#she said GOTCHA

[guhitsaglit]

Rosa said trap card activate

⬅️ prev | next ➡️

[petrovna-zamo]

[allgremlinart]

can I say something controversial.. LOVE the equalist!Asami aus. would absolutely hate it if it was canon

[sage-nebula]

I am this close 🤏 to taking the word "siblings" away from the Sonic fandom and putting it on a shelf. People here seriously use it as a shorthand for "any characters I don't ship that have a good relationship in canon." It's wild. Y'all are out of control.

Because let me tell you, I've had a (step-)brother for 28 years. And I have never once talked to him like this:

(He's the "prince." It's teasing bordering on flirting. And the other two aren't even borderline.)

This isn't a "they're canon dating" post, it's a "they don't interact like siblings" post. Sisters don't flirt with their brothers unless there's something messed up happening in that family. And Rouge, canonically, flirts with Shadow. Meaning that she definitely doesn't see him as a brother, and likewise, we have no reason to believe that, canonically, Shadow sees her as anything more than a friend.

Here are the confirmed sibling relationships in canon:

Sonic & Tails

Scratch & Grounder

Rough & Tumble

Shadow & Maria as of this month

Sonic & Sonia & Manic in Underground

Sally & Elias(? was that his name?)

Aside from some more obscure pairs in Archie or similar adaptations I may have missed, that's it! Everyone else? Friends. They're just friends. And you can say "I see them as just friends" and sound far less clownish than when you decide literally everyone, including characters who flirt with each other (or at least have one-way flirting like Shadow and Rouge), are "siblings."

Thank you and goodnight.

[queerstudiesnatural]

ellen really just said "i got tested and i'm not autistic, but then again yes i am because its a spectrum" HELLO????? that's not how it works omg i hate her so much

[wonder-worker]

people really do not know what they're talking about when it comes to Elizabeth Woodville's social status, huh?

[mithliya]

what is stoners problem 😭 she wants heterophobia to be real so fucking bad, like it’s so fucking disgusting she disregarded everything you said about those accounts harrassing you, comparing you to tras and just added more screenshots that aren’t even wild 😭 why don’t you combat heterophobia by @ing those accounts instead fkn cop out crybaby

my favourite is her including these in her receipts of vile misogyny on radblr, and in true fashion exhibited EXACTLY the behaviour i was talking about when i said people are arguing other women are being misogynists over statements that arent misogynistic...

[fluffypotatey]

yesterday was my babygirl’s gotcha day so here’s a before and after one year apart

before: Rat™️

after: fluffy baby 🥰

[usercelestial]

okay i get it but i also think its important to acknowledge that there is a difference between knowing from an audience standpoint that a character should be queer VS it firmly being acknowledged verbally within the narrative as a solid aspect of that character's identity irrefutably

[chenziee]

Nothing says "lmao i'm so clever i'm going to put a foot in my mouth and won't notice until i actually choke" as this one conversation i had with my coworker a while ago about AI

him: lol every book is a dictionary remix lmao

me: 12 years

him: ?

me: you do realise you just tossed 12 years of my life into the fucking trash, right?

him: yep! haha :)

me:

him:

me:

him: *awkwardly walks away, doesn't say another word for the rest of the day*

[pepprs]

my mom was just mean to me for like no fucking reason lol. day ruined

[unbreakabledawn]

he is trick or treating for mealworms

[jeckilon]

yall are literally making this up at this point lol having women in it doesn’t make it ~female dominated~ when said women doesn’t have the same amount of screen time and plot relevancy as the white men in the cast 💀 get a grip on reality ffs

[mars-ipan]

talking to my mom is such a blast. meeting of the minds

[random2908]

Oh wow, a real physicist!! I’ve read a few of your posts on philosophy of science, and I think you’ve mentioned that you aren’t a religious person, but I’m curious if you have any thoughts on the compatibility of physics/science in general and religion?

Well, the tl;dr I guess is that it depends a lot on what specific religion you're talking about, and on how you approach religion.

"Religion" means a lot of different things to different people. I wouldn't say I'm not a religious person. I keep kosher; I keep the holidays; I try not to let my job spill over onto weekends (both for myself and for anyone I work with); I talk about religion a lot; I study every single day, and have done so my entire life--not always the Torah, although always something related to my understanding of religion (the universe and my place in it): science, social justice, but yes, also sometimes the Torah. To me, in the context of my religion, that is being religious. Certainly not extremely so, and I do have plenty of extended family who are much more religious to contrast myself with. Therefore whether I say I'm religious or not is usually contextual, based on what I'm comparing myself to.

