HATING YOU WON'T MAKE YOU SUCK ANY LESS

1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
fujikos-gun
headspace-hotel

Was reading on wikipedia about how lots of ancient cultures had beliefs and traditions where you had to offer prayers and/or sacrifices if you wanted to cut down a tree because you were basically killing the spirit that lived within the tree and if you did that without good reason bad stuff would happen to you

we should bring that back. if you want to clear cut a forest you have to pray and sacrifice on behalf of every single tree

headspace-hotel

The more I learn about ecosystems, the more I realize that characterizing "animistic" belief as superstitious and primitive is one of the dumbest lies ever told

headspace-hotel

image

I, as well, am an animist (knows what a soil microbiome is)

headspace-hotel

Now I don't know all the details about these religions all over the world with beliefs and practices like this.

But this way of believing says that a stream or a tree isn't just a Thing, you can't just use it however you want, it's a Life and you owe it respect. And if you want to cut down a tree, you have to think really hard about whether you really need to use that tree, because there's a Process, and you have to really think about and dwell on the fact that you're killing something that's alive and that gives life.

And the important thing is, if you see the trees and plants and rivers as sacred and living, dumping toxic radioactive waste in the water and clear cutting the forest is an unthinkable act of sacrilege. If you see that the mountains are sacred and have spirit, you can't rip them wide open to blast and dig out coal with dynamite and pickaxes.

You know that if you violate the water, or the forest, or the mountains, with such destructive greed, something terrible will happen.

headspace-hotel

Unrelatedly, the Appalachian Mountains are haunted by something unknowably ancient and eldritch.

Before the invention of breath or bone, there stood the mountains.

tredecim-sanctuary

image

— Jason Hickel, Less Is More

headspace-hotel

But the coal companies did not listen. And now our rivers and our land are poisoned with toxic and radioactive waste and heavy metals.

female-to-twink
doberbutts

Anyway with anti-sodomy laws back on the discussion table I'm going to repeat that you can personally be squicked out by the consensual sex someone else has, but saying that their consensual sex between willing, active, adult participants should be illegal and is indicative of some sort of moral failing is L I T E R A L L Y a major facet in extreme homophobia and absolutely has gotten people killed.

You don't have to like their business but as long as everyone involved in the encounter is saying yes, it's also really not your business.

This is the precident you are helping further by digging your heels in and saying 'but I think it's gross and makes them bad people'. This is what happened last time that was the reasoning for law, and what is being threatened to happen again.

doberbutts

"but Jaz, how would they enforce it"

Easily.

People would report you to the police for any hint of it. Whether real or imagined. You held hands with someone of the same sex. Someone started a rumor that they saw you kissing. You bought a sex toy and the vendor automatically reported you. You clicked a web page or picked up a magazine that had a different suspected deviant on it and the shop owner or internet service provider automatically reported you. You had certain mannerisms. You hung out to much with a specific friend. You seemed too close to a family member. Literally anything.

In some cases people would literally peep through windows, listen at the door, even wait across the street for your guest to come over and then call the police to kick the door down and catch the two of you in the act.

Never forget that the Stonewall riot was started by one such raid where police stormed a gay bar looking to arrest as many "sodomy" and "public indecency" suspects as possible.

That's how. By encouraging people to barge into other people's private, consensual sex lives and make reports to the authorities. By encouraging people to lay traps so unsuspecting gay people could stumble into them. By encouraging people to stalk and harass anyone who showed any sign of 'being a pervert' in the name of 'protecting neighborhoods from predators'. By weaponizing the real concern for predatory behavior against people who were engaging in consensual intimacy in a way they happened to not like.

By doing exactly what I've been continuously saying is bad behavior that has gotten countless LGBT people jailed and killed.

We're not turning this against our own community. Homophobes and transphobes have already made it plenty clear they don't care how good or respectable we are, they just want us all dead.

autogynocrat

"how would they enforce it"

well in 2012 a guy named snowden let us know they're basically wiretapping us at all times and have gigantic collections of all our metadata and we have been living in a nice little surveillance state since 2001's patriot act

selenelawfulgood
penrosesun

You know, it occurs to me that the known internet phenomenon of Reddit “am I the asshole?” posts having completely misleading headers is actually a really great example of a far less known but far more common practice of extreme journalistic spin in cases where there are large monetary incentives to diminish the story in question.

Like, if you see a Reddit post titled “Am I the asshole for buying my wife a new dress?”, the post is pretty much always something totally deranged like: “I (48) really dislike the way my wife (20) dresses, because I think it’s too revealing and makes her look slutty, which was fine when we started dating five years ago, but it makes me feel like she’s going to cheat on me now that we’re married. I’ve politely asked her to get new clothes multiple times, and every time she refused because she said she liked her clothes, and didn’t want to waste money buying new ones. Yesterday I couldn’t take it anymore so I threw out a bunch of her old dresses and bought her a new one that was more modest looking. She started crying because one of the dresses I threw out had been left to her by her mom who died when she was a teen, but I couldn’t have known that it had sentimental value. She said that I should have asked, but obviously if I asked she’d have just told me not to throw out any of her clothes, including the ones that weren’t sentimental. Also, the more modest dress I bought was pretty expensive, and she never thanked me for it. Am I the asshole here, or is she being unreasonable?”

