#it was also like. pretty difficult for some reason?

[whumpster-fire]

Regarding the design of staircases: while pre-industrial (and earlier industrial) societies did do all kinds of sketchy shit with staircase design, stairs do need to be pretty consistent to avoid turning into death traps. The maximum variation in the height and depth of steps within a staircase allowed by the International Residential Code and International Building Code is just 3/8 of an inch. Stair tread lengths also have to be long enough to fit the user's foot: generally a minimum of 10-11 inches in modern codes.

If I'm reading the drawing right, the third image essentially has alternating large and small steps, with the expectation that the larger species only uses the large steps, correct? However, the largest tread needs to be big enough to fit a Panthera's paw, and the height of any one riser, whether from long tread to short one or from short tread to long one, must be a uniform height that's usable by Mustels.

For the sake of easier math let's say the larger treads need to be 12" deep to safely accommodate Pantheras, a little larger than a human staircase, and an 8" total riser height is comfortable for them, while Mustels need a 6" tread depth, and to keep the riser heights consistent for them the riser height should be 4". (I'm using inches here because that's what the International Building Code has round numbers in for some reason). An individual staircase with these dimensions would have a slope of 2/3 (33.7 degrees): however, with this design, every pair of treads and risers has a total height of 8" and total length of 18", meaning the total slope is 4/9 (24 degrees). The combined staircase needs to cover 50% more horizontal distance for the same gain in height than one built for a single species would, and since a separate Mustel sized staircase wouldn't need to be as wide as a Panthera sized one, I think the space savings would be negligible in reality.

As for the usability of the stairs: if I was using those as a Mustel I'd need to either alternate between rising and non-rising strides (i.e. left foot on small tread, right foot on large tread, left foot on large tread, right foot on small tread) or lengthen my stride to cover the 18" distance between consecutive small treads in two steps, which could be awkward or difficult either way. As a Panthera I would need to use a longer stride length as well, and putting my foot on the small tread by accident would most likely result in tripping, but it would be somewhat manageable. As a Gilter, however, if the Mustel-sized tread is too small to safely step on I'd also be stuck using the Panthera-height steps which also need a longer than normal stride length, which would be even more awkward!

For the second staircase: if I'm reading it right the idea is if you're a Gilter you can have one foot on the small staircase and one foot on the large one and take steps that are half as long and high as if you were using the big stairs, right? This seems more or less usable if the half-sized treads are long enough for your feet, but if it's like, Gilters need a tread depth that's somewhere around 1-1/2 times as much as a Mustel, the half steps would have to be 8-9" long, so the big ones would have to be 16-18", and the height of the small risers is still constrained by what's usable by a Mustel so if that was 4", then again the "Small staircase in the middle" design ends up needing to have a shallower slope for the dimensions of the steps to be usable. This design is more usable for Gilters, but if it was built as shown then Mustels using it wouldn't have a handrail within reach which might lower the riser height they can safely use even further. A set of Mustel/Gilter sized railings in the center of the smaller steps would make it more usable, and putting Panthera-sized handrails on the outside would help direct them away from the smaller steps where they could trip and/or collide with smaller species, because the center section isn't really usable for Pantheras. If the idea is to build it narrow enough that a Panthera needs to place their feet on either side of the central smaller steps, that's going to kill someone, so in practice this staircase needs to be wide enough for a Panthera to walk on the side and completely avoid the small steps. That means these stairs have to be about as wide as a Mustel-sized staircase and a Panthera-sized staircase side by side, and with a shallower angle.

It looks like the smaller species also have proportionally shorter legs though, so the difference in ideal stride lengths might be a lot bigger than 2:1, plus the are the smaller species' feet proportionally bigger? If the riser height and tread depth that's usable for a Mustel is more like 1/3rd or 1/4th of what works for Panthera instead of 1/2 I think the third staircase ends up being impossible to build in a way where Mustels could ascend a step with every stride and would still require extra high steps for them, while for the second design making the smaller steps deep enough for Gilters without being really awkward for a Mustel.

