#obviously there is a lot of nuance

[repurposedmeatlocker]

I'm genuinely starting to think that any guy whose like "I don't like it when people analyze media by intercutting it with social/historical commentary" just don't like how a lot of it tends to be left-leaning.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that is the whole reason. They just don't want to admit it outright.

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

hi! can i ask what's ur opinion on giving pets away? not necessarily because u can't afford to care for em anymore but maybe incompatibility of personalities or maybe lifestyles. is it wrong to give ur pet for adoption if u know someone who's better suited for keeping a pet, like emotionally?

This is going to be controversial, but I support making that choice.

There’s a lot of rhetoric lately around how it’s evil and unethical to rehome your pet if you don’t “need to.” And what that does is prioritize human ideology over the actual animal’s well-being.

Pets that aren’t a good match for your home or pets that aren’t really wanted anymore frequently have lower welfare! When caring for an animal becomes a burden or is forced, people end up resenting them, and that means the animal often doesn’t get all of its needs fulfilled. Even if you’re still feeding it and providing appropriate vet care, how likely are you to provide affection or enrichment to an animal you’re tired of being stuck with?

Lifestyle and personality really matter to making sure a pet is a good fit for a home. A dog that alert-barks at every leaf that moves is probably a bad fit for someone who has a chronic migraine syndrome, and they might not know that until the dog has been in the home for weeks and started to open up. A really feisty kitten that requires a ton of play might not do best in the home of someone older who wanted a quiet lap cat. And while you can you do your best to plan to find a compatible animal, you won’t always know ahead of time what issues might arise.

“Forever home” rhetoric is really, really popular and I think it’s very unfair to the animals it is supposed to support. It started with the backlash of seeing animals abandoned inappropriately, and has been heavily reinforced in the public mind because it’s so frequently used to drive fundraising and support for legislation. The whole “forever home” concept communicates to people that getting an animal is an immutable commitment and that if you can’t keep an animal, it is a personal moral failing. It frames human priorities (we think people who get rid of animals are Evil and Bad and should be shunned) as more important than actual welfare needs for individual animals (are they getting the care they need where they are).

Obviously, I don’t support people dumping animals or just getting fad pets they’ll discard immediately, but there’s so many alternate situations that can arise. Even if it’s just “they got a pet and didn’t know what caring for it would take and didn’t want to care for it so they brought it back, how awful” like… okay, I’d like the person to have done more research before they got a pet, but isn’t it better that the animal now has a second chance to go to better home? Knowing what a commitment requires theoretically can be very different than having to actually follow through regularly, and I’d rather see someone maturely acknowledge that having an animal isn’t a good fit than keep it anyway!!

If animals being happy and with all their biological, veterinary, and social needs fulfilled is actually the goal, we need to prioritize their welfare over human opinion. I’d much rather see an animal rehomed responsibly to somewhere it will thrive and be welcomed than see people keep animals they can’t/don’t want to care for out of guilt or shame. 

[razormaze]

what fear a man like you brings upon a woman like me (please don’t look at me)

[doomdoomofdoom]

With the ongoing investigation into the CEO Killer, it's interesting to see how little people know about police investigations. Which is funny, because most of that stems from Copaganda and is now kinda biting the cops in the ass.

Semi-Educated rambles about copaganda and real procedures below the cut

I say semi-educated because I am writing a thesis paper on copaganda, but much more about the brutality aspects and not the crime solving ones. I did write a much less intense paper on that almost ten years ago, and presumably some things have changed. Take my "expertise" with a grain of salt.

The Copaganda Thing

Copaganda (Cop Propaganda) is basically what the name suggests. Anything that makes police look good. Social media posts about community outreach, the adorable little K-9 units, kneeling next to a protestor that you brutalize after the camera turns off. But the massive elephant in the room here are Cop Shows. There are literally too many for me to name. NCIS, Blue Bloods, True Detective, any of those weird "live" police shows, and yes, Brooklyn 99, too. These shows (often produced in cooperation with the police btw) serve to humanize cops and portray them as good, honest people, who maybe have to cross the line sometimes but it's always for a good reason and they're always right and save the day! The other half of it is vastly misrepresenting how (and if) crimes get solved.

