#but its the same for all those american (i think its american

[philosopherking1887]

^ I think that's exactly it. Ethnicity is an ancient concept: a group of people joined by shared ancestry, but also, just as importantly, by culture, language, historical memory, and almost always by religion -- at least until quite recently in human history (and still to a certain extent, even within universal religions: most of Europe is Christian, but different ethnicities tend to be associated with different sects (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant of various flavors); and the relatively small presence of Islam in Europe (before recent migration) has been strongly connected to the Albanian and Bosniak ethnicities). Different peoples had different gods; that's just how it was. Ancient empires would sometimes force conquered peoples to worship their conquerors' gods, but that didn't necessarily mean they had to give up their own gods (unless, as with Judaism, their religion didn't permit them to worship or even acknowledge other gods, which was a recurring problem in ancient Jewish history).

The spread of universal religions like Christianity and Islam (and Buddhism, though that's less relevant to this specific discourse) has weakened the connection in many people's understanding between ethnicity and religion. Some people in the West may even think of ethnoreligion as something "backward" that needs to be overcome. Of course, Leftists would never say anything like that about the traditional religions of the various groups indigenous to Africa, the Americas, Australia, or the Pacific Islands; they're very happy to apply the anthropological term "closed practice" for those religious traditions (and misapply it, to the extent that I've seen people on here say that just learning about these traditions, with no intention of trying to adopt them, is impermissible cultural appropriation).

Much as the recent dominance of universal religions has obscured the global predominance of ethnoreligions for most of human history, the recent theoretical and political hegemony of the concept of race has obscured the historical ubiquity of ethnicity as one of the most important units of social organization. In the Western, and especially the North American imagination, an "ethnicity" is, at most, a less important sub-unit of a race, something that maybe used to matter once but doesn't anymore, now that the significance of race has subsumed it. That seems roughly true in U.S. history: whatever inter-ethnic prejudice existed against Germans, Irish, Italians, Slavs, etc. dissipated as each ethnicity was subsumed into the umbrella category "White"; Native American tribal rivalries have fallen by the wayside as they have all had to make common cause against White colonial oppression; European enslavers made no distinction among the various West African ethnicities that people sold into slavery belonged to, and the enslaved people themselves were also forced to set aside inter-ethnic conflicts to form communities; and more recent Black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean experience the same anti-Black discrimination as Black people whose ancestors have been in the U.S. for centuries (at least, to a certain extent), and gradually integrate into Black American culture. In the U.S., race is the primary organizing unit of society, and Americans have trouble understanding the historical importance of ethnicity, and its continuing importance in many parts of the world. They look at inter-ethnic warfare in Africa and see "Black on Black violence" (and often fail to see, e.g., Chinese or Arab oppression of ethnic minorities at all); they assume that because it doesn't involve White people oppressing brown people, there's nothing we can or should do about it, and the blame must ultimately lie with the former European colonial rulers, because if not for them, all of the brown people would be living together in harmony in their Garden of Eden as they surely did before White people came along and fucked everything up (again, I have literally seen people on here saying things to that effect).

(Putting the rest under a cut, because this is getting reeeaally long...)

Jewish identity makes no sense to a world organized by race. The Nazis framed Jewish identity in terms of race, emphasizing the biological over the cultural or religious elements -- though as racists always do, they also pointed to elements of Jewish culture and religion as evidence of racial "inferiority." The dominant Western framework of race divides the world into a few very large groups by geographic region of recent ancestral origin, ignoring ethnic divisions, which are all conceived as internal to racial groups; and as it happens, most are. But the Jews have been dispersed from our original place of origin for so long that the ethnic group crosses racial boundaries. There are Jews who have lived in Europe for centuries and look (for the most part) like White people; Jews who have lived in Africa for centuries and look like Black people (most prominently, the Beta Israel of Ethiopia); Jews who have lived in various parts of the Middle East/SWANA for centuries and look pretty much indistinguishable from the local predominantly Arab populations; Jews who have lived in India, China, and Central Asia, and look like the local populations in those places, too. And of course they do: if they hadn't intermarried with the surrounding populations, the lack of genetic diversity would have been fatal. Out of one side of their mouths, anti-Israel Leftists call Jews "inbred," while out of the other, they say we don't have enough of an ancestral -- read, genetic -- connection to the Levant to have any claim to indigeneity. Would they rather we were even more "inbred"? Oh wait, no, they would rather we had just died out. And if we produce genetic evidence of Middle Eastern ancestry to rebut their claims, they accuse us of doing "20th-century race science."