The good news, however, is that a "Londo Style" approach, even if it had three fully separate sets of steps for all three species, would probably only need to be a little over twice as wide as just building a Panthera-sized staircase. And that's the worst case, for a "low traffic" staircase where they're only sized to be wide enough for either someone to go up in one direction or for one person in each direction. If it's a "high traffic" scenario where there are lots of users of all species and it would need to be built wide enough to have multiple "lanes" of people using it, splitting that width into separate staircases might have little or no impact on the total space a stairway takes up, and it might even accommodate more traffic if it prevents people from having to slow down to safely negotiate awkwardly sized steps / avoid collisions with smaller users.

Note also that this is assuming the larger species using the stairs also have significantly longer feet. If the largest species in a setting has proportionally short feet, e.g. if they're digitigrade or unguligrade, it may be possible to design stairs where the larger users can just climb them two steps at a time and still be able to safely put their feet on the treads. Depending on the design of a building there may also be other ways to reduce space: e.g. because Mustels and Gilters also need less headroom, you can reduce the footprint of a flight of stairs for them by putting in more frequent landings. For a multi story building the minimum footprint used for stairs might be achieved with completely separate stairwells.

tl;dr: I think the three staircase designs presented would come out pretty similar in terms of space used because "Londo Style" separated staircases can actually be built at that 30-50 degree angle (modern building codes for commercial stairways are closer to 30, older stairs are often steeper but this is definitely a "building codes are written in blood" kind of area) whereas the "space saving" designs are constrained by treads needing to be deep enough for the largest species using them to stand on it without half their foot hanging off the end while also having a riser height that the smallest species can use, which forces a shallower angle than would otherwise be possible, and may not be workable if the difference in leg length between largest and smallest users is too big. They might have a use case in outdoor stairs that need to follow natural slopes that are shallow enough for them but too steep for a sloped path, though.

How equal can a society be if some fundamentals are unusable by a third of the population? You can learn a lot about a world by looking at the little details, especially in furry settings!

[atopvisenyashill]

Might be pretty puritan of me but i cannot bring myself to watch GOT completely by the absurd quantity of sex that there is in the show. I know that the books also have sex but idk It feels like if George actually wants to tell us something trough It and the one in GOT is just there to bait people in because sex sells.

YES like there’s no deeper meaning to like, bronn telling the rains of castamere story with a naked woman in his lap, they just did it that way bc they needed to fit their tiddy quota. and it doesn’t help that the sex scenes in got are kinda notoriously terrible to film & they also weren’t optional for women. they told sophie turner they were giving her a love story & then she got the scripts & she’s marrying ramsay & she’s said (and walked back in a suspicious way) that it was very traumatizing to shoot those scenes. it’s p common knowledge that esme bianco was not fond of being naked all the time. there’s very infamously a moment where the rape scenes w dany & drogo were so badly done that jason momoa had to yell “can someone get her a fucking robe” bc they just like. made emilia chill out naked when they called cut! it’s very difficult to get excited about like, the gendrya sex scene later on for example bc it’s like. did maisie feel pressured into this? it’s not like it’s uncommon! ya carice van houten is very sexy but if she at any point ever said “can i do this scene with my top on” would they have fired & replaced her like they did to the myrcella actress?

and it’s not even to say that george doesn’t have his own hang ups, but cersei isn’t just doing girl in girl to be titillating, there IS a reason for it! ya the way george describes the sex scenes like drogo/dany or the twincest sept sex is maybe kind of weird but there's a point to all of it, he follows those threads in a way the show really doesn't like to. like yeah of course part of jaime and cersei's divorce is jaime showing up and being um, incredibly pushy and rapey next to the dead body of their son, that's how those two use sex with each other, as a weapon, as a way to ignore their real issues, and jaime does it because he's upset about his hand and his attraction to brienne and the resurfacing of his feelings about being a knight and he's taking it out on cersei, while cersei lets it happen because she's grieving, because this is how sex is for her, its someone taking and her being forced to let them, at least with jaime it doesn't hurt. in the show they just like. basically just have him get mad and rape her and then never address it again. she kisses his stump. even when they adapt the stuff that's in the book, they strip it of all the context until it's just another rapey sexy topless scene.