Reality

Ripping this band-aid off first: Police are dogshit at solving crimes. There are aspects technically outside their control, like that only about half of all crimes (excluding murder) actually get reported to the police. (Based on comparing the 'Uniform Crime Reports' and the 'National Criminal Victimization Survey') But this also means that the Police Clearance rates are only half of what they calculate. Numbers get further skewed by not accounting for a lot of online crimes because the system hasn't caught up with like, the 90s. Anyway, for reported crimes, investigations will lead to an arrest in about 20-25% of cases. Three out of Four cases die without ever apprehending a suspect. (While there are ways to deal with a case without an arrest, ask yourself if you think that's likely in a system that measures success by arrest numbers) Conviction rates (which vary massively depending on crime) even out to about 4%, or 2% of total known crimes. (x) Worth noting: Generally, violent crimes have higher clearance and conviction rates. For murder, the conviction rate is around 60% while larceny-theft can dip below 1% of reported crimes. (It's generally assumed that the number of known and reported murders is the same, as the NCVS doesn't track it. Because murder victims are bad at filling out surveys.) To recap: Police solve about 4% of crimes reported to them. Meanwhile in your average cop show, you've got a success rate of about 100%. That's a stark difference, even if you take only murder rates of 60%. If you're an average citizen who's the victim of a crime, the most helpful thing the cops will do is file a report you can submit to your insurance.

Forensics & Procedures

I've seen these float around a bit and it's mildly ridiculous. Supposedly they've found a bottle and a protein bar of our killer and will be testing fingerprints and DNA. If those worked flawlessly, they still would only bring up results if the killer has been detained before. Databases of random civilian fingerprints/DNA samples are not kept by law enforcement. These analyses only work by having a point of comparison (and even then fingerprint analysis remains subjective), so they won't actually help finding the culprit, but they would be relevant to confirm the identity of an apprehended suspect and as evidence in an eventual trial. (There is also something called familial DNA which would work if they had a couple of relatives in the system, but that's both a flawed and incredibly time intensive approach. We're talking months of drawing family trees.) Also your average DNA test takes like 24 hours and fingerprint analysis is algorithmically supported now, but still mostly done manually. And both require a clear sample, so good luck with that. Fingerprint might as well be the clerk who sold the bottle. There's an infamous case of a serial killer whose DNA kept being found on crime scenes all Central Europe with no connection to each other. Turned out the Swabs were contaminated during production. There was no serial killer. Quickfire round of unrelated notes: 1) Lie detectors don't detect lies, they detect stress, anyone can trick one with some practice. the guy who popularized their use thought they could detect stress in plants too and that the plants could read his mind. 2) We're not actually sure if all fingerprints are completely unique. 3) Bite mark analysis is a pseudoscience that needs to be removed from criminal and legal proceedings asap. 4) Any algorithmic detections inherit the flaws of their human predecessors. Those are their training data. (That's also how they keep turning up racist)

And as a final note, it's common for the police to not share details on their ongoing investigations. That's just common sense. The only details that get released to the public are ones that could lead to direct hints or vague ones if there's a lot of public attention, to assure everyone there is progress. For similar reasons, while everyone and their grandma has put together the motive from the bullet casings, cops can't actually go out and confirm that. It's like how Bulbapedia has to say Flamigo appears to be based on a flamingo. Contrary to the cops, Bulbapedia does not have to carefully watch what data they release that might elicit more sympathy for Flamigo.

Why tho

So after literal decades of copaganda brainwashing, the public perception of crime and punishment is heavily skewed. We've been told over and over that cops can catch any criminal in a matter of a 60 minute episode, max. And that's by design. Aside from the image polishing, copaganda is a deterrent. If you're convinced you'll be caught after committing a crime, you wouldn't commit it, right? You don't wanna go to jail. And the bad guys always get what they deserve on TV, no matter how smart they are. You're not gonna risk that, are you?

