#i think most of them have merit

[grandcovenant]

who's pulling the strings of the puppet king?

[lookinghalfacorpse]

whats ur fav cdream design? i like the ones where they make cdream look like ccdream

ccdream is very handsome!

i like designs where he looks sharp & beautiful but maybe a bit too thin and fragile. i also like when he's very beautiful in an unearthly way. my url comes from "looking half a corpse and half a god," which kinda sums it up. emily bigbaras (per my icon, and here's another portrait) is my Ultimate Favorite cdream design, and i'd recommend checking out my 'pretty boy' tag for one of my fave headcanons lol

some designs that come to mind immediately are this, this, this, this, and this. @maybe0rdinary also understood me Unusually Well with these fanarts of itwall.

[tchaikovskaya]

Also it feels a little bit uhhh. Obvious to me that the mainstream audience’s Reaction to the perceived “snub” of Margot and Greta is because for literally several millions of people Barbie is the only new movie that they have seen in their theatrical runs this year*, and they are making more of a definitive judgment of Margot/Greta’s merits in those categories as they stand alone rather than any kind of relative judgment of their performances compared to the category nominees. (The people shitting on the five nominees in either category as if Margot or Greta were more deserving than any one of them are being insane tho)

[koyacyi-vode]

made the mistake of reading a reddit thread on star wars clones again

[purplesaline]

... did you NEED an article about why breeding for health in dogs is good while doing so for humans is eugenics? because that sounds kind of concerning? governing how humans reproduce is much more invasive and a much bigger abuse of power than doing so to animals. human rights are not comparable to animal welfare. maybe look into theory surrounding "animal rights vs animal welfare" for similar themes?

Not at all! I was just curious about the nuances of that topic that would be addressed in such an article.

As a severely disabled queer woman with an incredibly high genetic cancer risk I am not at all confused about the topic of eugenics and why it's a bad thing, don't worry!

I do like to explore nuance and grey areas and challenge my beliefs to see which hold up to scrutiny and which ones I may need to rethink or dismantle particularly because it's very easy to not realize when beliefs are formed based on the ideals of a culture rife with systemic oppression.

I know that the reason animal breeding practices for health is seen as good while it's eugenics in humans boils down to "We can't trust everyone to act in good faith" and personal choice and agency and consent etc. Don't worry! I'm not someone you'll ever see knowingly advocate for eugenics. I was simply wondering if an article about such a topic would address any points I hadn't previously considered on eugenics or animal welfare.

I appreciate you checking in and for suggesting some direction for learning more about the topic if I had been as unsure as you worried I may be. I know in online spaces a comment like yours is more likely to result in conflict and that it takes both energy and courage to reach out, even anonymously, so thank you.

[fossilizedhysterics]

it's a fictional cat, go touch grass

oh my first anon hate this is wonderful.... unoriginal but wonderful!!

it seems you might be the one that needs to touch grass considering my very lukewarm warriors opinions got you so mad you just could not help yourself from telling me about it instead of just blocking me

objectum moonpaw they could never make me hate you <3

[celepeace]

People talk about books going on for too long or a series not knowing when to end but personally that is my dream. My ideal book series has 26 entries and each book is 2000 pages long. I want to never run out of material. Thank you

[marzipanandminutiae]

"are you a man or Political? are you white or Political? are you straight or Political? are you cis or Political? are you able-bodied or Political?"

I forget where I read that, but it rings horribly true nowadays

people talking about “forced diversity” like characters being PoC or LGBT or disabled “for no reason” like

are people in real life PoC or LGBT or disabled for a reason

do these critics run up to people on the street like WHY ARE YOU BLACK

[itsclydebitches]

Something I don't think we talk enough about in discussions surrounding AI is the loss of perseverance.

I have a friend who works in education and he told me about how he was working with a small group of HS students to develop a new school sports chant. This was a very daunting task for the group, in large part because many had learning disabilities related to reading and writing, so coming up with a catchy, hard-hitting, probably rhyming, poetry-esque piece of collaborative writing felt like something outside of their skill range. But it wasn't! I knew that, he knew that, and he worked damn hard to convince the kids of that too. Even if the end result was terrible (by someone else's standards), we knew they had it in them to complete the piece and feel super proud of their creation.

