A tub just absolutely FILLED with plastic bell pepper floral picks? I guess if someone wants a veggie bouquet for their wedding
I’m aware this is a bunny rabbit but all I can see is the pikachu meme. (This was a scrub top)
very upsetting that as a society thighs and tummies have been demonized. like they are literally just body parts and if they’re a little rounder it’s no big deal. beauty standards = pure embodiment of evil in this world
the people rbing this like tummy’s and thighs are cute and squishy uwu that’s not the point of this post like. i’m saying i want body neutrality…i wish having a tummy and having round thighs was neutral…. like don’t tell me you want to squish my tummy bc it’s sooo cute. that makes me feel like an animal in a petting zoo. i wish we as a society could treat bodies that aren’t model-thin as normal and deserving of respect
#I would like to be allowed to live in my little meat house #without people having opinions on my architecture.
you genuinely couldn’t make this shit up. fuck you, poor people, we’re spending billions burying an old coloniser so you don’t get to eat today.
My favorite thing about definitions of "sandwich" that include "I can eat it with one hand while gambling with the other" is the implication that if you break your arm then there is no longer such thing as a "sandwich".
I'm kind of torn because if we take definitions of "sandwich" so seriously that even breaking one's own hand disqualifies it then there is no such thing as a "sandwich" because someone could, if they really wanted to, eat an entire person's hand and still have a "sandwich."
If I physically consumed one hand, while gambling with the other, at what point does the first hand stop being a sandwich?
It would not be a sandwich at any point between the time the first person consumes their hand and the time the gambler consumes his.
Genuinely starting to think Charles is trying bring down the monarchy from within.
Prince Andrew is a paedophile and deserves to rot in jail.
Out of curiosity, why not Princess Anne?
She doesn't want it.
In theory, the King probably could get permission from Parliament to appoint anyone.
However, Princess Anne has on at least 2 occasions declined to have her position in the line of succession moved up. The possibility of changing her place in the line of succession was first suggested in the 1970s, I believe, and she wanted none of it. She refused a title for her husband (either of them), and refused a title for her son. As far as I can tell, the further away from the crown she is, the better she feels.
Which is probably one of the reasons she's one of the better regarded royals. Also the thing about telling a would be kidnapper to 'naff off'.
12 Sept. 2022. 3-minute listen, from Minnesota Public Radio. At time of queue-ing, the full transcript is not yet up, but I expect it will be soon.
The Humble Horse (Homepage of the non-profit org. featured in the story)
Mino Bimaadiziwin (Translation: “A good life”) The pony featured in the story
At one point a giant man dressed as a cowboy appears before us. I try to run away but he grabs me and says, “I can fix you,” to which I reply, “Don’t try!” and then he proceeds to “fix” me by removing my flesh. I wake up, and I’m an orangutan.
My body was removed and replaced with a large and rather ugly wooden statue. The orangutan inside me now wears a shirt that I don’t recognize and is sitting on a couch next to me. My family tells me this has been happening a lot.
I am a very happy man
It’s not autism acceptance if you need to hear that it is autism in order to accept it.
Took me a minute to process what this says. But yes this, very much.
If something needs to be called The Right Word in order to tick your Internal Tolerance Box then it’s not acceptance it’s lip service.
In a small cement house crumbling to ruins in Brazil's parched Sertao region, Maria da Silva, a graying matriarch struggling to feed her family, opens her empty refrigerator and breaks down in sobs.
The 58-year-old widow, whose creased brown face betrays her burdens, lost her family's main breadwinner when her brother, who worked in Sao Paulo, died of Covid-19 last year.
Now she and her family of eight, who are squatting in an abandoned shack, are among the 33.1 million Brazilians living in hunger.
The figure -- a 73-percent increase in the past two years, according to the Brazilian Network for Research on Food Security -- has become the subject of a bitter political battle as Latin America's biggest economy heads for elections on October 2.