That's why we keep using lie detectors, that's why the news are full of arrests being made constantly, that's why cop shows get so much support from the police. That's also why we keep pouring money into policing. Part of it, at least. We've built a police force that isn't about solving crimes. If that was priority, we'd invest more into forensics and labs to keep up with the demand of samples that need to be analyzed. Instead, we built a police force that gets new tech gadgets and military gear. It's an arms race against the general public that isn't even running. We take cops and we give them paranoia, weapons, justifications for violence, and targets to brutalize. I don't have to remind you of the riot gear and responses to peaceful protests. The police isn't your friend and helper. You must fear them. Fear their superior intellect, fear their crime solving abilities, fear the high tech arsenal at their disposal. Fear them so much, you won't even think of doing a crime unless you're rotten to the core. And if someone's rotten to the core, then surely the violence is justified.

But that's also why this guy in particular is so dangerous. They've built up this image of being near infallible (to anyone who never actually interacted with police proceedings, at least) and being able to stop any threat, catch any criminal. And yet, this guy shot someone in broad daylight, in the juristiction of the country's largest police department, and he's currently getting away with it.

[wasyago]

jay and chip as tritons hehe

(i know that every other person drew them as tritons already, but like, cmon its so fun)

[txttletale]

i dont really understand where this generalized worry about 'the student protests overshadowing the genocide in the media' is coming from--it's not like there are mainstream usamerican news sources who would just love to report on the vicious murderousness of the zionist state but are just too dang busy with all these student protests is it

[tangents-within-tangents]

Yellow = yellow

Bananas are yellow, does this mean that yellow = banana?

No, yellow = yellow

Yellow =/= banana, does this mean bananas aren't yellow?

Lemons are yellow, does this mean lemon = banana?

Lemon =/= banana, does this mean lemons aren't yellow?

Some apples are yellow, does this mean yellow = apple?

Some apples are red or green, does this mean apples can't be yellow?

Some apples are red, some apples are yellow, does this mean red = yellow?

Lemons and apples are round but bananas aren't, does this mean bananas aren't yellow?

Apples and bananas are sweet, does this mean lemon's aren't sour? Or that sourness is bad?

Bananas, lemons, and apples are fruit, does this mean mustard isn't yellow?

No, yellow = yellow

A category groups things that share a commonality despite their differences. The differences coexist within that commonality without redefining the category.

Other similarities coexist within, and without, the commonality without redefining the category either. The fact that it doesn't redefine the category does not mean those similarities don't hold significance of their own.

If not for the commonality, it wouldn't be a category. If not for the differences, it wouldn't be a category either.

Okay? Cool

Asexuality = experiencing little to no sexual attraction

[shalom-iamcominghome]

As I've gotten deeper in conversion, I have increasingly imagined jewish life throughout time. And what I mean by that is...

So when I looked at the Western Wall before this (maybe a few years ago), I just saw a wall. It held no deeper meaning than that. I imagined nothing when I saw that.

But now when I look at the wall or even when I'm praying idly, I'm imagining myself in the temple when it stood there. It's bright outside - a summer day so bright, I think the temple will blind me. A soft wind surrounds me. I'm stood in the middle of a huge crowd of people, simply observing. Women pass by me in small crowds, laughing and talking. Some of these women are wrangling their small children who keep running away, laughing like it's a game. And men walk by smelling of spices. The air is light, the city around bustling with people living fulfilling, meaningful jewish life. The wall now symbolizes that jewish life, and even though it's not just about the temple when I imagine it, it means something to me.

I think that's the result of seeing myself in judaism, turning the "you" into a "we," and I feel about this what I must imagine a married couple feels.

[pharawee]

A few notes on Pat and Chot's conversation:

🔹Ke (เกย์) is a neutral expression that is the phonetic adaptation of the English word gay.

🔹Tut (ตุ๊ด) is a vulgar and pejorative expression used to refer to a very effeminate homosexual man and can have multiple translations, as sissy, queen, [or in this case: tootsie] etc. 

🔹Je (เจ๊) is a Thai honorific from 姐 for “elder sister”. Chot uses it to refer to himself. Pat later uses it to address Chot.

🔹krap/kha (ครับ / ค่ะ) are gender-oriented particles. Chot uses the traditionally female particle for himself.