it definitely doesn't help when we have hotd to compare either - yeah obviously they were really pushing the "look we had full frontal male" stuff (because sex sells) but aemond and sylvi and aegon are all Doing Something in that scene! they're not just talking shop at a brothel so we can have some sexy ladies in the back like decorations, like varys and littlefinger and bronn and tyrion are constantly doing.

[disposal-blueeee]

( stereotypical mexican music starts playing

[bemusedlybespectacled]

The context you're missing is that the reason the person is immoral or corrupt is their genes. The word originally meant "someone who is worse than their ancestors" (so definitely still related to ancestry, even if they didn't know what DNA was). Essentially, the reason you're a bad person isn't because of your actions; it's because you were born that way, and nothing you can do can ever change it. And, conversely, being a good person is also genetic, and nothing you can do can ever change that, either.

Why is that a problem? Well, in the late 1800s/early 1900s, eugenics (the opposite of degeneration; "de" means down, "eu" means "good") became a popular "scientific" theory. It's the idea that every bad thing that happens to or is done by a person is actually a result of their genes. Not just actual genetic disorders, like Tay-Sachs disease, but also being poor or committing crimes. Literally, their thought process was, "We see that the children of poor families tend to also be poor. That must mean that poverty is genetic." (this was actually pretty well debunked in like 1911 but weirdly it kept being popular in/promoted by super racist people hmm I wonder why that would be)

If you were genetically perfect, then of course you'd be healthy, strong, intelligent, hardworking, wealthy, moral, and, most importantly, white; lacking any of those qualities meant that there was something wrong with your DNA somewhere. The best way to ensure that everyone was successful would be to just get rid of anything – that is, anyone – genetically bad, so that only the best people could breed with each other and have perfect children.

How do you do that? Well, for one, you make it illegal for anyone to marry outside of their race, and you make the requirements to be white incredibly difficult to prove (it wasn't based on skin color, but on any non-white heritage, no matter how white you actually looked) and draw the lines for everyone else very broadly (in the US South, it was literally "white" or "colored," with "colored" meaning anything from "just immigrated here from Africa" to "mostly white with a bit of Native American"), and require all of them to have some kind of identifying document or badge so that you can tell which is which. And you make it legal to sterilize undesirables: disabled people (both physical and mental), nonwhite people, and people of poor moral character (remember, being bad is genetic, and also in this era you think being gay is also a sign of poor moral character), just to ensure that there's absolutely no chance that someone might accidentally or deliberately sneak in.

(Eventually, you can also just kill them. Because that other stuff is taking too long.)

But remember! Evil is genetic! So of course there are always going to be nefarious actors deliberately trying to bring the whole race down and make it worse/weaker! And what's their evil plan? They'll encourage mixing good people with bad people with diabolical schemes like "making modern art" and "thinking it's okay for white people to listen to jazz" and "promoting civil rights for minorities." And what do we call "people who bring the whole race down"? Degenerates!

this was my thesis in college before i had a nervous breakdown so i know a lot about it. don't even get me started on how birth certificates are racist.

