Just a reminder.
People you meet online trying to make friends with you IS NOT "PARASOCIAL BEHAVIOUR".
I get that people have hangups and anxieties and may in fact be playing pretend with their online identity and/or have no interest in fostering connections with strangers. That's valid.
But you are most likely NOT a celebrity, public figure, or 10k+ followers account engaged in specifically turning yourself and your online persona into content. YOU ARE JUST A REGULAR PERSON.
And another regular person reaching out to you in an online space is NOT engaging in some kind of pathological behaviour by daring to hope you might want to become friends. THAT IS NOT WHAT PARASOCIAL MEANS.
You can just decline if you're not interested. It's literally that easy.
Like, fuck man. When did we collectively become so desocialized?
21 notes
·
View notes
Hate having to block some of anti-endo tags sucks but on certain ones (especially used by those who are more harsh in their beliefs) just end up being straight up harmful and ableist
We don't get into sys course much so please don't bring that here, we don't want to be involved, it just sucks seeing these people that are against misinformation (aka misinfo spread by endos) and yet are spreading so much misinformation by saying shit like
"endos are delusional" "they need to be checked into a mental hospital"
Like yes we know that endos spread harmful misinformation, but being so harsh about it only causes more problems because they will get defensive and more set in their belief that they are right because you are telling them that they are wrong
Just stop being so harsh on them and stop being fucking ableist about it, you're allowed to be upset and angry at endos but don't be ableist and harmful about it...
22 notes
·
View notes
although I believe the Young Man [John] will acquit himSelf well any where, yet I am persuaded he has made an indiscreet choice for his outset in Life_ [...] as a Soldier One Man can act only as one (very few Cases excepted) & in point of real usefulness will often be excelled by Men of moderate abilities & better nerves_
Henry Laurens to John Lewis Gervais, 5 August 1777
In this line that Henry writes shortly after John leaves to join Washington's staff, he is alluding to a comparison between a model soldier (moderate talent, high nerve) and John (high talent, moderate nerve). Knowing Henry, he almost definitely uses the same argument with John in an effort to persuade him not to join the army.
And yet... from the outset of his military career, John is infamous for his daring, courageous, and often reckless battlefield exploits.
So what would explain the discrepancy between Henry's perception and John's subsequent actions?
One possibility is that Henry just has an outdated view of his son's character. It's hard to judge exactly what John's 'nerve' was like was before this, partly because the record is sparse. Certainly, his indiscreet relationship with Martha Manning and sudden departure for America speak to rashness. Prior to that, though, he's generally noted as being a diligent if sociable student, attentive to his siblings, and obedient to his father. He's passionate about the American cause, but that doesn't translate into action until the very end of his time in London. However, Henry spends several months with John between his arrival in Charleston in April 1777 and his departure for headquarters in August - surely enough time to get an updated sense of his son's 'nerve'.
Another, perhaps more likely, explanation is that Henry is largely correct in his assessment - John is restless and eager to serve, but he has no real experience of the dangers of combat, and is still growing into his assertiveness and courage.
What would John, who has staked everything on his single-minded determination to fight for his noble principles, have felt when he heard that his father considered him to have only has middling nerve? How might this have influenced his actions?
I could well imagine that Henry's dismissal had the very opposite outcome to what was intended - that John decided he had to prove his nerve, to show that he did deserve his military position and his long-sought-after chance to fight for his ideals. In other words - there's a case to be made that some of his recklessness can be directly attibuted to a purposeful rejection of this paternal characterisation.
43 notes
·
View notes
i should stop making byler posts lol it's making people think i care about byler
8 notes
·
View notes
......suddenly struck by the idea for a piece of worldbuilding of "fae don't like iron bc it is the most stable element*"
*as in elements higher you can extract energy via fission and lower you can extract energy via fusion but iron itself there is no excess binding energy to extract at all
65K notes
·
View notes
I think we're too harsh on medieval painters because this is legitimately what some poodle mixes look like
56K notes
·
View notes
You gotta read and watch some old books and films that aren’t 100% modern politically correct. I’m not saying you should agree with everything in them but you need to learn where genres came from to understand what those genres are doing today and where media deconstructing old tropes is coming from.
Also, more often than you might think, they’re not actually promoting bigotry so much as “didn’t consider all the implications of something” or just used words that were polite then but considered offensive now.
Kill the censor in your head.
48K notes
·
View notes
blood “loss”? well it’s not lost. i know exactly where it went. right over there.
134K notes
·
View notes