Fast-forward a few days and he reports back that yes they have a chant now... but it's 99% AI. It was made by Chat-GPT. Once the kids realized they could just ask the bot to do the hard thing for them - and do it "better" than they (supposedly) ever could - that's the only route they were willing to take. It was either use Chat-GPT or don't do it at all. And I was just so devastated to hear this because Jesus Christ, struggling is important. Of course most 14-18 year olds aren't going to see the merit of that, let alone understand why that process (attempting something new and challenging) is more valuable than the end result (a "good" chant), but as adults we all have a responsibility to coach them through that messy process. Except that's become damn near impossible with an Instantly Do The Thing app in everyone's pocket. Yes, AI is fucking awful because of plagiarism and misinformation and the environmental impact, but it's also keeping people - particularly young people - from developing perseverance. It's not just important that you learn to write your own stuff because of intellectual agency, but because writing is hard and it's crucial that you learn how to persevere through doing hard things.

Write a shitty poem. Write an essay where half the textual 'evidence' doesn't track. Write an awkward as fuck email with an equally embarrassing typo. Every time you do you're not just developing that particular skill, you're also learning that you did something badly and the world didn't end. You can get through things! You can get through challenging things! Not everything in life has to be perfect but you know what? You'll only improve at the challenging stuff if you do a whole lot of it badly first. The ability to say, "I didn't think I could do that but I did it anyway. It's not great, but I did it," is SO IMPORTANT for developing confidence across the board, not just in these specific tasks.

Idk I'm just really worried about kids having to grow up in a world where (for a variety of reasons beyond just AI) they're not given the chance to struggle through new and challenging things like we used to.

[cerastes]

As a licensed therapist, let me tell you that the most success I’ve found with patients is not being uwu soft happy thoughts guy, and instead being someone that validates all the rage, anger, frustration and sorrow they have. Curbing it with fake positivity is unhealthy and self-destructive. Express it. If you need to cry, you cry, if we need to rage, we rage, if you aren’t good with words, we can do something more physical; I bought cheap plates one time, for this 16 year old girl who just couldn’t communicate and convey properly, then we smashed them together whenever our slow conversation touched on the things that truly hurt her, the idea being that giving a physical component to speech could help her organize ideas better, and it worked.

And after we get all that rage out of you, after we validate and shape it into something that’s nothing to be ashamed of and that needn’t be kept in a little cloister until it blows you to kingdom come, then we talk about how beautiful shit can be once rage and frustration are things you can grab by the throat. Yeah it’s not going to solve everything because a lot of psychological issues are symptoms of a greater root problem, and a lot of times, you don’t have mental illness, you simply don’t have money, but with that wholly on the table? Yeah it becomes easier to navigate potential solutions and increase resilience.

But seriously, “fake it until you make it” has a lot of merits but there’s a big red line that says “FAKE HAPPINESS” that you shouldn’t cross. Can’t blame you if you do, because we are taught “negative” emotions exist (they don’t) and that we have to repress and never ‘fail’. Fuck up a lot, and learn from it, learn how to get angry in a way that helps you and doesn’t hurt others. Way more productive than thinking happy thoughts.

[zinesbycee]

I'm reading a book named "A Guide to The Correction of Young Gentlemen Or, The Successful Administration Of Physical Discipline To Males, By Females" - essentially, a fantasy femdom BDSM book, written in 1924 by Alice Kerr-Sutherland but first published in 1991.

It has some genuinely fascinating stuff to say about gender, and I feel like it's worth looking at/thinking about in the context of Historical Gender Stuff. This 100 year old book has the following to say:

"The truth is that some young gentlemen would rather they had been born young ladies: they cannot admit this openly, because in the male world to confess as much would lead to instant ostracism if not worse; but they cannot conceal it either, and by preferring the company of girls, and soft, feminine clothing, and by flinching during the rough pursuits to which all boys, willing or no, are occasionally heirs, they attract opprobrium."

"Such boys weep too readily for their fellows' tastes - weeping is a great crime among boys unless it is generally admitted that circumstances left little choice - and are hounded for that reason."

