#i do not have the energy for this

[transrevolutions]

@rex-and-regina

1) marat did not encourage "murder of innocent civilians" in l'ami du peuple. while he did sometimes use violent rhetoric (like in the "five hundred heads" quote that people love to throw around with no context), that was pretty much the norm for political journals at the time. they were sensational and emotional and dramatic and hyperbolic. that was pretty much the stylistic standard. if you compare marat's paper with, say, hebert's or even desmoulins's, you'll find he's actually pretty academic and straightforward for the era.

2) if you try to counter my first point with "but the september massacres", you need to know that marat was not directly responsible for those either. the narrative that he caused it stems from the fact that he put out an issue of his paper a little while before the massacres that said some stuff about taking up arms to defend the homeland from conspirators and traitors, etc. etc. except, y'know, a bunch of people were saying stuff like that in their papers (see above). it's true that he didn't explicitly condemn the massacres, but nobody in the government really wanted to talk about it because of how messy of a situation it was. someone else even said something like "we will draw the curtain over this event and leave its judgement to posterity".

3) robespierre.... did not cause the "reign of terror". in fact they did not even call it the reign of terror at the time (historians came up with that later). actually, if we want to get pedantic, the term terreur had a very different connotation in the 18th century than it does now, but I digress. robespierre was the subject of a massive smear campaign when his coworkers realized they couldn't make him shut up about various crimes that they were involved in and killed him to keep him from airing out their dirty laundry. they also killed a bunch of his political allies because they couldn't have them exonerating him, could they? look it up it's actually wild. so they blamed him for all the issues that the government had, even the ones he was trying to fix (he opposed the shitshow in lyons and nantes, cautioned against needless bloodshed, abhorred the practice of treating executions as a spectacle). also he didn't actually have nearly as much power as people seem to think now. he was a member of the national convention (the french republic's elected legislative body), and a member of the committee of public safety (a council elected from members of the convention to deal with the escalating war situation and some other stuff). he was not the leader of the CSP (which did not have a leader) or the convention (which had a presidency that was mostly ceremonial and worked on a rotating basis). he also never sentenced anyone to death because it was the tribunals that did that, not the convention or CSP.

4) the time period that is generally considered the "reign of terror" (as flawed a concept as that is) is usually placed after the assassination of marat. because a big reason for the paranoia that led to the escalation of security measures was the fact that marat was killed. marat was seen as kind of unkillable by the people of paris (won his own political show trial, etc.) so if you could kill marat, you could kill anyone. so it's kind of hard to say what marat would've supported or not supported after he died, especially since his death itself heavily influenced the next stage of the revolution.

5) charlotte corday wasn't even a monarchist. she was aligned with the girondins, who were moderate republicans in favor of the free market. she didn't like marat because marat was calling the girondins corrupt in his newspaper after a prominent girondin official turned traitor and deserted to the austrians (whom france was at war with). not entirely sure what she thought she would accomplish with this, because a great way to make your political faction seem really corrupt is to brutally murder a guy for criticizing it.

6) a bunch of people actually tried to stop marat through various means, legal and illegal. namely lafayette and brissot and capet and barbaroux and necker and... you get the picture. charlotte corday was just the one that succeeded.

a final point: why do you criticize marat for "encouraging" (but never committing) murder while you simultaneously praise corday for committing a literal actual murder? only one of the three people (marat, robespierre, corday) you mentioned actually killed anybody, and it wasn't marat or robespierre.

[the-ghost-in-your-walls]

I just spent ALMOST THREE HOURS trying to draw an arm from a weird angle. Someone save me from my misery

[miserye]

There are two wolves inside me

One wants an actual meal

And the other just wants to eat easy snacks and call it a day

[meandmydisease]

Sometimes I get so frustrated by how people view others. My chronic pain has been through the roof lately, so at work I take the elevator to reach the upper floors—no biggie you’d think. And the amount of people ‘jokingly’ calling me lazy or something similar because of that is crazy.

The worst part is, I work in a school and the worst people doing this are teachers that teach social subjects. They’re training the next generation of nursing assistants and social workers. Shouldn’t they be more aware of the issue with comments like this?

Instead they try to make me defend my actions, simply for having an invisible disease. Screw that. I won’t laugh at your stupid attempt at a joke and I won’t offer up an explanation. People who take the elevator aren’t lazy, regardless of the reason they take the elevator. Stop judging situations you know NOTHING about.