How can a group of people that have lived all over the world and belong to many different racial categories be an ethnicity, if an ethnicity is understood as a subdivision of a race? If Western Leftists acknowledge the existence of Jews of different races, they can only understand Judaism as a religion, because of course religions -- which to them means universal religions like Christianity and Islam (which Judaism is NOT) -- can cross racial boundaries. More often, however, they assume that all Jews are exactly like Ashkenazi Jews, who are generally the only type they've ever encountered; to them, "Jews of color" means only converts from other races, or the children of recent marriages between (White) Ashkenazi Jews and non-Jewish people of color.

The existence of converts also confuses them: you can obviously convert to a religion, but how could you convert to an ethnicity, which, if understood on the model of race, would involve the impossibility of converting your genetic ancestry? But that's not how ethnicities worked in the ancient world, either: if an outsider chose to live in the community for the rest of their life, to adopt its language, culture, and religious traditions (typically because of marrying a member of the community, but not necessarily), then for all intents and purposes, they came to belong to the ethnic group of their adopted community. Blood, or genetics, is only one of many aspects of the transmission of ethnic identity, while for race, it's the whole ballgame. Sure, some people can "pass" as a member of a different race, but according to the logic of the concept of race, they're always "really" a member of the race they were born into.

Now, the rules of hereditary transmission of race membership may vary depending on the race in question, and the goals of the dominant culture that has constructed it. The Nazis -- famously inspired by the Jim Crow laws of the American South -- applied a variant of the One Drop Rule to Jewish identity -- a logic which is intended to maximize the number of members of a racial group, sometimes to maintain a large enough underclass to meet the demand for cheap labor; in that case, to more carefully "purify" the blood of the German nation (and also generate a larger pool of property that could be confiscated). But Western Leftists, when considering the question of Jewish indigeneity to the Levant -- which they consider identical with the question of whether the Jews have a legitimate moral claim to the land (ask me about the stupidity of that assumption some other time) -- always seem to apply the logic of Blood Quantum (understandably, since that is the logic that has historically been applied to the indigenous inhabitants of North America), which is intended to minimize the number of a racial group, in the hope that they will effectively disappear without the nastiness and bother of having to slaughter all of them. It has always bothered the hell out of the dominant Christian European and Muslim, mostly Arab societies in which Jews have lived for centuries that we have refused to disappear -- much as it has bothered dominant white American society, and the U.S. government, that indigenous communities and cultures refuse to disappear and become a relic of a doomed, tragic history -- and on that point (with respect to the Jews), the political Left has been no different than the Right, from Enlightenment philosophers of the 18th century to the Soviet Union in the 20th century to the "decolonial" Left of today.

Idk how to start this post, but it seems a lot of goyim's train of thought regarding "jews are a religion not an ethno religion" seems to stem from "well nazis believed jews to be an ethnicity and whatever nazis believed is evil, therefore Judaism must only be a religion"

And this is seen a lot in unpacking race theory, which is good as race theory is bad and everyone should be unpacking what they were taught through it, however you cannot just designate jews as a religion and disregard how we view ourselves in the wider conversations surrounding ethnicity and religion.

Because not only is it bad as it leads to a harmful misunderstanding of Judaism and jews, it just create a new race theory framework where jews are yet again harmed.

And this doesn't just apply to jews, it applies to every other ethno religion that exists. Excluding ethno religions from your world view when unpacking race theory, just creates race theory 2, which is still very bad and leads to ethno religions being persecuted. And the only way around that is to uplift and listen to voices from those who are part of ethno religions, which people don't seem to want to do.

[bitchy-peachy]

I don't know whether I should find Trump voters freaking out after learning that Trump doesn't care about him funny or infuriating. It's funny bc literally every reason they had voted for this man was a bold-faced lie and infuriating bc ppl on both sides has be telling them over and over that Trump would fuck America over and now that it's affecting them and their precious gas and egg price, they want to cry about being duped.

I find regretful Trump voters quite pitiful and soulless. Which is quite a lot from me cos when I despise someone to the core I go completely apathetic towards any suffering they may have.

They voted as selfishly as possible. Some didn't even care about the prices or anything, but yes for "sticking it to the libs".