"Just as there are girls who had rather been boys - we all know examples of the type - there are boys who, in a kinder world, would have been born into the gender more suited to their dispositions."

"Many young people of this sort are riven with a guilt they do not deserve but have been forced, by the conventions of society, to adopt; they are confused, ashamed and thoroughly unhappy."

"The ideal thing to do would be to treat these cases on their merits, send them to girls' schools, and so on. (The same thing should happen with those girls who would rather be young gentlemen.) Boys of this sort are girls in any case-in all respects save one."

"Most subjects of this sort have a secret name - a girl's name."

[gothmiqote]

yk as interesting as it might be to have varha meet azem i actually this it would end up doing a Number on her self esteem lmao

like the idea she has of herself is like,,, Yes she's strong yes she's the "chosen one" butshe also doesn't know for sure she's got a ton going on outside of that. before she was the warrior of light she really was Just Some Guy who had her uses on the field, there's no denying from her that she's a good shot or handy with a glaive. but also those skills don't really roll over into other areas of her life. she still thinks she lacks in a lot of the softer skills--social things largely, but not just those. before she was the warrior of light, she really truly did Not have anyone else in her life (unless you count her one estranged brother who also survived the calamity. she, personally, would not) & couldn't sort out how to properly maintain relationships past a casual depth. it wasn't that she couldn't get along at all, she just never found herself being anyone's first choice. like, she will fully admit to being an attention-seeing kid. to be fair, it makes sense with as many siblings as she had that there would be a need to stand out, she's just never felt like she actually managed to do so.

intellectually speaking, she knows sh's far from stupid & that again, most of her talents really shine in the heat of battle. but like 90% of her friends are basically doctors, & she's aware she would probably have killed the world a long time ago if all the strategizing was left up to her. she'll contribute to these discussions because she's expected to, despite being really goddamn aware she wouldn't be invited to the table without the Very specific circumstances they all find themselves in.

speaking of those friends, it's not lost on her that she wouldn't have them if she wasn't hydaelyn's chosen. maybe they might have crossed paths loosely at some point, but there'd have been no reason to keep her around. having a title like that has its downsides & can definitely be more of a burden than a blessing, but on the whole? she's a bit relieved that she's been able to benefit from it in some more selfish ways (in her opinion). it's a nice change, people having expectations of her & being somewhat interested in her, even if a lot of that interest is directed towards the warrior of light instead of just her as a person. that bit of distance is weirdly comfortable at times. she's not the most emotionally graceful person, usually being too-direct or at a loss for word or reading a situation entirely incorrectly. she's impatient and forceful & is unsurprisingly bad when it comes to navigating environments like sharlayan. the only thing that saves her is the fact that she's Really good at looking confident & making her mistakes appear intentional. having a reputation helps too.

but azem? arsinoë? it's So clear within minutes of meeting her that she doesn't have these same issues. she's the type of person who draws others in without even trying. she's intelligent and witty and doesn't trip over her words (or struggle to find them in the first place). she's able to hold her own just fine in intellectual circles--hell, other people would almost certainly find her intimidating, if she didn't also radiate the type of energy that puts people at ease. there's nothing fake or exaggerated about the confidence she walks around with, and nothing seems to get in her head the same way it does varha. it's the type of inner-security she can only dream of.

i think at first she would want to meet her, just for the novelty of meeting the originator of her soul. i don't think it would cross her mind until it was too late that she actually didn't enjoy doing too much self-examination, and this would be a weird externalized version of that. and of course azem is interested in her--she's interested in a lot of things, but a shard of her own soul from a distant future would be especially fascinating. but varha would start to pick up on just how comfortable she was in her own skin quickly, and it would eat it her. people flock to azem in a way they never did to her Until she had a hero's reputation, until she offered something that was more than she could be on her own. that was when they were willing to look past her short comings. did azem even have those? probably not.

