“i give my oc trauma because it helps me cope with my own past!!” that’s cool. i do it because i want hot people to suffer
For those who don’t know, r/place is where you can place one single pixel on a huge canvas--and are then locked out of placing another pixel for a long while. The amount of collaboration necessary to successfully do this is incredible.
Any setting where the elves have weaker booze than the dwarves isn't committing to the bit
I mean, we're talking about people whose lifespan is Yes.
"Oh, the weak wine? That is for children. I am two thousand years old, and I daresay one sip from this highball would knock you on your ass for a week."
Look, there's this weird thing people do with high fantasy where they want elves to be immortal/extremely long-lived snooty aristocrats and also somehow incapacitated by imagining the taste of salt too hard. "Orcs and dwarves have the hardest booze" no they don't, they have work in the morning! In any of these settings, elves would pregame harder than hobbits party and everyone else has shit to do tomorrow.
The average high elf builds up the drug tolerance of a mid-70s Hollywood producer and then spends three centuries studying alchemy. While humans seek immortality, the Immortals seek the elusive "philosopher's cocaine."
straight people should have to wear “VISITOR” badges when they go to gay bars
morthils
WHY are hets so mad at this post I thought you didn’t want to get hit on at gay bars here’s a solution
cyborg-sevalle
You want some real legitimate advice about mental health? Stop being mean to yourself.
Like, when you wanna say mean shit about yourself either internally or externally, work to learn how to step back a moment and remind yourself that what you are doing is a form of self-harm and not a fair or legitimate judgement on you as a person, and furthermore is not productive to your survival or well-being.
Even if you fuck something up, you can resolve to do better in the future, you can tell yourself that you’re going to make this a learning experience, and even if you’ve made the same mistake 50 times already, telling yourself you’ll get it right someday if you just keep trying will always do you better than calling yourself an idiot and beating yourself up for not being able to get it right.
Take it from me, a lot of mental health shit is a product of your environment and personal history, and therefore you really don’t have the control over it that you need to get by without others’ help, but one thing you can have some control over is whether you’re going to be a friend to yourself or just another enemy, and if you want to survive, you’ve gotta strive to be in your own corner as best you can.
Started a discord server a couple of years back, and one of the rules is you can’t be mean to yourself. You don’t have to be nice to yourself, you just can’t be mean. If someone says something self-deprecating, they THEN have to say 3 nice things about themselves to make up for it. This was a steep and harsh learning curve because I can tell you NO ONE wanted to publicly say 3 nice things about themselves a second time (but also, hilariously, everyone else was very eager to inflict making their friends say nice things about themselves, because pretty much everyone wants their friends to be nice to themselves… Go ahead and think about that a minute and try to remember that you are that friend for others, and that they want you to be kind to you, too)
And… Actually it worked. It didn’t work just in the server either, multiple people admitted they caught themselves doing it in real life, and put themselves through saying the nice things to themselves about themselves. And you know, the server is a lovely place to be, these days. Watching people be kind to themselves had a great influence. Not being constantly exposed to people you like saying mean things about themselves actually makes it more pleasant to be there. More people voluntarily praise each other and themselves, and creativity and community remain plentiful. It’s contagious.
I stopped being mean to myself after seeing a post here which communicated the harm it can do, when you say something mean about yourself and then people who like or may look up to you hear it. When you’re a writer or something and you say you’re bad or that something you made is crap, any reader or writer or other creative doing the same thing as you that thinks you’re better at it than they are is being told (in their minds) that they’re worse and their creation is worse crap. That’s not a message I ever want to send, that is not a cruelty I ever intended to inflict even unwittingly. So I stopped.
And holy SHIT does it make a difference. Not even being nice, but just not being actively mean to yourself. Make a pact with some friends if you’re having a hard time stopping on your own. The first time you have to claw your way through saying nice things about yourself in front of someone else after they pointed it out to you will change you.
A repaint of my older work, Wisteria Coils (the original is further down the thread)
after school ice cream run captured by one alfred pennyworth circa spring 2003
sorry but i think we have got to start including masculine women in discussions about feminism because most discussions about womanhood rn are genuinely so alienating and so divorced from a lot of masc women’s experiences that we’re basically defined out of womanhood lmao. and i don’t mean women who wear baggy shirts and pants i mean MASCULINE women who get called sir by service workers and who get stared at in women’s restrooms. so many of our experiences are the direct result of misogyny but because they’re not the typical experiences of feminine women they’re ignored entirely.
KWJWISJSKSJSKKSKSKSKSKSMSKSKKSKS OH MY FUCKING GOD, THAT'S MY CHILDHOOD BEST FRIEND, MY LITTLE BROTHER, MY SON 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
In case you were wondering how screwed we all are:
The fossil fuel industry has successfully completed their infiltration and takeover of the COP climate conference. The president of COP 28 is going to be an Oil CEO.
Billions of people are going to die but the rich don’t care so long as they can maintain the status quo and continue lining their pockets.
And I’m supposed to feel bad that a couple of them got themselves squished on a voluntary trip to the bottom of the ocean???