The presidential front-runner, leftist ex-president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, regularly attacks far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro over the fact Brazil reappeared on the World Food Programme's "Hunger Map" last year, with 28.9 percent of the population living in "moderate or severe food insecurity."
Bolsonaro has aggressively counter-attacked, accusing Lula of bankrupting Brazil with corruption.
Courting low-income voters, the incumbent has upscaled and rebranded Lula's signature welfare program, and is campaigning extensively in the impoverished northeast, home to a quarter of Brazil's 213 million people.
Polyamorous relationships are not for everyone. Monogamous relationships are not for everyone. Romantic relationships are not for everyone!!! We are all different people with different needs, maybe just stop trying to condense the human experience into a homogenous gray monolith!!! aaaaaaaa
yo Mr white check out the banquet table. there's pheasant and aspic and roast suckling pig. this place is straight up magical. bitch
jesse no you can't eat or drink anything. or you'll be trapped in the fey realm forever. jesse
i love tumblr because sometimes i get an urge to rb posts about something nobody likes and everyone just politely ignores me. everyone's like oh he's fallen into madness again, he'll be fine later i guess
I think part of why "white atheists in christian majority nations are culturally christian" thing bothers me so much (aside from turning religion into a form of indelible identity) is that the realization that people actually believed in god was such a startling part of my childhood.
It was *frightening* to realize that people thought Adam and Eve were real and had been thrown out of the garden of Eden.
Do you know that feeling when you're talking to someone who you are slowly realizing is a conspiracy theorist, that they don't believe in vaccines or that they think 9/11 was an inside job? That slow creep of "oh, okay, this person is operating in a fundamentally different world than I am and there's nothing I can say that will change their mind and there is no way I can convince them that the world doesn't work that way"?
Yeah it's that but you're ten and the person who believes that sin is a real thing that has influence on the world is responsible for teaching you fractions. And then you look around and you realize that's *most* of the people around you.
I wasn't frightened by Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist beliefs as a kid because this *is* a majority Christian country and Christians where who I was mostly around, but my fundamental concern over religion is not the way that Christianity specifically teaches morality, it is the way that many religions are founded in a belief in things that are literally not true. I think it is bad to encourage people to believe things that are not true, and I want people to believe things that are true, and I would prefer it if we could agree about the nature of reality.
I understand that for many people, especially in minority religions, the religion is often more about culture than it is about literal belief in religious texts and precepts. And I don't want to begrudge anybody - even Christians - their culture as long as it isn't harming other people.
But I think that many things that many religions do on a broad scale are harmful, and one that I can point to that applies to *many* religions that goes under-discussed is the enshrinement of monogamy as a cultural norm to be punished if deviated from.
I think this does harm by blocking people of from considering polyamory as an option and socially (and sometimes legally) punishing people who are in polyamorous relationships, I think this does harm by placing romantic or procreative relationships as more central to society than other relationships, which causes social pressure to find a partner and have children even if that isn't the personal preference of an individual (and also devalues relationships in which partners - even cis straight ones - cannot have their own biological children), and I think that the primary reason we do this religious.
If you want to look at one example of how this is harmful, bigamy laws in the US exist largely as a reaction to polygamous marriages among Mormons in the 1800s. Since there is no legal route to polygamous marriage in the US, religious polygamy is totally illegal and thus practiced largely by fundamentalists who may then use the illegality of the practice to isolate and abuse their spouses, who have no legal recourse to leave and no standing for divorce or alimony claims. At the same time, equitable and consensual, adult polyamorous partners cannot marry and share the benefits that come from marriage (such as health insurance - and health insurance being tied to marriage is another example of a way that monogamy and preference for romantic relationships is harmful!). Some people look at this and go "well, bigamy is inherently abusive; it was banned to prevent abuse and coercion" and that argument only flies in states that have banned child marriage, which is *actually* inherently abusive (so 43 states need to shut the fuck up).