Similarly, whenever you see a headline like “Woman Wins Millions From McDonald’s Because Her Hot Coffee Was Too Hot”, if you dig a bit, you’ll almost always quickly find out that what actually happened was: A 79-year-old ordered coffee which, unbeknownst to her, was being served extremely dangerously hot, because McDonald’s was trying to have coffee that stayed warm over a long commute without spending any extra money on cups with better insulation. The coffee spilled on the old woman’s lap, giving her severe third degree burns over a huge portion of her body, including her genitals. She got to a hospital and they managed to save her life with skin grafting, but she became disabled from the accident, and her genitals and thighs were permanently disfigured. She tried to settle with McDonald’s for her medical costs, and McDonald’s refused to cover any portion of her medical expenses at all, and so she sued. At trial, the jury discovered that this same exact thing had happened seven hundred times before, and McDonald’s had still decided not to change their policy because paying out individual suits was cheaper than moderately reducing their coffee profits. As a result, the jury awarded punitive damages designed to penalize McDonald’s two days worth of their coffee profits, in addition to the woman’s medical costs.

I think it’s largely the same phenomenon, but I know a lot of people who are familiar with the first case, but don’t know to look for the second. If you see some totally outrageous “how could a person ever sue over this stupid thing?” case, you should immediately be incredibly suspicious that that’s all that actually happened, because a lot of the time, it absolutely isn’t. The people who have the most incentive to make their opponent look not only wrong, but completely crazy for having any sort of grievance at all, are often the actually unreasonable ones. 

Anyway this is all to say that if I see ANY of y’all automatically siding with McDonald’s over the recent case where 4-year-old girl was severely burned by their chicken nuggets because “hurr durr dumb kid didn’t know that chicken nuggets were hot, people sue over anything lol”, I will grab that McBoot you’re licking and shove it all the way up your McFuckingAss.

bemusedlybespectacled

lawyer fun fact! sometimes you need to sue someone before your insurance will pay for your medical bills (because your insurance would rather the other person pay for your medical bills so they don’t have to)! sometimes you need to sue because what you’d get from insurance isn’t enough to pay for all of your medical bills! sometimes you want to change a specific thing, like a dangerous practice or defective part, and that’s not going to happen if you just ask nicely!

most truly ridiculous lawsuits get screened before they’re even filed (because someone goes to an attorney and that attorney is like “yeah you don’t have a case here”) or very shortly after they’re filed (because judges can toss out cases that have zero merit). 99% of the time, if it sounds ridiculous but somehow it went all the way to someone suing and winning in a jury trial, it probably wasn’t actually as absurd as it sounds.

selenelawfulgood
animentality

image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image

Also, I must add this, every time, because when 4chan is right, it is so devastatingly right:


image
fantajoseph

I was just thinking about this in relation to the apparent message of the new game that one must institute changes with peaceful reforms done "the right way", but they didn't bother to make the wizarding world of that time any worse than the one we see a hundred years later. The method that you ensure happens in the game is an empirical failure, even more than in real world equivalents. It's astonishing.

the-grey-hunt

Text ID of the 4chan screenshot. Split into smaller paragraphs for accessibility.

ID begins: "It very neatly describes the way liberals see the world and political struggle.

Lots of people complain about the anti-climactic ending, but really I don't think it could [end] any other way. I'd like to imagine that there's some alternate universe where Rowling actually believed in something and Harry was actually built up as the anti-Voldemort he was only hinted at being in the beginning of the books.

Whereas he's opposes all the many injustices of the wizarding world and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the Death Eaters and when he finally has his showdown with Voldy, Harry surpasses by adopting new methods, breaking the rules and embrasing change and the progression of history.

While Voldemort clings to an idyllic imaging of the past and the greatest extent of his dreams is to become the self-appointed god of a eternally stagnant neverland, Harry has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits Voldemort could never cross, and Voldemort is ultimately defeated by that.

But that would require a Harry that believed in something, and since Rowling is a liberal centrist Blairite that doesn't really believe in anything, Harry can't believe in anything. Harry lives in a world drought with conflict and injustice, a stratified class society, slavery of sentient magical creatures, the absurd charade the wizarding world puts up to enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupted and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, so on and so forth.

But Harry is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the racism really bothers him (and then, really only racism against half-bloods). In fact, when Hermione stands up against the slavery of elves, she's treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end, the biggest force for change is Voldemort and Harry and friends only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo.