But... While a lot of maga voted for Trump because he openly hates those they hate, there's unfortunately a lot of dumbass people that actually believed he would "unify" America.

(I'm not even joking. I've seen some maga online that are that effing delusional. They really thought they were the "good guys" in voting for the orange skidmark. I swear they need to get slapped for the audacity but I don't want to catch shit from them. )

These are the same people that compared wearing a freaking MASK to slavery so they've always been stupid and also racist af. They blame and project their own mediocrity on minorities and women (even if they're women themselves cos holyshit do maga women hate other women. My own maga mother... Oh she's literally hates everything with a vagina, even animals)

Those voters regretting their vote now... They won't even get the concept of pity from me. (My maga mother and her crying over her VA benefits she voted away lost me forever too.)

They didn't even know what tariffs were ffs. Or that "Obamacare" (a nickname given by republicans themselves, btw 😂) is the ACA they wanted to keep.

They just saw "Obama" in the little nickname and thought "Evil Black Democrat President is robbing us blind. We only want ACA🤬!"

Some are trying to lie to themselves thinking the tariffs will bring back American jobs (😂) and make us buy only "American products" ignoring the fact that our "American products" have imported components that will be affected by these tariffs.

So our "Made in America" shit... Yeah. That's going up.

Oh don't get me started on how more than half of our agriculture is imported and the agriculture that's actually done in our country is done mostly by immigrants that get paid shit wages. (And when Trump deports them all and farmers are forced to hire Americans that couldn't be assed to work a field, the prices will go up for our local agriculture as well)

These morons, we have to call them that, voted for the most epic downward spiral that will tank the American economy for potential decades (not just a few years of "hardship" like that Immigrant-That-Should-Get-Pimp-Smacked-Back-To-Africa Musk claimed.)

Sad thing is that we already had poverty. The middle class no longer exists. It's everyone's poor but with a handful of rich fucks.

And these moronic ass people just freaking put that shit on steroids with their dumb fucking voting.

People tell me I shouldn't insult them so much but shit. They're fucking stupid as hell.

They don't even understand why even relatives and friends don't wanna talk to them anymore 😂.

Oh its not a "difference of opinion". They voted to make us poorer, take rights away from the lgbtqia, women (yes, you miscarry and you can die from it now cos the procedure to remove rotting fetus matter is an abortion which these stupid dumbfuckers are very deaf about.), they voted against ALL POC (including the idiots that voted against themselves. DING DING DING! DENATURALIZATION! America has done it before and Trump will be bringing it back with his fake ass "invasion" emergency to activate the army), they voted against affordable healthcare and therefore fucked over people with preexisting conditions/disabilities etc., they voted against education because republicans need only stupid people to keep them in power.

Heck, they voted against gender affirming care because they think it only affects trans people when there's people with health conditions that require this kind of care (like me. A cis woman that produces too much estrogen that causes me a variety of health problems.)

Red states are behind in everything. Education, health, minimum wages but they're sure winning by being higher in crimes, sex crimes, incest and poverty.

They mooch off blue states taxes. They don't give as much as much back as they take. If it weren't for "demonrats" they'd be completely off the map.

Republican voters like living that way without realizing they could have been so much better.

They keep willingly voting for people that keep them in that life or worse... considering that these elections had very high stakes.

These elections were not like others in the past. He has too much power with the SC, senate and representatives.

Trump voters regretting their votes now should wipe words like freedom and patriot off their vocabulary because they have selfishly and quite stupidly fucked America.

Damn this shit was long, LMFAOOO.

[wheucto]

object show characters being named as their own objects might strike you as odd, but is it really that strange? with humans, differentiating each other using names is necessary. we're all "humans," so there's not much to name off of. physical features, maybe, but people can often share those...

however, with objects, there's a clear distinction to name someone after. and, why do names exist? to distinguish people from one another. why would you make a name, when there's already a perfectly good one right there? and sure, there's people who are the same object, but there's people with the same name too. they'd probably get nicknames/slightly different names... besides, that's why surnames exist.

[hybbat]

I do think a good chunk of the 'cringey atheist' stereotype did come from the fact that, especially americans, regardless of their actual religious status are just casually christian and refer to things through a religious filter and that isn't seen for how overwhelming/obnoxious/frustrating it is. Its absense, such as when writing a story and things like "oh god" or other casual references are remove or replaced, is seen as notable the same way people find the cast being all women or queer being 'abnormal'.

