#minor penalties

[sbbarnes]

Brief break from the hockey romance mental breakdown to point out that my already published novel Heart First is available for half-price on Smashwords through January First! Which is perfect timing because the ARC of the sequel, Second Chance, will be ready any day!

(And at the end of the sequel...you get a sneak peek at the hockey romance...)

[in-the-multiverse]

What if the boogeyman mechanic comes back but it kinda works like soulbound. No shared health, but shared rewards/punishment

If they both kill, they get goodies or whatever advantages the season calls for

If one fails to kill, or they kill their soulbound, both get a major penalty

It would be super interesting to see people bluffing, crying wolf (“no don’t kill me I’m the other boogey!”), trying to figure out who not to kill. And what if there’s a super secret special prize to the people who figure out who their soulbound are. Maybe by /verify or something. Everyone can use that command once per session, no consequence. The story potential. Do you really trust the person in front of you who says they’re your other half? Would everyone embrace boogey to confuse the real ones? Do you set aside the investigation work and hope whoever your blade strikes won’t backfire? The odds are incredibly low for this soulbound to be the same from past alliances/double life but hey we see a lot of interesting coincidences here

[f1-ferraero]

A fucking reprimand... unprecedented starting procedure infringement, potentially extremely dangerous with people on track, and it's a fucking reprimand

[queerskiies]

Roblox Death Penalty-Sona

I've been playing a lot of Death Penalty on Roblox recently, so I drew some art for it!

The character itself is just my Roblox Avatar with the custom collar I have in-game :3

[muirneach]

how did caber get roughing and fighting penalties on that. one or the other surely

[nevermeyers]

some of y'all forget its football. the amount of racism, homophobia and sexism in this hashtag across all social media is disgusting, and i'm pretty disturbed by all the xenophobia here in fucking tumblr what are y'all yapping about. you can be dissatisfied with the match, specially with the referee since he was unfair to both of the teams (so, so, unfair, he made the match a horrible one), but the rest??? all the xenophobic posts? threats???? wtf is wrong with you

[skitskatdacat63]

The hate nando is getting right now is lame. Even moresp when ppl are doing anti tags.

Aaaahh yeah it's really annoying :/ I've not seen too much hate on here, because I really try not to go looking for it bcs it makes me rly annoyed. And that's like, probably one of the only things that will get me to actually block someone(which I rarely ever do.) However, I do frequent reddit and there was some post abt his comments after the sprint and UGH the comments bothered me so much. Sometimes I'm tempted to look at the anti tags, but from what I've seen already, ik it's gonna piss me off. I already blocked some people yesterday bcs of it.

I've talked abt this a lot with people but. Ik rationally that there's some people out there who don't like him, and don't enjoy his antics. But it sucks to see people hate on the traits that you like best 😔 Like people saying "he's a really good driver BUT his off track antics ruin his career, and he should never win a race." And a lot of antis, it feels like they're always waiting for some tiny thing like this to validate their opinion that Fernando is genuinely a terrible person who doesn't deserve anything. People want drama, and then they hate it when he gives them drama 🙄 anyways I have a lot of thoughts on the comments he made, but idk if I should say on main haha, not that I really care. Also, people now calling him a terrorist for accidentally being at the scene of the crime for several crashes, when he's one of the cleanest drivers ever 😔 rude.

[two4dashow]

how is that a double minor!? He fell back! Wtf!?

[aston-axo]

If the FIA keeps up this rate of throwing out harsh penalty points, F1 is not looking forward to a good time.

[sbbarnes]

Two taglines I will not be using and one I will

[mitchmarner]

patrick maroon i am in your walls

[sundayinthcpark]

.