And if you think that having multiple partners is the same thing is cheating and that there's no way that you can do that honestly or while being a good person, I'd like you to examine why you think that, because history is full of polyamorous cultures and the world is full of polyamorous relationships that work just as well or better than monogamous pairings. "People should get married or have only one partner" is a worldview that has a foundation in religion. "Marriage or partnership with multiple people is bad and harmful" is a statement that is not true, but it is a statement that is reinforced by a LOT of religions (if we include religions with prohibitions against polyandry this un-true idea is even more widespread).
And the idea that I am critical of monogamy as a cultural norm and want the world to be more polyamorous because I am 'culturally christian' is, quite frankly, ludicrous.
I recommend "internalized christian hegemony" or "centering christian hegemony" as an alternative that is:
- More useful - religious people of minority faiths *also* often internalize parts of the dominant religion in ways that are harmful to themselves and other minority religions but you can't discuss those harms if your only term for the issue is 'cultural christianity' because those people are certainly not culturally christian.
- Points at the *actual problem* because the issue isn't 'your family does christmas' it's 'you are treating christianity as the default and projecting your understanding of christianity on all religion.'
- Is less likely to be used as a silencing tactic ('you may be an athiest but you were raised in a christian country so you're culturally christian and shouldn't comment on religion' is a thing I've seen a lot of).
- Doesn't make assumptions about a non-religious person's background and upbringing (and by assuming that a non-religious person in the US was basically raised christian by default OR that a non-religious person in the US is necessarily a deconverted christian you are reinforcing christian hegemony yourself).
- Is actionable: you can examine and work on your internalized christian hegemony. 'Cultural christianity' is a label that people seem to think that you can't change without converting to a non-christian religion and becoming culturally [other religion].
- Is more accurate. "Atheists in America are culturally christian" ignores atheists who are deconverted from non-christian religions AND ignores many lifelong athiests' resistance to christianity. Someone who deconverted from a minority religion may still hold christian hegemonic views while not being culturally christian.
Generally speaking, I try to approach these conversations in good faith, and in turn I'd like to ask some folks to do some research into the origins of the term 'cultural christian' and its use outside of tumblr.
I've probably gotten 10 people in the last day explaining to me what culturally christian *actually* means, including some definitions which are incompatible.
If you look up what "cultural christianity" means outside of twitblr, you might understand why I, a person who grew up with the intense awareness that I was not christian and with the awareness that the christians around me wanted to change that, have trouble seeing people who use it to describe atheists as my allies.
The folks in these screencaps are using 'cultural christianity' in a manner similar to discussions of white supremacy in the US, which I think is actually a pretty valid thing to talk about [the idea that christianity is the background radiation of growing up in the US and that you pick up that background radiation unintentionally and without any awareness of it - a fish doesn't know it's in water, etc. etc.].
But, as I've said in the above thread, I think that 'culturally christian' is a bad term for it for the reasons listed above, but also because "culturally christian" is the term that christian atheists and people who are raised christian but are minimally practicing and may or may not believe in god use to identify themselves (this term is often used by christians who only celebrate the holidays but pray irregularly and don't go to church to describe themselves).
The term as described by tumblr exists almost nowhere outside of discussions of atheism on tumblr. Even if you look at the "culturally christian" tag on tumblr or twitter, a significant portion of it is christians talking about themselves, several posts discussing this issue, several posts from ex-muslim atheists who have been called cultural christians, and, at the moment, a post talking about how searching for information on cultural christianity brings up bad results and the writer is only aware of this dimension of cultural christianity because of their religious studies, but they can't point to resources.
They can't point to resources because the term that is used to describe this phenomenon is "christian hegemony," the primary book about it is called Living in the Shadow of the Cross.
I'm not saying that the issue doesn't exist, I am saying that 'cultural christianity' is a bad term to use for it and that there is a better, extant term that does not involve calling non-christians 'christian lite.'
@crabwagon, you are describing me as 'feeling anxiety' over people believing the wrong thing, and wanting them to change so they would have correct views. I think that's a mischaracterization of my statement: "I think it is bad to encourage people to believe things that are not true, and I want people to believe things that are true, and I would prefer it if we could agree about the nature of reality."