Now, I want you to notice two things in my previous paragraph. The first is that I listed studying science as a religious practice for me. And I do consider it that. It's not the only reason I'm a scientist, but it's definitely related. Among Jews, this is a fairly common attitude--0.2% of the world's population are Jewish but ~25% of Nobel Laureates in the sciences are, and some of that is directly because there is a religious fervency among Jews when it comes to academic pursuit, including science.

But you can meet plenty of people from other religions who feel similarly, even if it's not the mainstream attitude in a lot of other religions like it is in Judaism. At my previous job, the other two PhD physicists were both Catholic, and both of them felt similarly, that being a scientist was a part of practicing their religion; the mainstream Catholic hegemony has actually encouraged this attitude on and off over the centuries (despite some very obvious historical cases where they were anti-science), and especially it was a pet issue of Pope John Paul II, who was the Pope for the whole childhood and early adulthood of my coworkers. There are certainly conservative Catholics, especially in the US, whose views are not in line with Papal pronouncements in this respect, but officially the Catholic church is pro-science (including pro-evolution), and is known for funding astronomy and medical sciences in particular. Meanwhile, in contrast, the engineer at my last job was baffled to hear all of this from the rest of us over lunch one day. He'd grown up Mainline Protestant (i.e. not Evangelical), which is not a hierarchical religion and so allows a lot of individual variation in opinion, but generally takes a neutral stance toward science. He felt as though science versus religion was a choice he'd made, and he'd chosen science and rejected religion. In contrast to his feelings on it, I've known other scientists from science-neutral religions who have not felt any need to make a choice, but rather that science and religion are simply unrelated and therefore cannot be in conflict; I've worked with Buddhists, Hindus, and yes Mainline Protestant Christians who all felt that way. And then there are yet other religions, Evangelical Protestant Christianity topping the list, where science and religion are in direct conflict and people from those religious backgrounds make an active choice of one or the other, or make an active choice to keep those parts of their life fully compartmentalized from each other.

The second thing I want you to notice is that so far I've said nothing about faith. I didn't even list it among my own religious practices--because it isn't there. I'm a Jew, it doesn't have to be. In fact, I'm a third-generation agnostic/atheist: not even any of my grandparents believed in G-d, although each lacked belief in a different way.

Taking a faith-based approach to the world does hinder scientific practice, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most of my scientist friends. A scientist needs to be willing to discard their most deeply held beliefs about how the world works when presented with evidence to the contrary.

For me, as a Jew, it's just a non-issue. My most deeply held religious beliefs are all about how to set up a moral and ethical framework, not about the way the world works; they're not based on faith in things that can be in conflict with evidence. (And since they're about the framework rather than the specifics, I have the flexibility to change my individual moral stance on an individual issue when I'm presented with evidence that a previous stance was based on ignorance.) So here, I'd agree with that subset of Mainline Protestants, as well as people from Eastern religions, who say there cannot be a conflict because my religious beliefs are simply unrelated to any of the questions science is trying to answer. (With the caveat that more knowledge helps put beliefs into more effective practice, and therefore science can help religion. Interestingly, while I as a Jew mean this with respect to beliefs about how to practice ethics, Catholicism takes this a step further to beliefs about religious cosmology, saying that things like the Big Bang Theory and evolution elucidate how God performed the acts of creation. The majority of Jews don't take religious cosmology literally enough for this to even come up as a question; among those who do, most parallel the Catholic approach of agreement and elucidation, and relatively few parallel the Evangelical Christian approach of anti-science.)

There are other people, from strongly faith-based religions, whose personal philosophies are all about faith. These religions are the ones where I think there's a major incompatibility between science and religion--when the incompatibility is in an approach to understanding the world rather than about the specific stories. People from these religions tend to have two options. They can either compartmentalize so strongly that they practice an entirely different way of understanding the world when doing science than in the rest of their life, which is cognitively pretty difficult. Or, they can choose between science and religion, rejecting one in favor of the other.

All of that said, there’s yet a third issue which is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when it comes to philosophy of science. And that’s when people who claim to be taking a scientific approach are actually taking a faith-based approach to science concepts. You see that when people talking about “believing in” evolution--sometimes they’re using that phrasing as short-hand, but sometimes they really mean it in a religious way. But you also see it a lot with people who confuse meta-science for science, or who confuse analogy for fact. That’s muddying the waters in a way that I find intellectually dangerous. It leads to misunderstanding the nature of science, and occasionally can even lead to cult-like thinking (Less Wrong springs to mind as the paradigmatic example, but I’ve also got a friend who is in a new-age-y “science”-based cult).

[cavehags]

uhhhh hmmmmm wellllll the power better introduce a trans character soon or so help me