[cheerfullycatholic]

In a July 31 Letter to the Editor, Demetrius Minor, the National Manager of Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty criticizes the Louisiana Pardon Board decision to decline review of clemency petitions filed by nearly every death-sentenced prisoner in Louisiana. The clemency applications were filed after Governor Edwards publicly announced that he opposed the death penalty. The petitions raise claims of intellectual disability, severe mental illness, racial injustice, and prosecutorial misconduct, among other longstanding, systemic problems with the application of the death penalty in Louisiana. Minor writes that “Governor John Bel Edwards must now take action to ensure that the door to redemption remains open.” In his letter, Minor discussed how his views about the death penalty evolved over time. “I grew up believing in the death penalty,” he said, “But over time, I began to question capital punishment as fundamentally at odds with the possibility of redemption and restoration. I also came to understand that being ‘pro-life’ means cherishing all life.” He attributes this change to his experience assisting in worship services for incarcerated people during his ministerial internship at the Pentecostals of Alexandria. “My eyes were opened to the profound yearning for redemption among the incarcerated people who joined us in praise and worship,” he said. Minor also addresses the life experiences of death-sentenced prisoners. “I have come to see that those on death row are not ‘the worst of the worst.’ Rather, they are the ‘least of these,’ those we as Christians are called upon to protect. They are people with intellectual disability, serious mental illnesses, and those who were too poor to afford zealous trial attorneys. Most are survivors of unspeakable childhood trauma.”

[muirneach]

NO PENALTY??????

[seaviewandmaine]

Should it be a penalty no. But based on the earlier penalty calls in this tournament it should be.

[rabbitindisguise]

it's my post and I can make it as long as I want to :3 (it's really long)

hm this might be a weird thought but I wonder how much misinformation has contributed to positive things in society?

a lot of human rights activism is a game of telephone where someone will say something like "I would like to use the restroom" and then someone else is like "my god someone can't even pee in peace why do we even have gender signs" and then it's all "gender signs should be removed!" which is 1) not what they said and 2) very much a part of mob mentality type of deals where everyone is so upset and repeating the worst most ridiculous parts they ping pong around until bigger, more concrete and radicalizingly basic ideas are established

in academia this is often seen as a negative. Like, "no good progress will ever be made until people can communicate perfectly an telepathically and it's only a major con," and not "perhaps an important feature in the ability to mediate social conflict because it's existed long past our attempts to remove it"

but yeah your cause getting picked up by well meaning middle aged white women has, historically, been a wonderful thing in general. Abolitionists, gay rights, suffragettes, etc are all movements that have had significant support in this area. And almost universally, these women tend to badly misunderstand some things and yet those misunderstandings, while they might incite rage in oppressive groups, also tend to rally lots of support by being emotionally gut wrenching.

I think the important part of misinformation is not that it's wrong but what the purpose of the falsehoods are. It IS true that we use gender signs on bathrooms, so while that's not the most pressing concern, why is it such an effective way to stoke resentment towards the kind of person who defends actively attacking trans people? If boiling something down to surface level arguments that barely scratch the surface is not doing due diligence, why does it so often pan out correctly more often on the side of the oppressed than the oppressor?

Words are wonderful and important tools but tbh I wonder if trying to logic our way out of human emotions is not just a fool's errand but actively harmful. One thing important about trauma processing is not just learning to properly identify emotions to wrestle with them, but to learn TO feel. At all. Since PTSD causes irritability, panic, anxiety, restlessness, etc because of repressed emotions, disassociation, and avoidance, I think it's a sign that emotions serve an important and even arguably necessary evolutionary purpose to intelligent thought and sensible action.

We get tired when we need a break, we get happy when good things happen (typically). These cues are important bodymind communication tools and intertwined with lots of chemical reactions and complex psychological responses that control everything from perspiration to metabolic rates to oxygen saturation. When someone says "they're being mean!" and we get angry, that's regarded as purely interpersonal emotion but I think perhaps there is something deeper going on wrt to the social aspects of humans as a species. We talk about hiveminds (literally: bee hives), chemical signals, ultraviolet lights, etc as exotic compared to "rudimentary" human speech. But I think perhaps like gut microbes communicate with human bodies, humans in social groups communicate with the larger social groups. And things like democracy, anarchy, communism, capitalism, etc all fundamentally fail to answer how DO we actually make decisions anyways? Stripped down to the bare essentials, we appoint moderators/diplomats/instructors/skilled professionals into roles to handle disputes or take care of particular tasks.