Based on your response, I think you have interpreted that to mean "I don't like it when people are taught about deities and want to teach people not to believe in deities" and that is not what I said and not what I meant.
For example: I know several people from various religious upbringings who were raised to believe that premarital sex was bad for religious reasons. Their families believed that educating them about safer sex would encourage premarital sex. As a result of that they were denied sex education, and these people became adults and did not understand birth control or how to protect against STIs, and some ended up with lifelong illnesses and some ended up risking unwanted pregnancies. These were people who were encouraged to believe something untrue by their religious leaders, and I wish that they had believed things that were true instead of becoming ill or pregnant.
"Sex without marriage [or a similar spiritual commitment] is morally wrong" is a statement that I believe is untrue. I think we can probably find *many* people of many religious backgrounds who believe it is untrue. "Sex without marriage [or a similar spiritual commitment] is morally wrong" is also something that is taught in an extremely significant number of world religions
When I say "I want people to believe things that are true" that includes things like "I want people to believe that there is no moral weight to casual sex with consenting partners." When I say that "I think it is bad to encourage people to believe things that are not true" that includes things like teaching people that there is a negative moral weight to any kind of consensual sex.
In fact, I kind of hope you misinterpreted what I said, because the idea that wanting people to believe accurate information about reality and wanting them to not feel guilt over that belief is considered an example of 'missionary values' is extremely troubling.
Nice.
they died doing what they loved
Just wanted to add a little update because I've seen some comments and tags: this map is very much user generated, and it's been running for a fairly long time!
Sometimes areas get developed or trees get removed or circumstances change which is super disappointing, but please don't hesitate the map to reflect that so other people know that it's no longer a viable site! Additionally, if you know of sites that aren't on the map, adding them is a great way help out other people in your region who come across it.
As well as foragable materials, there's also the option to add other resources as well such a seed libraries, community gardens, bike pumps, free stores/pantries, food banks, compost sites, guerilla gardens, water fountains, and other community resources.
Projects like this are amazing, but don't forget that they work best when everyone collaborates!
Users have also contributed possibly useful dumpsters, and businesses that will give or purposely leave bags of stuff out accessible instead. That's actually most of what shows up in our particular area, and it might also be helpful info for some people.
found out porridge and oatmeal are the same and it just depends whether you use milk or water
cis people can reblog this btw
I thought porridge was a category that oatmeal belongs to.
(In Swedish porridge usually translates to ”gröt”. Oatmeal is “havregrynsgröt” = lit. oat grain porridge. Gröt is pretty much any grain cooked with water or milk to a pudding like consistency.)
Yep, AFAICT it's just a regional usage difference in English. Generic default "porridge" in British English is made of usually rolled oats (same as havregrynsgröt), while "oatmeal" there refers to oats usually ground coarser than for regular flour, pretty much like the "cornmeal" vs. "corn flour" distinction in the US. Just to make things more confusing. (Including compared to "havremjöl"!)
Most of the distinction between use of water and milk to cook porridge in that I've seen, has had more to do with where you are in Britain than with the actual word used for it, btw. From what I understand, people have classically been more likely to use water in Scotland, and milk as you head further south in England.
Whereas in US English, "oatmeal" specifically refers to the generally rolled oats used to make a porridge, and also to the cooked porridge made with it. (So, basically just calling both "havregryn".)
(Not sure about common usages in other regional Englishes, tbh. I'm just an American in Sweden after living in the UK for years.)
So apparently i had to find out by accident today that stickbug eggs look like tiny pots and they hatch out by opening the lids and crawling out
I had this same question myself and I regret to inform you that the answer is yes it is
heres a video of a nymph hatching as proof, no clue how they fit in there like that, my hypothesis is hammerspace eggs.
They fit because an insect only hardens once it’s exposed to air. Inside the egg it was crumpled up like a deflated balloon :)