DNI lists on this website are fucking insane

[ive-fallen-and-i-cannot-get-up]

took a while but here’s drummer and naomi

[waterwindow]

I think I wanna go around and find the prettiest jumps that i can for my next compilation

[twocutlines]

this may be an unpopular opinion but personally i think the thing i struggle with regarding the idea of buck and eddie having satisfying romantic arcs apart from each other is that it is possible for sure, but i don't really. see a way for it to happen without some kind of a shift in the relationship they have each other that moves away from the level of intimacy and closeness they have developed over the past six (6!) years.

because, like, obviously you can have meaningful platonic relationships outside of your romantic partner, but even though buck and eddie are not in a romantic relationship their whole deal is also... not platonic. the space that they occupy in each other's lives is. well. it goes beyond friendship (sorry). and as others have pointed out, part of the reason buck and eddie's past relationships (taylor, ana, etc) have felt so lackluster in comparison to their relationship with each other is simply because they just do not have the kind of emotional intimacy with anyone else that they have with each other – and i don't really think you can have it both ways. the relationship buck and eddie have on the show right now can't continue as it is if the goal is to have them both in well-developed, believable romantic relationships apart from each other; something would need to change.

and i mean. they could do this; it's not impossible. but i think would be a mistake, and not just because i think they have a good foundation for a romantic relationship (though i do) – so much of the story they've told with buck and eddie is about two people who were both very alone in different ways meeting and becoming an integral part of each other's lives, and the relationship they have with each other is a really compelling part of the show. so while having them grow apart from that relationship is technically possible, i don't think it would be a good or satisfying choice narratively

[duskdog]

Very good thoughts here on Steph's conservatism, esp re: punitive justice. She's been on the "losing" side of that of the revolving prison door for her whole life. Dad was in and out, and rather than make her life better, it only made it worse. Not only did Dad never reform, but the stress of having a parent who's in and out can't be denied. Visiting Arthur in prison and listening to him rant about Batman rather than just be with his family (can you imagine him spending that short, precious time expressing how much he misses his little girl? of course not), dealing with Arthur's lawyers and showing up to support him at his court appearances and helping gather paperwork and maybe even having to testify sometimes, having to adjust to shifting dynamics within the house and the daily routine when he's gone and then having to shift again once he's out... it's all exhausting. There's no actual relief there, just an endless cycle of bad and worse and bad and worse. At least he can't hit mom or lock Steph in the closet, yes, but his shadow is always there (probably calling every chance he gets to complain and/or demand money for his commissary). And given how he's shown to react to being put away in the first place, I don't think it's a stretch to say he probably takes out his anger at Batman and authority in general on his family. It's like they're unwitting secondary antagonists in Steph's life -- constantly poking the dragon, but never actually slaying it. It's no wonder she'd be in favor of locking criminals away forever and throwing away the key... or just ending them straight-up, because they always break out in Gotham anyway, don't they? I think it's a little more ambiguous regarding her feelings on reproductive rights. As far as I recall, we're never actually shown how she feels about abortion in general. We see her lash out angrily at the very idea of termination when it comes to her own pregnancy at least twice, yes... but that's also, from my experience, a pretty common reaction, even among some people who whole-heartedly believe in a woman's right to choose. Some women can't bear the thought of going through with that themselves -- just like some women can't bear the thought of carrying a baby to term, even though they have no problem with other people making that choice. We also see her lash out at some friends at school for acting like her having a baby is cool because she gets to miss school and gets a lot of attention... which is fair, because that's a childish way of looking at it. It's completely dismissing the actual stress of being a 15-year-old who's visibly pregnant and obviously going through a difficult time. She expresses that she thinks her classmate who kept a baby was stupid, which is in line with the rest of her conversation with these girls. Unfortunately, that doesn't really tell us much about what she actually thinks her friend should have done. Put the baby up for adoption, like Steph does? Or terminate the pregnancy? What does Steph think about the choices of other women? We just don't know, other than that she obviously doesn't think being a teen mom is cool at all (though she will waver on that a few times, as she struggles with her own desire to keep her baby -- once again, absolutely understandable).