The very height of Harry's dreams is to join the aurors, a sort of wizard FBI and the ultimate defenders of the wizarding status quo. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are the big instigators of change and Harry never quite gets to Voldy's level. Harry doesn't even beat Voldemort, Voldemort accidentally kills himself because he violated some obscure technicality that causes one of his spells to bounce back at him.

And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fraught with conflict, but aren't particilarly bothered by any of it except those bit that threaten multicultural pluralism. They see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society.

So, for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activigy against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum about what a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It won't work, it will never work, but that's the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of Harry Potter." End ID.

Harry Potter
expertpedestrian
batsarebetterthanpeople

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is such a weird theory because it's like there's a very obvious explanation for why middle school kids who didn't have dysphoria before might suddenly have dysphoria. Like huh weird I wonder what very obvious and widely known change that could cause kids to suddenly become very uncomfortable in their gender or sexual identity starts in between the ages of 10 and 14. Guess we'll never know. Must be peer pressure to *checks notes* become the only gender minority in your whole school singling you out for harassment by your peers. Couldn't be puberty suddenly giving you new body parts/bodily functions that are wrong for you.

batsarebetterthanpeople

#reminds me of when 'my child was Perfectly Normal until he got vaccines and Now He's Autistic'#no your child just got to the age certain social and developmental skills become apparent#and that happens to be a good age to give them certain vaccines (@dilfhershellayton)

Dude congrats on being the first person to have a new and interesting observation on this post. Yeah, that's exactly what it's like. It's the desire to blame something external for who your child is because if you accepted the very obvious developmental explanation you would then have to admit that your child is a different kind of person than you instead of a mold-able mini me that you can force into your idyllic little nuclear family box you were imagining when you had them. Bigoted parents are terrified of their child not being exactly like them so they have to pretend that something like vaccines or peer pressure corrupted them. So much so that they'll put them through bleach treatments or conversion therapy or whatever in an attempt to fix them before they'll allow their child to be who they are.

sanguis-sanctus
wantonlywindswept

googledocs you are getting awfully uppity for something that can’t differentiate between “its” and “it’s” correctly

wantonlywindswept

oho and now you’re questioning my adverb usage? you? you?

you fucking dare?

wantonlywindswept

you try to change ‘tears’ to ‘years’ for no reason but don’t catch ‘imporint’???

wantonlywindswept

hey quick question gdocs

image

what the fuck

grymmdark

querched up white boy

thewalrus-said

i don’t have screenshots, but one time i typed the word “table” into google docs in the process of writing my story, and google docs carefully underlined the first four letters (“tabl”), and asked me if perhaps i’d meant to write “table”

yes, google docs, that would be why i’d written “table”

out of curiosity i accepted the change. the word now read “tablee”

jackironsides
renthebarbarian

No offense to modern Doctor Who but why does every companion stay in the TARDIS until some horrible life altering thing forces them to leave (death, trapped in a parallel universe, memories forcibly taken, etc.). I miss how in Classic Who most companions just said “Hey Doc, this has been fun but I think it’s time I went home” or “hey this planet is pretty cool, I think I’m going to stay here” and the Doctor was just like “okay cool, I’ll always remember you fondly, bye!”

pedanther

Leaving aside the armchair psychoanalysis I see going on in the notes, some of the factors feeding into this are practical consequences of storytelling decisions made when Doctor Who was revived.

For instance: In modern Doctor Who the TARDIS goes, more often than not, where the Doctor tells it to.

In the old series, the TARDIS was largely ungovernable. When you stepped in, you could never be sure where you would step out. There was no guarantee you'd ever see your home again soon, or indeed at all. When a companion said "Hey Doc, this has been fun but I think it's time I went home", it was usually because the TARDIS was back in their own time and place for the first time since they'd come on board, and if they didn't take this chance to go home they might never get another one; when a companion said "hey this planet is pretty cool, I think I'm going to stay here" it was often because their chances of making a new home were better than their chances of finding their way back to their old one.

And either way, when the Doctor said goodbye and got in the TARDIS, he did so knowing that it would be the last time he saw them, because he couldn't come back to visit even if he wanted to.

The intractibility of the TARDIS created a natural break point in the story, a built-in reason why that character never showed up again once the actor left the series.

Modern Doctor Who doesn't have that.

What does "goodbye" mean when you can pop back and say hello again any time you like? What does "it's time I went home" mean when you're already going home every week to chat with your mum and borrow her washing machine? Amy and Rory actually did say "Hey Doc, this has been fun but I think it's time I went home" and then continued to be main characters in the series for another entire year. Clara went home at the end of every single episode (barring two-parters).

The operating parameters of modern Doctor Who erode the distinction between "I'm on an adventure" and "now the adventure is over" to the point that it needs a dramatic fate like death or being trapped in another universe to establish that the adventure is actually, really over now, we mean it, no take-backs. Companions in modern Doctor Who get written out like that because nothing less will stick.

doctor who