& varha's never been so sick with envy in her entire life, but she's not hateful about it. one, it doesn't make sense & two, she's Also been sucked into that vortex. azem's presence is... a lot, actually. it's domineering in any room--not unkindly, but she's impossible to ignore. she's also just a naturally charming person; there's nothing to hate. but the more varha watches her and searches for similarities, the more she starts to conclude that she seems to have inherited the more negative traits of azem. she's got the same intensity, gets tunnel-visioned about problems, & will Immediately lose her cool if you push her buttons correctly. all of that would be fine if she also got a sliver of that intangible thing arsinoë has that gives her a gravitational pull. she's like the sun, & varha would find herself starting to burn if she stays around too long.

part of her wonders maybe if venat had a hand in making sure the chips fell where they did. somehow she suspects if she were more like azem, she might have some stronger feelings about life or death situations; she might decide there was too much to live for to take certain risks. but if she felt like she was constantly falling short? or like she could have been a stand-in for anyone else? maybe it made her work just that much harder to prove something.

she's not surprised the present hades has such disdain for her. aside from the whole 'going mad from grief' thing, of course. she carries some of the least-loved parts of azem without her same light. standing next to her exposes failures of her personality that she never even knew to look for. varha doesn't dwell on hades' accusations of being a non-person; it's a waste of her time, especially when she knows otherwise. but she definitely feels like a cheap copy when faced with the original. of course, the general disinterest she'd dealt with from people her entire life made sense now. seeing what could have been--what was---makes her immediately understand. even if none of them had Met azem, they would have reacted if she'd resembled her in any way. she could get how losing someone like that would make you want to tear the world up in their name. and varha has people she loves now & who care about her in return, who would definitely mourn her if she were gone, but that type of reaction? nah, nope. they'd get over it in time; the death would be ordinary, as would the grief. which is fine by her, because she actually never Wants to see that level of destruction created for her sake, but still. she gets it.

[fozmeadows]

there is no ethical consumption under capitalism

Years ago now, I remember seeing the rape prevention advice so frequently given to young women - things like dressing sensibly, not going out late, never being alone, always watching your drink - reframed as meaning, essentially, "make sure he rapes the other girl." This struck a powerful chord with me, because it cuts right to the heart of the matter: that telling someone how to lower their own chances of victimhood doesn't stop perpetrators from existing. Instead, it treats the existence of perpetrators as a foregone conclusion, such that the only thing anyone can do is try, by their own actions, to be a less appealing or more difficult victim.

And the thing is, ever since the assassination of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, I've kept on thinking about how, in this day and age, CEOs of big companies often have an equal or greater impact on the day to day lives of regular people than our elected officials, and yet we have almost no legal way to redress any grievances against them - even when their actions, as in the case of Thompson's stewardship of UHC, arguably see them perpetrating manslaughter at scale through tactics like claims denial. That this is a real, recurring thing that happens makes the American healthcare insurance industry a particularly pernicious example, but it's far from being the only one. Because the original premise of the free market - the idea that we effectively "vote" for or against businesses with our dollars, thereby causing them to sink or swim on their individual merits - is utterly broken, and has been for decades, assuming it was ever true at all. In this age of megacorporations and global supply chains, the vast majority of people are dependent on corporations for necessities such as gas, electricity, internet access, water, food, housing and medical care, which means the consumer base is, to all intents and purposes, a captive market. We might not have to buy a specific brand, but we have to buy a brand, and as businesses are constantly competing with one another to bring in profits, not just for the company and its workers, but for C-suites and shareholders - profits that increasingly come at the expense of workers and consumers alike - the greediest, most inhumane corporations set the financial yardstick against which all others are then, of necessity, measured. Which means that, while businesses are not obliged to be greedy and inhumane in order to exist, overwhelmingly, they become greedy and humane in order to compete, because capitalism encourages it, and because there are precious few legal restrictions to stop them from doing so. At the same time, a handful of megacorporations own so many market-dominating brands that, without both significant personal wealth and the time and resources to find viable alternatives, it's all but impossible to avoid them, while the ubiquity of the global supply chain means that, even if you can keep track of which company owns which brand, it's much, much harder to establish which suppliers provide the components that are used in the products bearing their labels. Consider, for instance, how many mainstream American brands are functionally run on sweatshop labour in other parts of the world: places where these big corporations have outsourced their workforce to skirt the already minimal labour and wage protections they'd be obliged to adhere to in the US, all to produce (say) electronics whose elevated sticker price passes a profit on to the company, but without resulting in higher wages for either the sweatshop workers overseas or the American employees selling the products in branded US stores.