🌈Sources: LGTBIQ+ Enciclopaedia, Thaipod101

[lesbianfakir]

There’s a huge focus in tutu of defying fate but something I love is how again and again the characters choose to embrace Drosselmeyer’s tragic ending.

Even after learning Tutu can never be with the one she loves, Duck still puts on the pendant. Rue chooses to put on the black shoes and become Kraehe though it makes her miserable. Never once does Fakir consider leaving Mytho’s side, knowing it will most likely lead to his gruesome death. Even Mytho chooses to receive his heart and return to the story, inviting the capability to experience tragedy into himself once more.

Why cling so hard to these tragic fates?

In the eyes of the characters it’s better to immerse oneself in another’s bitter role than be stripped to the ugly, naked self. It’s like Fakir says: everyone wants to be given a role to play and no one wants a story to end.

Sure, Fakir could've left mytho’s side and likely lived, but without the legacy of The Knight be left with only Fakir. Better to be a doomed knight than a frightened young boy unable to protect those he loves and terrified of losing anyone else.

Likewise with Rue though It hurts to be Kraehe, without the security of a princess, she’s just a hurting, abused girl who could never hope to catch the attention of a prince.

Drosselmeyer even encourages Duck to let herself disappear in the lake of despair so she could live on in memory as Tutu rather than as a simple duck. This theme is taken to the extreme: even death is seen as preferable to true vulnerability.

Princess Tutu follows a cast of teenagers deliberately hurting themselves to hide from their fragile, vulnerable side. They'd more readily accept a gruesome fate than face themselves in the mirror.

[angie-long-legs-moved]

//thinking about how angel and husk are such opposites in the sense that, husk looks back on his life with regret over the things he did, whereas angel looks back with regret over what he didn't do

husk's afterlife is reflecting on the mistakes he made in life, making them all over again and not giving a fuck because he can't exactly sink any further

angel's afterlife is the regret of dying young, and finding himself trapped in a brutal situation while chasing the opportunity to live his truth in death

husk's grief is for a life wasted, while angel's grief is for a life cut short

[himbochub]

i’ve posted about this multiple times at this point but i get so fucking horny and also filled with extreme joy whenever i come onto any feedism space and my timeline is overflowing with new feedees and blogs i’ve never seen, the community used to feel like it fit in the palm of my hand back when i joined tumblr in like 2017 and now there are an insane amount of creators, i love fat i love unabashed indulgence i love hedonism and fat pleasure its so awesome and i also love not seeing the creators i love leave the community forever as much as they used to due to this having to be like a big dark secret. the more of us there are practicing fat lib the more ive seen people accept this part of them and not turn their back on their truth and that is so cool!!

[v0idwraith]

I’ve had more than 2 seconds to process and I’ve decided to double down on being a Jayce defender. I stand with my cancelled wife. I also wanna slap him but I’m standing with him.

[obi1-kenobae]

I truly cannot fathom how anyone could watch Star Wars and come away thinking that the Jedi did nothing wrong/that their philosophy was correct. Like did you even watch Return of the Jedi? If the Jedi had had their way, Luke would have killed his own father. The entire point of Star Wars was that the Jedi were very wrong and flawed.

[bitterrobin]

I've realized as I write CHIROPTERA that a lot of the interactions/first impressions about Damian boil down to:

Dick/Tim/Barbara: damn. this kid sucks

Cass: *cringe*

Bette: noooo he's just a little guyyyy. he's just a babyyy

Tom: ok he sucks but he's funny when he insults people

Rory: ok he sucks but also, counterpoint, all kids suck and no that doesn't say anything about me-

[benevolenterrancy]

if you're not reading the last book of SVSSS right now do you mind me asking what you are reading? I'm just curious!

Definitely! (though I warn you, I'm fundamentally incapable of reading only one thing at a time)

For physical books, I'm currently reading The Warden by Daniel M. Ford, the novelization of My Neighbour Totoro, and trying to keep up on Dracula Daily (i am failing this)

For audiobooks, I've been relistening to The Series of Unfortunate Events (because I never actually read them all when they were originally coming out) and I juuust finished This Census-Taker by China Miéville and Ogres by Adrian Tchaikovsky this weekend. I'm about to start A Closed and Common Orbit by Becky Chambers.