Obviously, we can't really divorce the writing from the writer entirely. But, from an IC perspective, even if Steph is actually anti-choice, I suspect her feelings on the matter are rather complex. As far as I'm aware, we've never seen any sign that the Browns are religious in any way. That doesn't mean they're not, because quite a lot of people hang onto religious sentiment passed down through generations while not actively worshipping, but we have no reason to believe Steph would have a religious motivation for her conservatism. However, I think it would be fair to speculate that her own experiences may give her strong feelings in that direction. Her father was outright abusive, and her mother was detached -- unreachable and unsupportive -- for much of her childhood. How often must Steph have felt like an unwanted child?? Locked in a closet by Arthur because he didn't want to see/deal with her, and not let out for god-knows-how-long by her mother because Crystal was too stoned to notice she was gone? Invisible. Unwanted. Unloved. Did she wonder if her parents wished they had aborted her? Did she wonder if she would have been better off if they had?

Some people do have that reaction to their childhood abuse experience. Some people come to the conclusion that it's kinder, better, not to bring a child into the world if it's only destined to suffer. But other people may feel differently about their experience, and I think Steph is one of those. She's always been one to rage against the dying of the light. Though the question may have occurred to her, I don't think she would have concluded that "yes" was the answer to "would I have been better off if I had never been born". We've seen that part of her reaction to her own abuse has been to become protective over other children. To Steph, the idea of a child being unwanted, like she may have felt, may be horrifying, yes. But I suspect that the solution, to her, is to give that child a life where it is wanted. Even if it can't be with her. And aborting that fetus would be the ultimate gesture of abuse and neglect and rejection -- something Stephanie Brown just cannot abide from herself, at the very least. And I wouldn't be surprised if she felt that way about other potential mothers, as well.

People who want to argue that Steph isn’t or shouldn’t be written as being innately conservative and committed to imprisonment as a punishment and source of retributive justice confuse me.

Steph. The character who has multiple storylines revolving around her frustration that people don’t get the punishment they deserve. Who has a written history of being failed over time and hurt because people didn’t punish people who committed crimes around and to her.

Who has a repeated tendency to punch male characters for upsetting her (Arthur Brown, Tim, Tito, Dean).

Who has writers as diverse as Chuck Dixon, Jon Lewis, Mariko Tamaki and James Tynion exploring this in their writing of her?

Steph mentally sides with victims and seeks to give criminals what she thinks they deserve. She puts herself in those shoes pretty often in her perspective: she originally went after her father because she was mad he was getting away with committing crimes; she sided with and was completely derailed from hero work by the question of whether her work as a vigilante had value – because it caused problems punishing criminals – by the Victim Syndicate; who gets mad over the concept of criminals getting extra chances to reform when they’ve proven themselves to be recidivists in opposition to other Bats like Bruce’s optimism that people can change (Arthur, frequently; also Harvey Dent in One Bad Day).

This is a beat that gets used often, for Steph. It’s imbued in a lot of her characterisation. Just because you like a character does not and should not mean that you have to agree 100% with their perspectives and politics, and vice versa.

[running-in-the-dark]

my niece stayed with us last night. it was pretty fun this time, probably because I was feeling better (if I'm already in pain or exhausted, I can't handle it). after we dropped her off, we talked to my mother for a little bit, and then drove to my in-laws. we were there for a few hours and because the guys were busy outside, i ended up talking to my mother-in-law for most of that time. it was... kind of good? I don't know. she actually showed some real emotions, just a little bit, but hey that's more than ever before! I even gave her a weird little shoulder squeeze/side hug, it was so weird.

anyway, I almost fell asleep in the car on the way home because I was so tired, and actually did fall asleep immediately on the couch.

[rosie-tyler]

.

[neon-wool]

Short answer: Buy them yourself or ask your dad, either should be fine. Asking your mum to buy something for your dad’s house sounds more likely to cause drama in an already tense situation.

Long answer: Anon, it sounds like you’ve had a difficult upbringing, and I feel for you. Obviously I don’t know you, so take everything I'm about to write with a big pinch of salt... take anything that resonates and ignore the rest.