And I think more people, especially here on tumblr, should take a moment from ragging on some kid being "cringey" saying god doesn't exist or making atheist jump around like dancing monkeys to establish they're one of the good respectful ones before they ever even begin to talk about their own thoughts, and examine why so much content just inserts god into a conversation that had nothing to do with religion like it's the expected norm, the same way they examine the invasiveness of casual heteronormativity.

[itsaboutloveposts]

Hi, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post! 💗 It’s been quite a while since I engaged with anything related to Storm and Silence. I read the series when I was in high school. I was around 14 years old, and I had such a great time with it. Now, about ten years later, I’ve been thinking about it and decided to search for discussions. Reading through the comments here has brought back memories, but it’s also left me questioning how I now feel about the use of slurs in literature 🤔

I wonder, does your stance apply only to works on Wattpad, or does it extend to all forms of literature?

I ask this because there’s a similar critique and backlash against To Kill a Mockingbird in my country. Here, the book is being phased out of schools because of its use of the N-word. Personally, this deeply pains me because I believe To Kill a Mockingbird is an incredibly necessary book. I see literature as a mirror and a lens that reflect its time and allows us to examine those contexts critically. The N-word in To Kill a Mockingbird, for instance, is not there to glorify racism but to reveal its brutality and systemic nature in a way that provokes outrage and reflection. Yes, the N-word is undeniably offensive, but its inclusion in the book isn’t gratuitous; it serves a purpose. Harper Lee wasn’t racist—she used racist characters to shine a light on the horrifying effects of racism. Removing this book doesn’t protect students; instead, it deprives them of the chance to grapple with these issues in a safe and guided environment.

I understand that Wattpad allows authors creative liberties and is positioned more as entertainment than as a critical engagement with historical issues. And that's what you disagree with? That Wattpad authors may not always intend to educate or provoke critical thought, whereas canonical literature often seeks to do that?

As a Black South African, I also feel that our experiences with racism and with words like the N-word are not the same as those of Black Americans and dare I say it, White Americans. 👀 Our histories, cultures, and struggles are different. Personally, encountering this word in literature like To Kill a Mockingbird was an invitation to understand the weight it carries in a specific historical and cultural context. It offered opportunities to learn, empathise, and think critically, rather than turning away from it.

I understand the desire to protect young readers from harm, but I worry that in shielding them from uncomfortable realities, we’re doing more harm than good.

The answer isn’t to remove these books but to contextualize them. Pair them with works by diverse authors, especially local voices, to create a more balanced and inclusive curriculum. This way, students can engage with a variety of perspectives, all while learning to critically think about the world around them.

It’s funny how much I’ve shifted away from your initial comment on slurs in Storm and Silence 😂 but I'm really interested in the broader discussion about slurs in literature and their place in storytelling. What do you think?

One thing I'll never get over is how Storm & Silence could've easily been so much better if Rob Their(the author) wasn't afraid to actually write a compelling story.

Don't get me wrong, I adore the whole concept of '19 year old Victorian girl dresses up as a man to get a job'. But it's just so poorly written that I think about all the ways the story could be better when I'm in the bus going home from college.

I mean, that's how it is with books, they will be criticized no matter how good or how bad it may be. But then again, this is a Wattpad book. You can never expect too much from a Wattpad book. Every character feels very two dimensional after the first book that every other book after that is just plain fan-service.

The first book is genuinely good, except for the hyper feminist way Lilly is written to be. The author doesn't even bother to add conflict between any of the characters. The ONLY conflict that we ever get is Lilly arguing with Rikkard how she's capable of anything even if she's a women in every single book. It keeps going on and on like this that it just gets boring.

And the way Lilly's intelligence is suppressed makes me mad too. Like in book 3, she literally deciphers a map to find the treasure, but god forbid she recognizes her fiancé's(whether she likes him or not) initials on the waste disposal file and connect the dots on how he and her previous guy(I forgot his name) might've just disappeared. That right there could've been a good conflict. She recognizes the initials, realizes what Rikkard might've done, get angry and argue about not wanting him to interfere with it, then having to find an escape from her next fiancé and choosing to go out of town with Rikkard against her will instead of telling him why bcs she doesn't want a new waste disposal file.