When basically every major electronics corporation is engaged in similar business practices, there is no "vote" our money can bring that causes the industry itself to be better regulated - and as wealthy, powerful lobbyists from these industries continue to pay exorbitant sums of money to politicians to keep government regulation at a minimum, even our actual votes can do little to effect any sort of change. But even in those rare instances where new regulations are passed, for multinational corporations, laws passed in one country overwhelmingly don't prevent them from acting abusively overseas, exploiting more desperate populations and cash-poor governments to the same greedy, inhumane ends. And where the ultimate legal penalty for proven transgressions is, more often than not, a fine - which is to say, a fee; which is to say, an amount which, while astronomical by the standards of regular people, still frequently costs the company less than the profits earned through their unethical practices, and which is paid from corporate coffers rather than the bank accounts of the CEOs who made the decisions - big corporations are, in essence, free to act as badly as they can afford to; which is to say, very. Contrary to the promise of the free market, therefore, we as consumers cannot meaningfully "vote" with our dollars in a way that causes "good" businesses to rise to the top, because everything is too interconnected. Our choices under global capitalism are meaningless, because there is no other system we can financially support that stands in opposition to it, and while there are still small businesses and companies who try to operate ethically, both their comparative smallness and their interdependent reliance on the global supply chain means that, even if we feel better about our choices, we're not exerting any meaningful pressure on the system we're trying to change. Which means that, under the free market, trying to be an ethical consumer is functionally equivalent to a young woman dressing modestly, not going out alone and minding her drink at parties in order to avoid being raped. We're not preventing corporate predation or sending a message to corporate predators: we're just making sure they screw other worker, the other consumer, the other guy.

All of which is to say: while I'd prefer not to live in a world where shooting someone dead in the street is considered a valid means of redressing grievances, what the murder of Brian Thompson has shown is that, if you provide no meaningful recourse for justice against abusive, exploitative members of the 1%, then violence done to those people will have the feel of justice, because it fills the void left by the lack of consequences for their actions. It's the same reason why people had little sympathy for the jackass OceanGate CEO who killed himself in his imploding sub, or anyone whose yacht has been attacked by orcas - it's just intensified here, because where the OceanGate CEO was felled by hubris and the yachts were random casualties, whoever killed Thomspon did so deliberately, because of what he did. It was direct action against a man whose policies very arguably constituted manslaughter at scale; a crime which ought to be a crime, but which has, to date, been permitted under the law. And if the law wouldn't stop him, can anyone be surprised that someone might act outside the law in retaliation - or that regular people would cheer for them when they did?

[iamnotlookingidonotseeit]

when you feel like you're fine in isolation but as soon as you interact with nice people who seem to like you you're like oh maybe I'm not perfectly well adjusted actually

[foldingfittedsheets]

It sounds funny but I’m actually a second generation sex shop employee. My mom worked in one for a while when I was little. It definitely set a very blasé tone around sex growing up which was great until it was mortifying because I was a teenager.

I don’t have many clear memories from when I was a kid but a few stand out. First is that when I was too sick to go to daycare I’d get to hang out in the back room of the shop my mom worked in. It was basically paradise.

Firstly, because my mom was in charge of inventory and there was always a kings ransom in boxes. So most of my sick days were spent in custom box fortresses filled with blankets and pillows. I got to watch the TV in the safety of my cardboard castle. My mom’s boss would also usually let me play with the stone otters she kept on her desk. I adored those otters and looked forward to sick days where I got to caress their carved stone features.

Second, mom’s work had the best candy. There was a novelty brand they carried that I still think about. Sure, the chocolates were shaped like boobs, but I did not care because they were the most delicious chocolates I’d ever had. I only got a candy if I were very good so I stayed on my best behavior most of the time.

I did get in trouble once for wandering into the back stock while looking for props to play with. I ended up finding a joke pack of condoms that were super tiny and using them as hats for my little toys. Thank goodness they were unlubricated. I was chided for this and the teeny condoms were carefully returned to their package.

