them requires a significant commitment of personnel and other resources, which doesn’t make shareholders happy — and which is why the market recently rewarded tech companies for laying off many members of their privacy, security, or ethics teams. How much easier would life be for AI companies if the public instead fixated on speculative theories about far-off threats that may or may not actually bear out? What would action to “mitigate the risk of extinction” even look like? I submit that it would consist of vague whitepapers, series of workshops led by speculative philosophers, and donations to computer science labs that are willing to speak the language of longtermism. This would be a pittance, compared with the effort required to reverse what AI is already doing to displace labor, exacerbate inequality, and accelerate environmental degradation. A second reason the AI community might be motivated to cast the technology as posing an existential risk could be, ironically, to reinforce the idea that AI has enormous potential. Convincing the public that AI is so powerful that it could end human existence would be a pretty effective way for AI scientists to make the case that what they are working on is important. Doomsaying is great marketing. The long-term fear may be that AI will threaten humanity, but the near-term fear, for anyone who doesn’t incorporate AI into their business, agency, or classroom, is that they will be left behind. The same goes for national policy: If AI poses existential risks, U.S. policymakers might say, we better not let China beat us to it for lack of investment or overregulation. (It is telling that Sam Altman — the CEO of OpenAI and a signatory of the Center for AI Safety statement — warned the E.U. that his company will pull out of Europe if regulations become too burdensome.)

[lesbianalanwake]

Severance S2E2:

--holy shit. I see why the season is 10 episodes instead of 9. two episodes to resolve the S1 finale and wind up to the pitch. there was so much legwork in this episode, and so much tension that I could barely sit still.

--I hope they paid Milchick a big overtime bonus in addition to his new salary!!! man did all that in 48 hours!!!

--Mark and Devon.... Mark being in denial about the possibility that Mark S could have been talking about Gemma, when we later see that it's been weighing on him heavily and he needed to talk to Cobel to confront it. it's such a small, small hope.... if he believes in the possibility that Gemma is alive, and it turns out that she is not, it would destroy him completely, and he's already come so close to destroying himself while grieving the first time. but Devon! Devon is so sharp! she knows her brother, and she glimpsed a younger, lighter version of her brother that she hasn't seen in a long time, and she clocked his tone and body language and everything about the situation correctly! and she can't live with the unanswered question of whether Gemma could be alive, because she misses her sister-in-law and misses who her brother used to be! she can't stop thinking about it while Mark is doing everything in his power to not think about it! aaaaah!

--Cobel bookending this episode by being as unhinged and mysterious as ever. we don't even know if she accepted the advisory council position! what is she up to! the final scene is so fucking good because I was like "I bet she's thinking about hitting Mark with her car," and then she screams like a bat out of hell and almost does just that LMAO. and she's still telling him to quit, even though Lumon is doing something significant with Gemma and "Cold Harbor," enough that they need Mark back to finish it, and Cobel knows what it is and wants something from it, and now Mark knows for sure that Gemma is alive because he needed to look Cobel in the eye and ask. I love their weird fucking dynamic. she's so fucking mad at Lumon, but maybe cares about Mark in her own unhinged way?? and his feelings were HURT that she lied to him because he went straight for the only thing that could maybe hurt her feelings a little bit in turn ("I ate your shitty fucking cookies").

--makes me hope that Cobel gets a "villain turned weird ally" arc, and that Milchick is right behind her, because he's already getting a taste of how thankless the severed floor manager position is, getting no guidance beyond "let Kier guide your heart" and having to defend the feat he managed to pull together in 48 hours.

--which brings me to: HELENA. HELENAAA. class traitor arc INCOMING. the "behind the scenes" bit reinforced this too: she is living in a gilded cage (the shot of her on the top floor with the windows acting as bars!) and seeing that her innie of all people gets affection and respect in a way that she never has, and she is enthralled. you can do it baby! I hope you kill your dad!

- I'm glad they clarified that the correct term for complex innie/outie romantic dynamics is "throuple" because Mark/Helly is finally compelling. by itself = eh. as part of Helena's development and possibly some kind of villainous fixation that can't possibly end well no matter how you slice it because Mark/Mark S is also going through a throuple thing with his dead wife who is actually alive, and don't think I've forgotten whatever thing that Helena and Milchick had going on in S1 (which is the only thing I was missing from this ep and hope they revisit) = now we're cooking with gas. not to mention Burt spying on Irving! throuples for days.

--tentatively believing that it really is Helena down there, and they sent her to play the part of Helly R to keep Mark complacent so that Cold Harbor gets finished, because Helly is too much of an unpredictable wild card but Helena is controllable (for now!).

--it is so, so compelling how innies/outies are opposites. Helly is bold and rebellious, Helena is calm and subservient. Mark S is sweet and mild-mannered, Mark is cold and sarcastic. Dylan G is confident and driven, Dylan George is nervous and hesitant. Irving B is obedient and proper, Irving Bailiff is defiant and unconventional. and yet! bits of the other shine through, and we see it more and more, and they're slowly but surely on a collision course.

--the Great Doors interviewer says "you remind me of myself" and looks like Dylan, and I love this show because I can't tell if it's to continue the visual motif of doubling/reflections and show a "what could have been" path for Dylan, or if it's because there is truly something FUCKED going on across this whole town. or both.