It sounds like you’ve formed some pretty intense anxiety around relationships that's affecting your daily life. For most people, buying posters for their room would be a very simple issue that requires almost no thought. They'd never think to ask permission for something they were paying for, and there would be no pressure to open up about liking the tv show in advance, just in case a parent's feelings were hurt. They'd talk about the show if they happened to feel like it, or not, without thinking much of it.

However for you it sounds like there's a strong fear of judgement from your dad if you admit to liking the show, but on the flipside you worry not telling him in advance could somehow hurt him, make him feel betrayed, or undermine your relationship. Most people wouldn't have these worries at all. Has he given you a reason to think he's that judgemental or fragile? Or is it possible you're catastrophising?

Looking at the level of intensity you’re applying to the situation, it seems to me this isn’t really about the tv show or the poster at all. Perhaps the strong emotions are about how you’d like to connect more with your dad and feel closer to him. There may also be some amount of underlying trauma from your upbringing, which sounds like it had some significant issues.

My advice is: be kind to yourself, and try to take the pressure off for now. Your dad is very unlikely to be hurt by you buying a poster. What’s important is finding ways to connect to your loved-ones and feel cared for, and exploring complicated emotions about your childhood. That takes time.

From what you wrote, it sounds like your dad does actually take an interest in your hobbies when you bring them up, and you generally do feel he’s quite supportive. That’s a good thing, and more than some people have with their parents. The main problem you have right now is that he doesn’t approach you first, and he doesn’t open up about himself much either. You also feel he has an outdated view of you and still sees you as a child.

Sometimes it takes active communication to shift your relationships forward in the direction you want them to go. Sometimes parents have their own issues, or just lack social skills, so they may not realise how their words and actions are affecting you. If you think his view of you is stuck in the past, and you want him to see you as who you are now, then you're going to need to have the courage to assert yourself as who you are now.

If talking to him about this show is causing a lot of anxiety I won't push you to do that immediately. But I would suggest you look again at that fear. You said in the past he's been supportive when you talked about your interests, and you know the idea of him thinking the show is too weird/violent is unlikely since he already enjoys that kind of show himself. Putting that together it's hard to see why you're so afraid of mentioning this to him, perhaps this fear is a result of the chronic overthinking you mentioned.

Let's play out the worst-case scenario: you tell him, and he says "oh that's a pretty violent show, it's not for me" or he just doesn't understand why you like it... why is that such a problem? It's ok for him to see that you are an adult with your own taste, which might not always match his. Doesn't sound like there's anything seriously problematic about the show. How would it feel to just sit with the fact that you like it, and he might not like it, and that's ok? Having different taste in tv shows isn't going to mean he stops liking you as a person.

If this whole subject causes you intense stress, and you have anxiety about the relationship being damaged by small things like this, I think that's something you need to take note of, and perhaps get some outside support for.

However if you feel able to, I’d recommend taking a deep breath and just telling him about the show, in a casual way, just for the sake of opening up. It sounds like the odds of him enjoying it too are pretty decent! And if he isn't into it, maybe you could be ok with that. I'd also recommend the idea (when you feel ready) of just telling him, in a positive way, that you enjoy talking to him about your interests, you want to learn more about his interests too, and you’d like to have a good friendship and get to know him more as you become an adult.

Eventually, if you feel closer to him over time, you might feel able to open up about the distance and ‘privacy’ your parents kept in childhood, and how this has affected you. There might be some difficult emotions to process there. Parents have their own baggage, and can be very stuck in their own perspective. If you continue building on the relationship and trust you have with him now, there might be more space for him to reflect on those issues in the future, in a way that would be healing for both of you.

Navigating family relationships can be very complicated. Sometimes you feel someone has hurt you, but it wasn’t intentional, so what do you do with that hurt? Do they even realise they hurt you? Perhaps they do love you and do make an effort, but is that enough? Could they have done more? Will they ever see or acknowledge or make amends for the hurt they caused? Perhaps you wish you could be closer, and perhaps you really wish they would be the one to reach out first, you really wish they would just ‘get it’ and grow of their own accord… but wishing won’t change the situation. Maybe you'll be the one who has to set things in motion and push for growth, even though you didn't cause the situation. Life is messy. Growth is messy. It can be hard to know exactly what you want, or how to achieve it. But there's time, it doesn't all need to happen straight away.