But my absolute favorite was when I go to stay until closing. While mom was counting down the til I could wander the display shelves and touch all the sample dildos. I only had a vague sense that these represented anatomy- mostly I just cared about their relative texture merits. I poked and squeezed my way through the displays dongs, approving particularly squishy ones, disdaining the hard plastic offerings.

I rated them from worst to best until my mom secured her cash box and we went home, leaving behind a wonderland of yummy candy, stone otters, and cardboard kingdoms.

[kittyprincessofcats]

ICJ Ruling

Okay, let's get into this.

First of all, I get the frustration at the court not ordering a ceasefire. I was disappointed and frustrated at first too, since a ceasefire was the biggest and most important preliminary measure South Africa was requesting - and of course we just all want this horror to finally end for the people in Gaza. So I get the frustration and disappointment, I really do.

However, I do think this ruling is still a major win for South Africa, Palestine, and international law as a whole and here's why:

The court acknowledged that it has jurisdiction over this case and completely dismissed Israel's request to throw out the case as a whole. It will now determine at the merits stage (that will probably take years) whether Israel is actually commiting genocide.

The court acknowledged that Palestinians are a "distinct national or ethnic group and therefore deserving of protection under the genocide convention". Pull this out next time someone tells you "there's no such thing as Palestinians, they're all just Arabs".

The court acknowledged very unambiguously that "at least some" of Israel's actions being genocidal in nature is "plausible". South Africa has a case, officially. Israel is accused of genocide, in a way the ICJ deems "plausible", officially. This is huge. (And seriously, how freaking satisfying was it to hear all of those genocidal statements by Israeli politicians read out loud and used as justification for this rulling?)

The court might not have ordered a "ceasefire" in those words, but they did order Israel to "immediately end all genocidal acts" (which includes killing and injuring Palestinians) and submit proof that they actually did. How are they going to comply with this ruling without at least severly reducing or changing what they're doing in Gaza?

In fact, this wording might actually be more appropriate for a genocide (vs a war), as author and journalist Ali Abunimah notes on Twitter:

He's completely right. Israel lost today, by overwhelming majority (I mean, 15 to 2? I heard people predict the rulings would be very close, like 9 judges vs 8, but instead we got 15 to 2 (and even 16 to 1 on the humanitarian aid). Holy shit.) The court disimissed almost everything Israel's side of lawyers said, while acknowledging that South Africa's accusations are "plausible".

And this is important especially because of Mr Abunimah's second tweet there^. Because the question is, where do we go from here?

This ruling means that Israel is officially /possibly/ commiting genocide and that should have huge international consequences. The rest of the world now HAS to take these accusations seriously and stop arming and supporting Israel - and if they won't do it on their own, we, the people, have to make them. This is THE moment to rise up all around the world, especially in the countries most supportive of Israel (the US, the UK, Germany): Protest, call your representatives and demand a ceasefire and an end of arms deliveries to Israel.

We now have a legal case to back our demands: If Israel is, according to the ICJ, "plausibly" commiting genocide, then all of our governments are, according to the ICJ, "plausibly" guiltly of aiding in genocide. And we need to hold that over their heads and demand better. We need to do that right now and in huge numbers. Most politicians only care about themselves and saving their skin. We have to make them realize that they could be accused of aiding in genocide.

(As a German, I'm thinking of Germany here in particular: After South Africa's hearing, our government dismissed their case as having "no basis" - how are they going to keep saying that now that the ICJ officially thinks otherwise? Over the last months, people here have been arrested at protests for calling what's happening in Gaza a genocide. How are the police supposed to legally keep doing that now that the ICJ has officially deemed this accusation "plausible"? I used to be scared to use the word "genocide" at protests or write it on my protest signs - not anymore, have fun trying to arrest me for that when the ICJ literally has my back on this one 🖕🏻.)

So yeah - don't be defeatist about this, don't let Israel's narrative that they "won" (they didn't) take over. This might not be everything we wanted, but it's still a good result. Don't let what the court didn't say ("ceasefire"), distract you from the very important things that they did say. Let this be your motivation to get loud and active, especially if you live in any country that supports Israel. Put pressure on your governments to not be complicit in genocide, you now officially have the highest international court on your side.