Not to be mean, but the author is a man. At the end of the day, the way female characters are written by men will never be realistic. I know there might be real people out there like Lilly, but the way her "inner feminist"(I hate when she kept saying 'mY iNneR FemIniSt iS prOtEstiNg' stfu) is written truly makes me want to pull my hair out. It will never be same as writing a story from a women's perspective when you already know what it's like. I'm not saying that men are incapable of understanding the female experience, I'm saying that it's stupid and annoying when a man pretends he does.

Also the lack of historical accuracy boils my blood. Rob claims to have done thorough research on every historical details yet somehow Lilly and Rikkard goes on top of the Statue of Liberty despite the story taking place around 1840 and the statue starting its construction in 1876.

SNS was the last and final original story I've read on Wattpad. I really wish I could go back and keep myself away from that app and read an actual book. But it's the only place I could go to when I lost my sanity. Let me know how you feel about the book. I know there's barely anyone in the fandom, but please tell me your perspective.

P.S. can someone tell me where Rob used the slur. I read about many people talking about it but I cannot remember or recognize where it is.

[naivety]

my sense of urgency for this election was all used up watching a genocide play out live on instagram while my mom continued to talk about which politician might make the housing market better and i tried not to genuinely lose my mind over the dissonance. in all honesty short of bombs dropping on americans' houses my adrenal glands are beyond checked out. i'll show up to the polls and do my part and try to plug into the bare bones direct action i can find in the middle of nowhere deep red county state but god. there are so many posts circulating trying to fear monger me into voting for one genocidal president of this genocidal nation over another and i may as well live on a different planet. i can fathom the urgency but i could not make myself feel it short of being held at gunpoint. which may even be on the ballot but that's how americans have been voting for decades now and each of them regardless of party has worried about the idea of being held at gunpoint while a right of theirs is taken away while there are people who are already being held at gunpoint and their rights have already been taken away by the very people being beamed into my eyeballs as the escape from this hypothetical violence that's already non-hypothetically happened to millions who aren't US liberals because of the america they're trying to save from trump the same america regardless of democrats or republicans or whigs or federalists and does anyone else feel like they're going crazy

[dogboytits]

i know its been said before but it truly is absolutely fucking crazy to me that saying that the genocide in palestine is bad is like.. a radical and controversial take. i cannot believe that more usamericans arent fucking furious that their tax money is being spent on committing genocide. why does no one give a shit. i feel like im losing it for real

[purgemarchlockdown]

The temptation to vague about something in the milgram-confessions blog because its something thats bothered me for Actual Years about certain fandoms vs letting it go because when it is brought up its actually done somewhat tastefully and reasonably which makes me happy and this anon probably didnt mean it in the incredibly bad faith way I keep on seeing it be repeated so really Im getting upset over nothing.

[entropyvoid]

There is a particular subgenre of post I keep seeing on this webbed site wherein people denigrate individualistic cultures but talk about collectivistic ones like they’re the absolute best thing to happen the world and have no flaws of any kind and I really have to wonder how many people making or reblogging those have actually had the opportunity to live in both

[st5lker]

can u elaborate on what u we’re talking about in that post on voting? like i think how ur describing but i would like to better know and understand the other side, like what do u mean abt definitions of worse?

answering this question sort of depends on what side you as the asker are coming from, but specifically in terms of the vote blue no matter who people, many of them define the “better outcome” as the democrats under the assumption (correct or otherwise) that voting for them will protect their own rights as minorities. therefore in their minds, the definition of “worse outcome” (republicans) is the one that is both largely the same for palestine/the rest of the world while also making things harder for people inside the country. that IS a valid way of thinking, but when these people get angry at those who choose to abstain from voting what they usually fail to consider is the possibility that 1) other minorities to have valid reason (again, whether they turn out to be correct or otherwise) to believe that voting blue wont actually improve their own lives, at least not in any significant kind of way and 2) that for many people, a genocide and the american imperialist complex in general is much more important and pressing in their sense of morality than anything that may come to them as a result of even the most far right republican policies. like, most democrat voters dismiss that as an exaggeration because they simply cannot comprehend that someone would have reasons to feel their own rights are a less important issue than anything else, if you yourself are a vote blue person you may be questioning it as well - perhaps thinking “do you not know just how bad it’ll be? theyll do x and x and x to you”. my point is that for many people, whatever happens to them is just truly not important, or at least not important enough to warrant endorsing anyone who furthers the cause of genocide for any reason.

to put it more simply, in a democrat voters eyes, the democrats are the lesser of two evils. they often fail to realize that in a non-voters eyes, they’re both only as evil as their worst traits - and all of the good things the democrats promise are not small steps in the right direction, but bribes; that they’re not truly a better option, they just have better things to exchange in return for the power to enact genocide. for those who view things those way, most are simply not willing to accept that bribe, no matter how much use theyd get out of it.