[technologyvoid]

.

[nemesis-is-my-middle-name]

that article going around abt firefox's new ad program is annoying bc it's phrased as though "mozilla has finally TURNED on its people and is SELLING YOU OUT for cold hard cash!!" when. that's not what's happening. it is specifically being implemented to discourage tracking behavior, and literally all the data they are giving to advertisers is aggregate and anonymized, which is like, the opposite of what that post wants you to worry about, lol

[hinamie]

mentor

[tayyloryork]

honestly fuck me from yesterday who decided to oil my hair and scalp so i have to wash it today

[inkskinned]

this is just my opinion but i think any good media needs obsession behind it. it needs passion, the kind of passion that's no longer "gentle scented candle" and is now "oh shit the house caught on fire". it needs a creator that's biting the floorboards and gnawing the story off their skin. creators are supposed to be wild animals. they are supposed to want to tell a story with the ferocity of eating a good stone fruit while standing over the sink. the same protective, strange instinct as being 7 and making mud potions in pink teacups: you gotta get weird with it.

good media needs unhinged, googling-at-midnight kind of energy. it needs "what kind of seams are invented on this planet" energy and "im just gonna trust the audience to roll with me about this" energy. it needs one person (at least) screaming into the void with so much drive and energy that it forces the story to be real.

sometimes people are baffled when fanfic has some stunning jaw-dropping tattoo-it-on-you lines. and i'm like - well, i don't go here, but that makes sense to me. of fucking course people who have this amount of passion are going to create something good. they moved from a place of genuine love and enjoyment.

so yeah, duh! saturday cartoons have banger lines. random street art is sometimes the most precious heart-wrenching shit you've ever seen. someone singing on tiktok ends up creating your next favorite song. youtubers are giving us 5 hours of carefully researched content. all of this is the impossible equation to latestage capitalism. like, you can't force something to be good. AI cannot make it good. no amount of focus-group testing or market research. what makes a story worth listening to is that someone cares so much about telling it - through dance, art, music, whatever it takes - that they are just a little unhinged about it.

one time my friend told me he stayed up all night researching how many ways there are to peel an orange. he wrote me a poem that made me cry on public transportation. the love came through it like pith, you know? the words all came apart in my hands. it tasted like breakfast.

[crashstanding]

Reblog to give the person you reblogged from the ability to finish their WIPs

[xxdigitaldream]

various album covers

[aroace-poly-show]

normal 👍

[chaoschaosshit]

casting a spell on you with my 4mm crochet hook

[bioethicists]

it's very important to understand how a personality disorder diagnosis functions in the psychiatric system, even if you identify with the diagnosis or find it useful.

personality disorders on your medical record will be used to discredit anything you say or do. they indicate "don't bother listening to this person; apply treatment regardless of their wishes but also they're probably manipulating/attention-seeking so maybe don't bother treating them". needing support becomes attention-seeking. behaviors that would be treated + supported in someone without this diagnosis are ignored or treated as manipulative. providers are instructed to "withdraw warmth" (a real thing in the DBT provider's manual, btw) in response to self-injury or suicidal ideation.

if you have been dx'd with a personality disorder professionally, you likely understand this.

now, here's the important part: this is not an issue of 'stigma' against a politically neutral, pre-discursive True Disease which is being Unfairly Maligned. these diagnoses were formulated based on the idea that some patients cannot be trusted, that some patients seek care too much. they are applied to patient charts as a justification for withdrawing care or as a dismissal of someone "not getting better" fast enough. in the uk, they are often employed by the nhs to shame or problematize people who use large amounts of nhs resources, arguing that receiving a lot of care through the nhs is a negative behavior stemming from a disordered personality.

there are elements of personality disorders which resonate strongly with many people, including myself, but you need to be clear-eyed about the origins + functions of this diagnosis. as a whole, they were created + function as ways to discredit + mistreat noncompliant or "difficult" patients. 'reclaiming' them is not going to change how they function systematically- it is going to make it easier to engage in this systematic neglect by evoking 'ableism' or 'stigma!' when people question the utility or application of the diagnosis.

[charcarts]

circumstantial

[ruporas]

trigunned the hades or hadesed the trigun (id in alt)