I can’t answer any of these questions, or even know if they're the right questions for you. Finding a healthy balance can be hard. It’s up to each individual to judge their own situation, their own sense of fairness and hurt, and how much effort is worth putting into a relationship. Of course, parents hold the responsibility of forming healthy relationships with their children as they grow up, not the other way round. Sometimes they really fail at that job. Other times it’s a complex mixture of good and bad. Even with genuine effort there are many things which hold people back, people have their own traumas, everyone has their own narrow perspective. You can have sympathy for your parents’ limitations, and be willing to work with them and have patience, but simultaneously accept that you've always deserved to feel loved and safe and supported, and maybe you didn't always get that. The sacrifices and effort shouldn’t all be on your side.

As you become an adult, you have more choices about how you interact with your parents, and more agency in how you handle the relationship. Again, without knowing your situation I can’t say for sure, but just from what you’ve written here… my advice would be to take it slow, and try not to over-analyse every little thing. Don't try to come up with all the answers straight away. Instead, step back and look at the big picture of your upbringing and parental relationships, both the good and the bad.

Maybe start writing a journal about it, just noting down any thoughts that come up and letting yourself vent. A well-hidden private journal is great because it gives you space to try out lots of random thoughts and ideas, and see what actually makes sense. You don’t have to judge what you write, or draw any conclusions. You can write whatever pops into your head, and then ask “is this really what I feel? Does this make sense to me?” Then you can re-read it months later, suddenly see something you didn’t before, and a new piece clicks into place.

Good luck anon, I hope you find a way forward over time, and I hope you enjoy the posters!

This is not a yes/no poll but I don’t know who else to consult.

My parents and I are not close. I'm closer with my dad, but he doesn't know about any of my interests due to the way me and my sister were taught about 'privacy' growing up. I am not close with my mum at all and I only talk to her when I have to.

When me and my sister were growing up, we were not told any of our parents' interests/hobbies, and were always told not to look at what people were doing. I think this is what led us to both be so hidden(?) from our parents, and is why this problem exists in the first place.

My dad doesn’t really buy anything for me, nor does he try to learn about my interests (but he will listen when he does learn about them. He likes that I like stuff, he just doesn’t actively seek that information out). My mum is the one who will buy me things, but it’s gotten to the point where she is just buying me junk for the sake of trying to keep a relationship with me and then holding that fact over my head (I have told her to stop, she hasn’t).

I want to buy a few posters for my favourite show for my bedroom at my dads house (my parents are divorced). I currently do not have a credit/debit card as I lost it a few months ago, however I am going to go get a new one on the 18th of this month, but I would preferably like to place the order before school starts again (for reference, all these options are online orders).

I have a few options on how to acquire the posters, and I’m not sure how to go about it.

Ask my mum to buy them for me.

She will buy me things I don’t want related to this show for the next 10 years, even after I inevitably lose interest in it. She’ll also be extremely upset that I’m putting them up at my dad’s house, and not hers. However I don’t care about her opinion on my interests as much.

Ask my dad to buy them for me.

I do not want to do this one, purely because of the completely irrational fear I have that he’ll think the show is weird, or violent (again, completely irrational. He is the biggest nerd you’ll meet, he’s probably even watched the show before and enjoyed it. It’ll just be awkward and I’m an overthinker). His opinion means a lot to me, and although he’s supportive of me in every sense, I think he still views me as a little kid (I’m 18), hence why I’m worried to tell him about my interests. I do want him to know about my interests in the long term though, and I want to be able to tell him things about me and not be scared about it, but I’m not sure if diving headfirst into this is the right way to go about it (for my own sake).

Wait until the 18th and buy them myself.