--Lumon is in such a precarious position. they're a major global corporation, and they have politicians in their pocket, but there is also a lot of hostility and mistrust from the general public, enough to make a severed employee unhireable. (which further entraps their employees and keeps them dependent on Lumon.... Dylan. 😭) Lumon has to walk a fine line to continue, uh, whatever it is they're doing, without turning the public against them in a way that they couldn't recover from, hence the placating attempts at damage control. but all it would take would be a sufficiently strong spark to light that powder keg.

--because like, man.... I hope Helena and Cobel and Milchick all get their "fuck you Lumon" arcs. god. so many threads poised to unravel out of control and snap with the right push because the line that Lumon is walking is THIN. they do the most to try to control their severed employees, but they seem to take their non-severed employees for granted, and I'm wondering if that will be their undoing.

[howtofightwrite]

What're the effects of receiving a bunch of blunt inpact strikes across the body in a very short period of time?

MC in a suit of armor gets to facetank a super special move and withstands a huge amount of damage but i figure at least rhat everything feels numb and she's gonna feel like shit today as well as next week

It depends on how much physical abuse she takes. Too much kinetic force, even if it's effectively distributed, can still cause internal hemorrhaging or concussions, and can still kill you.

It's probably worth remembering that bruising is “just” subdermal bleeding. So, even though the blood isn't actually leaving your body, it's no longer in your circulatory system, and no longer transporting oxygen to your brain. It's possible, though rare, to bleed to death from extensive bruising without any external bleeding. (Dying from internal hemorrhaging is far more common.)

More realistically, bruises suck. They'll hurt, and be tender, for days to weeks. Even if it's not serious, they could easily end up with some deep muscle bruises that make them absolutely miserable, with minimal actual injuries sustained. (The point of armor is to reduce the effectiveness of incoming harm, so limping off with a bunch of painful bruises is a pretty reasonable outcome.)

Now, armor is usually designed to distribute and minimize incoming kinetic energy. Unless it can fully negate that incoming energy, the risks of injury will remain.

Everything being numb sounds a lot more serious to me. In the moment it's fine, and that could be as simple as an adrenaline rush combined with a lot of pain. However, if it persists into the next week, that starts to sound more like nerve damage, which could mean permanent impairment. Probably with a lot of downtime and physical therapy before she's back up and going. If they were getting bounced around in their armor, there's a very real risk of a pinched (or severed) nerve, which could cause a lifetime of problems.

The biggest potential outcome I haven't touched on yet is concussions. If some of those blows are hitting her in the head, even with a reinforced helmet, that can still result in a concussion and death or permanent brain damage. That said, it can also result in feeling like absolute garbage for a few days, and then recovering. Concussions are no joke, but they are survivable.

So between deep bruising and possibly a concussion, that would have her feeling (and probably) absolutely horrid for a few days. Though, really, if you want something more serious, you've got options now.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[calware]

thoughts incoming. something i think a lot of people online don't realize (and something i wish i could've told myself when i was younger) is that trying to enact punishment on someone you dislike who did or said something wrong for the sake of punishment rarely has a positive effect. especially when it involves attempting to publicly shame/humiliate them, such as writing a callout post with the attempt to get everyone "on your side" and to dislike that person as well. this is because, in many cases, these pursuits result in just making the target angry or upset, which at best just makes them upset and at worse reinforces their ideas. if there's someone online you disagree with and you want to try making a real change, you have to ask yourself if what you're doing is actually going to realistically lead to that outcome or if you're just lashing out in anger

i'm not perfect at this either, in fact i've been on both sides in this situation. i know how it feels to be hurt by someone when you didn't deserve it, so you want that person to hurt too, you want other people to dislike them as much as you do. i really, really get it. i also know what it's like to be cyberbullied online, back when i was a very vocal hater who had a lot of annoyingly bad takes about homestuck and said a lot of things that were at best stupid and at worse parasocial. this, understandably, annoyed a bunch of people, but then some of them decided i should get sent anon hate about it daily. all this did was a) make me feel bad and b) reinforced the idea that i wasn't doing anything wrong, because the people who disagreed with me were also sending me anon hate, so clearly they were in the wrong

i think there are moments where "calling someone out" is helpful, like if someone is running a scam, or if someone is using their platform to groom minors. this is because calling that person out actually helps to prevent them from hurting more people. however, most of the callout posts i've seen on here don't result in any positive effect and usually boil down to "PSA I NEED EVERYONE TO KNOW TUMBLRGUY634 WAS MEAN TO ME!!!!! SPREAD THE WORD!!!!!!", causing a bunch of outrage within that person's circle before fizzling out a while later with no real impact

[pregnantseinfeld]

I've been rewatching some of my old favorites so I'm curious which tumblr would choose.

Now that I've got your attention- please let me tell you something important! Winter is fast approaching, and this means the Alanqar family @zinaanqar will have to deal with the cold and rain in Gaza while living under a fabric tent. Dina has told me about how last winter their bedding was soaked through, how a strong wind can tear their tent away, and the terror of thunder that sounds like bombs.

Along with helping these parents and four children have the funds to evacuate when they can, we can also help them prepare for the winter. They wish to make repairs, get some wood and a protective tarp to help reinforce and keep dry.

These costs, along with the incredibly high prices of everything else in Gaza right now is making just meeting their basic needs extremely difficult. Sugar is $40, they cannot get clothes for their kids, they have no income. You can help them now by donating here, or just sharing this post.

Vetting can be found here @ 268.