But like . . . that's weird right? We don't really learn what it means to evaluate someone for something like that. "How do you know that Sam is good at teaching math?" There's nitty gritty How Many Kids Pass or Who Learns What but ultimately we sort of know what we're looking for and often laws and regulations aim to fix things . . . and make them worse sometimes in some aspects. But in addition to that, there's pressures for people to fill roles that they are not suited to fill because there is a huge amount of economic draw so they need to successfully remove people from the group that are interfering by not being good at it, causing risking making it worse to be worth it. So in a sense there's a pressure to self police at a global scale what's difficult to police even in a 1 to 1 interaction. And it's weird that it actually works at all. It means on a 1 to 1 level we have a shakey but effective system to determine who does what and what's in or out of line socially that is being replicated on a global level, with global level errors.

Take like . . . food labels, unions, and banks. People died and got sick when things were improperly labeled "not full of sawdust." When people found out about it there was outcry and regulations happened. Simply knowing was all that it took to get angry and the anger was effective at creating action. With unions on the other hand, disputes are mediated so that it doesn't turn into a shouting match and stuff can get done by sharing the facts, and just by mutual agreement unions will represent workers and not double cross them by lying a bunch. What? Trust, honor, and integrity are the only things standing in line of that, people say stuff like "if this union doesn't stand by their workers they're not a union" and that's like a fallacy or whatever but it's also decreeing what can be true and acceptable through regulating through social force of will. Laws like these are effective from punishments, sure, but what makes punishments effective is the social will to make it so- and shocking someone from touching a button doesn't really have a lot of social impact, even if you tell them it's the button that shocks them. Similarly, banks are methods to hold a currency's value on mutual agreement of value that's agreed upon by an entire country. Gold is typically used as a metric of value behind the dollar, but why did everyone agree gold was valuable?!?!? There has to be some utilitarian purpose- part of it is that it's rare to find, and effective for some status symbols like jewelry worn by people who can afford to pay for people to do luxury labor for them, as well as the value as a metal that is fairly hypoallergenic and can be used for protecting teeth to all sorts of other functional uses. But there's lots of other things that are similarly valuable that aren't globally seen as important (water for example). It doesn't make sense until I reconsider it in the context of humans being a living organism with social instincts, and gold being a tool and not something essential to survival.

On some level, problematic discourse could be considered in the same vein as an algae bloom or a rock slide or a migratory pattern change.

I think ultimately the answer to why misinformation works effectively to hear out oppressed people is that the facts of the matter are irrelevant to the intention of the interaction. The issue of the matter is Not if trans people can use the restroom, it's to draw the gaze of the entire country on the problems faced by an iiiiitty bitty tiny fraction of the population. Using the most inflammatory language possible, even if it's egregiously wrong, increases the attention- it's why trolls are such a big problem. It would also explain outcry, social change, reactionary behavior, and post reactionary behavior cycles. The outcry is the problem, the social change solves some and creates new ones, the reactionary behavior focuses on the problems, and after the reactionary behavior there's a bunch of chaos until Everyone Has Been Briefed on The Issues. Understanding this through the lens of a social group makes sense- individual birds will nest closer to a sunny spot, and others will follow to maintain the protection of being in a group. Cats will share nursing duties between themselves and raise kittens together. Strip away the complaining and infighting that happens, you can see regulations shifting towards informed consent HRT over time, then backswinging to it being outlawed, to a national conversation and protections from people fleeing the punitive laws. I don't think that California and Massachusetts would have such firm stances if they had not hear the (flawed) reasoning of republicans, or the pleas from trans people, or the very angry middle aged white women campaigning for trans rights with things that don't really make a whole lot of sense but are surprisingly effective. There's a huge push and pull across entire countries that looks like a nice flock of birds in the distance or a swarm of bees shifting course or a bunch of fish dodging a shark, if we didn't have to listen to insults and angry back and forth about it. We stare and wonder at ants making anthills and don't stop to think that it's incredible that we have people build houses that we can live in.

All this to say, I'm really curious about the bird discourse that may or may not be happening in light of this realization. Are there ant taxes? Are there ant fines for ant littering?