This one would be fine, but I’m a little worried that my dad will be confused when they show up for me. He would also have to find out about the posters/my interests in a surprise! Kind of way, which is a little awkward and it might hurt his feelings that he wasn’t asked. This will also be after school starts again, which I would prefer to get them before then. However I think this is the option that’ll give me the least anxiety in the short-term, but probably more as I wait for them to arrive.

I have consulted my sister and she is no help whatsoever.

Thank you for reading this behemoth of an ask, and thank you for any advice you might have (and I understand if this is not submitted to the public as it's not a yes/no question).

[im-smart-i-swear]

Ok so Buddy works in space McDonalds right? Does that mean others have a job somewhere as well?

ill admit that in the comic i used space mcdonalds mostly for comedic effect........ i mean they propably worked at a space fast food restaurant at some point, but it definetely wasnt their only job!

okay so after eeneks unexpected family reunion the clones, eenek and zora all decide to stay on znahors ship for the time being(it gets a little cramped but its bearable), and they just kinda start going from place to place after that?? before picking them all up znahor already was doing essentialy that, anyway- he traveled from planet to planet, occasionally helping the locals and then fucking off elsewhere. so thats what they do! they jump from one star system to the next, never staying anywhere for long, trying to not bring any unwanted attention to themselves, and they get by mostly by doing random odd jobs(some more legal than others..) and stuff.

they all(ecept for taka bc hes like 10) get their fair share of shitty jobs, but they dont really have a choice, do they? the war is over, sure, but obviously such a long conflict leaves an impact on the world. the chaos is on one hand a blessing, bc an odd bunch like three galrans and a gaggle of humans dont bring much attention in a sea of refugees, but it also means that sometimes things get messy, and making ends meet is difficult.

out of the clones, buddy has the most experience and knowledge about how alien worlds function, so they often end up with jobs that require communication and frequent interaction with other people- basically what im trying to say is that they work customer service. a lot. they survive it by remembering how infiuriating diplomacy was and telling themselves that hey! at least them fucking something up wont put the fate of the universe into jeopardy this time!! stickbug often works alongside them, but he hates interacting with customers even more that buddy does and tries to avoid this kind of job as much as he can(my man spent too much time trying to please everyone in his childhood and is OVER IT). i mean all of them get a customer service job from time to time but bud is the one whos least terrible at it

im not sure if the others have any preferred jobs tbh, but the idea of soup trying competetive fighting at some point would be interesting to explore i think........

[phagodyke]

weekend melancholy is starting to kick in >~<

[munch-mumbles]

ive been a little upset about it all night so i need to write out all the things that happened at work today and are bugging me so i can TRY to get it out of my head and actually RELAX bc i just keep pacing in circles around it instead of just accepting it and moving on

[orcelito]

Feel like I am absorbing as much as my father after his death as possible. I will carry on his Legacy. I will be the Biker (in time). I am already the weapon collector (though with knives, not guns). I even have accepted owning a minions mug, something I swore would never happen (I hate those fucking things), just bc it makes me think of him.

Maybe he's gone now, but I'm gonna make damn sure to live a continuation of his life... just in my own way, lol

[mantisgodsdomain]

Also have realized that we may have worded things oddly to exaggerate the amount of the Wasp Kingdom that is actually in active conflict but in our defence the power structures we currently have there have it so that whenever there aren't things to fight something like 40-80% of the Wasp Kingdom military gets re-allocated to Basically Whatever The Wasp Kingdom Needs At That Moment since they're, like, the Designated Supply Of Able-Bodied Wasps That The Queen Uses To Do Shit.

Marble is also banned from the non-combat parts of that setup, btw. Their particular tendency towards volatile-yet-effective is not something that ANYONE wants designing things that will be used in day-to-day civilian things just Around The Wasp Kingdom because generally you don't want your heavy-use architecture to Fucking Explode if you don't read and religiously adhere to the 120-page manual.