Never forget the time my sister was asked once by one of her "friends" (more like a friend's friend) who thought he was being funny "how come she didn't vote for VOX (alt right party here) and she was like "I'm part Romani, which means they already hate me too, but whatever. My best friend is gay. My sister is a lesbian. My boyfriend is a Muslim immigrant. If I voted that party that literally thinks my best friend and sister are sick for just existing and that wants my boyfriend kicked out of the country, I'd expect them to cut me off just like I'd cut off any of you" and the guy shut up
Hello cursed eldrich children, I'm dad!
{Check out my comics below}
companies really have got to be okay with stagnant profits. what is wrong with earning the same amount every year? why does it always have to be more? it's not sustainable. there are only so many people on the planet you can profit from 😭
This is the thing. If there are only so many people they can profit from, and they demand to see profits go up every year, they will have to steal more out of the pockets of the little people each year, either by paying less, or by charging more. And that is the problem. Because that is exactly what is happening. And the rich get richer. And the poor are getting so poor that it is coming to a crisis point. They seem to have forgotten what happens at the crisis point though: people who have nothing to lose, will rise up and fight.
Cancer: a malignant tumor of potentially unlimited growth that expands locally by invasion and systemically (Merriam Webster)
See also: Capitalism
But also, “increasing profits every quarter” is a relatively recent thing. It’s new since the 1980s! In the 1980s, Reagan heavily promoted the economic theories connected with the Chicago school of economics. (“Reaganomics” is basically the Chicago school ideas dumbed down to fit in soundbites.) The Chicago school is, among other things, responsible for such wonders as “all regulation in the marketplace is always bad” “monopoly is good because it’s efficient” and “trickle-down economics.” When those ideas became mainstream, and were adopted wholeheartedly by Wall Street, they spawned the idea that the most important measure of a company was its stock increasing in value. Not how much business it was doing, not how well its customers liked and valued it, not how stable it was for the long-term. Is its stock increasing is the only measure of value.
Prior to that point, a business--even large corporations!--were valued more on how reliable they are. If I invest in this business, will it still be there five, ten, fifteen, twenty years from now? Businesses were good if they were profitable and stable. Increasing profits was wonderful! But they understood that that is not infinitely sustainable, and that if you wanted to maximize long-term profits for individual investors and for the economy as a whole, you did not want flash-in-the-pan trendiness, and you didn’t want a business cannibalizing itself, you wanted a business that was stable and took good care of its customers so they’d keep coming back.
The reason that businesses have to grow forever to be successful now is that the people who own the businesses don't make a significant portion of their money from profits. They don't care about profits for themselves; those profits are chump change. They don't make their money from the value of the business. They make their money from the increase of value of the business.
The wealth these people have is measured by how much more their stocks are worth now than when they bought them. That is, how much the business has grown. If someone owns a bunch of $1,000 stocks that they bought for $990 each a year ago, and a bunch of $100 stocks that they bought for $10 each a year ago, those $100 stocks are a better investment. Most of their money comes from stock trading, and securities and loans that are based on the strength of that stock portfolio. A stagnant business is a waste of money because it's tying up money that you could be putting into more profitable businesses.
So your $100/stock company is far safer than your $1,000 stock company in the above example. Because your $1,000/stock company is almost stagnant and risks collapsing because investors might pull out to invest in a faster growing company. That company survives by becoming more valuable, which usually means increasing profits, and it doesn't matter if those profits are in the tens of thousands, or the millions, or the billions -- what matters is that they go up as much as possible so the stock price doesn't collapse. When profit increases slow down, the company is at risk. Companies that are happy with regular profits don't get big enough to really affect the economy because high-level investors see them as dead weight. Companies that are large and want to be happy with regular profits will die.
This is why late stage capitalism is a problem. It's not a just question of Bezos and Zuckerberg and soforth being arseholes. It's the inevitable conclusion of how money and value works in a system like this. (The assholery of billionnaires is still relevant re: their ability to affect government policies and regulations, direct international wars, etc., to worsen the problem, but again they are dangerous because they make the system worse; the system is the problem.)
I don't care if you, personally, want the U.S.'s public sex offender registry to continue to exist, (and think it will work well if it's just tweaked a little!).
Even just looking at the registries own goals: Where are your studies showing that it is actually effective at meeting any of its ostensible goals? If it's such a risk to get rid of it, why do so few countries allow public access to sex offender registries? (And were is your evidence that the public registry increases safety in the countries that have it?)
"Killing the cop the lives in your brain" means, in large part, not accepting criminal legal system solutions to problems just because they feel good and right to you. It means not accepting the criminal legal solution as the best or only solution to serious social problems, just because it's the solution that's currently in place where you live.
I'm going to respond to one of the comments on this post, because I think it serves as a good vehicle to explain why I hold this position, and why I felt the need to state that I don't care about people's personal desires for the U.S.'s public SOR to continue to exist. Before I begin: I am deliberately not including screenshots (instead just quoting the person) or the person's name, because that feels too much like targeting them and singling them out. If they want to comment in response to this, that's fine; however, if these aren't your comments, please do not go looking for these comments or otherwise be a jerk to this person.
(Also obviously a lot of discussion about sexual assault and child sexual abuse below the cut, given the topic. Please skip this if you don't want to read that.)