#stance stanced

[demoralised]

V12 Volkswagen bay window bus

[shinynewmemories]

No but the Hunger Games really said "what do you hate more- the atrocities or the people who commit them against you? Because like it or not there IS a difference. If you hate the people who commit acts of pure evil more than you hate the acts themselves, what will stop you from becoming just like your enemies in your pursuit of justice? What will keep you from commiting those very same acts against THEM when the opportunity arises? And what then? The cycle of pain and suffering will never stop. Round and round it'll go. Nothing will ever change. But. BUT. If you hate the atrocities. If you hate the vile, senseless acts MORE than you hate the people who did them to you. If you are able to see that evil is evil regardless of who does it... The cycle ends with you. No, you may never get justice. But you will never be responsible for making others, even your enemies, suffer the same crimes you have. The atrocities will never be committed by you, never by your hand. And that's the way you change the world. It's the ONLY way" and that's why I am sure it will never stop being one of the most relevant works of fiction ever created

[inkpotsprite]

The way Jon mirrors Talia's pose.

[fxaa]

Software is bad

[sanjiaftersex]

being a sanji fan is an intense experience because it takes you like 200 episodes to finally understand why sanji's eyes turned lifeless for a flickering moment at those words

[doomdoomofdoom]

Kamala Harris does want "transgender surgery on illegal aliens that are in prison", btw.

So since Trumpists are getting mad enough about the jokes to actually cite their sources, I thought I'd put the source out into my left extremist commie faggot echo chamber, too.

The claim originates from an ACLU questionnaire she filled out for her 2020 presidential candidacy, specifically this section:

She wasn't given a new questionnaire for 2024, and has stated that while her policy on some things may have changed, her values had not. (This most likely means she moved more to the center to appease larger demographics and cut corners to reach compromises. The basic politician stuff.)

It boils down to this: If you're in prison, whether for "illegal" immigration or other crimes, you rely on the state to provide you with necessary amenities, like food and health care. Her argument isn't "hell yeah everyone in prison should get sex changes for free". It's "gender affirming surgery is a necessary medical procedure. If you are in the states care while this becomes necessary, the state should provide it." If you're outraged by your tax money being used on this, consider the massive amount of people being incarcerated in for-profit prisons, on your dime. Then ask yourself if maybe a prison reform might be in order.

Worth noting: In 2015, while Attorney General, Kamala Harris actually argued against providing gender-affirming surgery to an incarcerated trans woman, claiming that HRT and psychotherapy were sufficiently covering her medical needs. She has since obviously changed her stance and assumed responsibility. (I would like to take this moment to remind my fellow left extremist commie faggots that "willingness to learn and rethink your views" is infinitely more valuable than "perfect from the start and unwilling to listen to anyone")

Also found in the source: This image of Kamala Harris participating in the 2019 San Francisco Pride Parade, wearing what I believe to be a sequin rainbow embroidered denim jacket.

I encourage you to read the provided CNN article and the answers to the ACLU questionnaire, as they give great insight into her values.

TLDR: Based.

[daydreamerwonderkid]

Big bird protecting his baby bird :3

[ciphillan]

Alien franchise viewing experience

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

News spreads fast.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[akanemnon]

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

FIRST - PREVIOUS - NEXT

MASTERPOST (for the full series / FAQ / reference sheets)

[shiftythrifting]

[blueskittlesart]

All children raised religiously are being abused. They're sweet now but in thirty years see who's voting for Trump Jr or who ever the fuck.

ok let's talk about it. for context i've been working with children aged 2-6 in both school and home settings for almost 10 years and have met kids raised in basically every major religion in the world. I was personally raised completely agnostic.

religion is not inherently abuse. religion is a moral framework. All religions have the potential to become high-control groups or perpetuate abuse, and certain religions are more prone to those issues than others. that does not mean that teaching your child about the god you believe in is abusive. the abuse comes when your religion perpetuates a lack of choice, which, as I have already explained, most of the religious children i have worked with are not experiencing. Religion at such a young age is often primarily about stories, which preschool aged children LOVE. The bible functions similarly to, say, a my little pony episode to these children, in the sense that it's a fun story they get to experience which teaches them an age-appropriate moral lesson at the end. (and by and large, these kids are only getting the age-appropriate stories and lessons. I do not know any evangelical children who are being taught about the rapture and i don't condone that kind of fear tactic, but again, that's not what's being discussed here. we're talking about RELIGION, not high-control groups that happen to use god as a mechanism to perpetuate their abuse.)

in that same vein, religion in preschool aged children largely functions as a moral framework, which, in certain situations, can genuinely be very helpful. the christian and muslim children I have worked with especially are very often the ones that are the best at resolving conflict. they understand the concept of "treat others the way you want to be treated" and they're able to articulate it to their peers at an age where their morality is still developing and children often think in very black and white, self-centered ways. With rituals like prayer, church, etc, at such a young age they tend to consider them bonding activities. they have friends at their church or temple. their entire family prays together in the same way an agnostic family may enjoy a family dinner. again, I'm not denying that these rituals have the potential to be used to control or abuse, but they are not INHERENTLY abusive. they're normal. religion is a normal part of life for a VERY large percent of the population. telling your two year old about heaven isn't inherently going to strike the fear of god into their heart. more likely it's going to make them tell their babysitter, very earnestly, that when they go to heaven they're going to bring their legos so that we can all play legos together in heaven.

it is very likely that you, personally, have people in your life who are privately religious and you never even knew, because religion is not inherently a public statement of identity nor is it necessarily conducive to fringe or radical beliefs. it is a part of the human experience. you need to learn to be normal about religion.

[tamamita]

[agentravensong]

thinking about how the extra area added on to a pacifist run of undertale, the true lab, is about alphys's past mistakes. how it ends with the story reaffirming that, despite the pain she's caused, the thing that matters is that she has now made the choice to do the right thing. she's still worthy of her friends' love.

thinking about how undertale doesn't expect the player to get a pacifist ending for the first time. how it's more likely than not that the player will kill toriel the first time they battle her, how lots of players don't initially figure out how to end undyne's fight without killing her, etc. what it expects — not even expects, really, but hopes — is that the player, if they care enough, will use their canonically acknowledged power over time to make up for those mistakes.

no matter how many neutral runs a player has done before committing to the pacifist run, the thing that matters to the characters, to the story, is that you've chosen, now, to do the right thing.

compared to alphys, the player honestly gets off lightly, in that you're the only one (other than flowey) who really remembers any harm you might have caused. and any direct guilting the game could have done about it is long past at this point. instead, as undertale often does, it makes its point via parallels: alphys caused harm, and she knows it. she has committed to being better. in doing so, she has unlocked for herself a better ending to her story. and she deserves it. she's forgiven.

those structural narrative parallels are all over undertale, if you know where to look. and that's one of the things that makes it so fuckin' good.

[0039pf-third-blog-hooray]