[toytulini]

it is baffling to me that ppl keep insisting "if its not sprite then what IS it tho?" and seemingly do not...retain the recipes that are being shared. like you dont have to memorize them its just repeatedly "is lemonade not sprite though? how is it not sprite?"

"its lemon juice, water, and sugar"

"is it not the same as sprite?" no we just told u. does that sound like sprite to you. does sprite give you the vibe of juicing some lemons on a hot summer day? the lemonade version closest to Sprite over here, in terms of Being Lemonade, is still Notably Different from sprite, or any other soda, is probably Minute Maid, a highly processed branded lemonade that you can occasionally get from soda fountains (DESPITE! NOT BEING CARBONATED! similar to how they somehow dispense iced or sweet tea from soda fountains) it sometimes comes in a can or 2L bottle similar to soda, in the soda isle. and its Not Soda. its not Carbonated. its Trying To Pretend So Hard To Be Real Lemonade. it tastes like lemonade thats a bit sad. it is far more lemonade than SPRITE will ever be. if yall were simply insisting that lemonade is carbonated, that it was like, fizzy minute maid, that would be less offensive than calling sprite lemonade. which is Insane. good god.

[listen-to-the-inner-walrus]

im pretty sure this is not a popular opinion which is why i havent said it, but its been on my mind for months now so fuck it, i guess.

you know that post, the one about the barbie movie and margot robbie talking about barbie being a doll with no reproductive organs and sexual desire, and a lot of tumblr users just like, celebrating this as a win for asexuality?

i hate that post. a lot. like a lot a lot.

because while i dont think margot robbies conclusion is wrong (shes a doll), i think calling barbie asexual is inaccurate and it makes me, an ace person, uncomfortable.

like i dont think its a purposeful link, but that comparison very much implies that sexuality and sexual desire is tied to having reproductive organs, which uh no, thats not how that works and i really dislike that implication. idk about you, but i dont like tying my queerness to my biology.

that link is also one that rings of those who presume that there is a universal normative experience, which is also true of the movie itself, see jessie genders video on that. there are many people in the world who have what would be considered atypical reproductive organs and plenty whose reproductive organs can be considered not-working like those who have gone through the menopause, and they are not all ace.

its also just reductive as to what asexuality in general. margot robbies quote was specifically that barbie didnt feel sexual desire, and funnily enough, sexual desire =/= sexual attraction. while i, myself, be a sex-repulsed ace, there are plenty of horny aces who do the fuck. ive already mentioned the fact that im opposed to linking my queerness to biology, and honestly that part only made me more uncomfortable after the movie ended on "im here to see my gynecologist".

also just, barbie is a plastic doll. like thats how she starts in the movie itself. shes not asexual, shes a doll. and idk dude, theres just a part of me that is deeply uncomfortable with tying asexuality with a doll.

like imo, this just isnt the win for asexuality people were treating it as. we can do better than this.

especially considering the way queerness was handled in the film, but again, go watch jessie genders video on it, its better presented than my rambling post

[digital-sigil]

yknow. something i think about a lot.

how much does the place and environment someone grew up in effect what physical features someone finds attractive? like, not even necessarily home life n all that, just... the kind of people you saw in your everyday life.

[falinscloaca]

rewatched paranoia agent by proxy (reaction youtube), feeling emotionally akin to warm yet raw eggs again. great.

[majorshatterandhare]

Apparently my brain really hates when names have A, U, and R in them, because without fail, every time I go to type Arthur my brain wants to spell it “Aurthur” or perhaps “Aurthr” and every time I go to type Marius my brain wants to type “Mauris” or maybe “Maurius” or maybe “Maurias” its unclear because I *usually* notice my mistake by the end because it’s clear to me those ending are wrong. Brain just really wants “AUR” together.

[marklikely]

i think as time goes on itll be easier to like the beatles as long as we keep up the trend of younger people not liking them.