wait ok mutuals what do you guys call your parents???????

Hey! What the fuck is going on in here

no where else

There's having sock puppet accounts, and then there's putting on a puppet show.

My toxic trait is having no idea how tall I am, how much I weigh, or what my clothing and shoe sizes are. People repeatedly tell me or I measure, and then I immediately forget. Just pathologically unaware of my own body. I need to start a long term project to note it all down.

Then again whenever I become aware of the objective reality of my body from an outside perspective I tend to have a pretty bad time, so maybe not.

Perhaps this is related to the thing where I consistently underestimate how large I am when looking from a first person perspective.

I try to stay away from a lot of fandom discourse, but since I’ve been seeing this on my dash again and in tags, I feel the need to make a statement on this, particularly for any young fans who follow me that might get drawn into this mindset.

Stay away from purity culture. Warn your friends away from it too, if you see them starting to fall for it. It’s very easy to get drawn into it

Almost always, it starts with one of three roots, pedophilia, incest and/or abuse. Usually it’s pedophilia. Funnily enough, that’s also what congress usually uses to try to justify passing bills that undermine online privacy & security. Because it’s an easy, extreme target, and when people attempt to argue against it, it’s nice and easy to say “Oh so you like pedophilia” rather then actually engaging with their argument.

The logic goes like this, although there’s many forms of it.

This is the foundation of “anti” culture, and it’s important to be aware of it so you can catch this false equivocation. Fictional explorations of something, are not the same as the thing itself. Fictional explorations are fiction. The characters are not real people. There is no actual harm being done. Equating fake harm and real harm is a dangerous, slippery slope, which leads us to fundamentally flawed ideas of moral purity. It’s a form of controlling people & making them feel guilty for their very thoughts, rather than holding people accountable for their actions. 

A very handy trick for when you encounter this sort of argument, is to replace whatever the selected purity term is with murder. After all, we can all agree that murder is bad, but at the same time, we understand that a murder in a book =/= a murder in real life.

Let’s see that argument again, shall we?

Hopefully, it’s now easy to see why the above argument is fundamentally flawed.

Keep your eye out for purity culture in your fandom spaces, and when you see it, refuse to engage with it. Warn your friends if you see them falling into the same traps, although try to be kind about it; this is a very easy thought pattern to fall into. I don’t recommend trying to argue/debate anti’s. The attention only feeds them. Block them instead. Don’t let people control or shame you for what you create or consume, and don’t control or shame others for what they create or consume.

Also, as a note, let me be clear about something. If you are uncomfortable with any of the above discussed things, or anything in general in fiction (ie, underage ships, murder, incest, abuse, penguins, needles, etc), that’s perfectly fine (it’s also called a squick, for those that haven’t heard that term before). Absolutely control your fandom experience by blocking people, filtering tags, unfollowing, etc. However, just because you are uncomfortable with something, does not give you the right to control other people. Other people have no right to control what content you create or consume, and you have no right to do that to them either. 

Okay?

“It’s a form of controlling people & making them feel guilty for their very thoughts, rather than holding people accountable for their actions. ”

“Fictional explorations of something, are not the same as the thing itself. Fictional explorations are fiction. The characters are not real people. There is no actual harm being done. Equating fake harm and real harm is a dangerous, slippery slope, which leads us to fundamentally flawed ideas of moral purity.”

Fictional characters are not real people.

If I kill off a character, I am not a murderer.

Also, creators are not obligated to explore so-called ‘problematic content’ in only certain ways. Creators are allowed to create things simply for the enjoyment of it and do not need to justify their reasons for it or use said creations as a proclamation of their real life views and morals, because those things are not synonymous.

i want a homestuck kin party can you guys meet me in the desert on the rez

i want to meet dave strider here

Why are you years in the future but not many

homestuck x scott pilgrim (please click for quality!)

vrisrezi… uhmmm girls kissing teehee

Zhen

Google is not deleting YouTube accounts with videos

it's girlthing monday! pet a girlthing to celebrate!!!!

my favorite part of deltarune was when kris said it was krising time and then krised all over the place

nobody likes you when you’re 𝟤̶𝟥̶ 𝟤̶𝟧̶?̶… 27

Civilization was not developed to produce food for people. It is specifically the organizational processes of limiting access to abundance as a means of social and ecological hegemonic dominance. Hope this helps :)

This serves fairly well as an example with the errors common in discussion of more modern technology, by showing them at their root, where they are the most clearly wrong. It is an idealist error, one which almost directly reverses cause and effect.

In reality, of course, the development of agriculture *did* facilitate social control - precisely *because* it produced food for people better than the previous mode of production did. The specific fact that agriculture produced food more reliably than hunter-gathering is why it afforded a measure of social control. If it did not, then it would not afford any social control, as it could simply be ignored - if there really *was* abundant food, then a new method of producing food would not be socially relevant. Social power does not spring out of thin air, it is not simply the result of Greedy People. It can only be brought about by material imbalance. New modes of production, new technologies, can create social power - but only insofar as they are materially useful enough to grant those who control them social power.

This is the key point that been a consistent issue with opponents of historical materialism - the material basis of specific social systems is in the fact that, despite resigning their oppressed classes to worse *relative* lives, they do improve their *objective* lives. The conflation of relative social standing with objective prosperity leads to absurd positions, like the idea that hunter-gatherer production was relaxed and abundant, or that subsistence farming was some cottagecore fantasy, or a hundred misunderstandings of what 'progressive' implies in a historical sense. It also leads to luddism; to attempts to fight against new technologies themselves due to their facilitation of deepening exploitation, while ignoring the ways they objectively improve standards of living. Fundamentally: any political program that *explicitly aims to reduce the objective standards of living of the people* is working against the people's interests, and will not receive their support. This is as true of luddism as it is primitivism, accelerationism, or any other 'some of you may die, but that's a risk that I am willing to take' tendency.

Fundamentally, historical materialism is the analytical framework that corresponds to real-world practice - it is the only one that actually *works*. And historical materialism is clear - it is methods of production that principally lead to the development of social systems, not the reverse. I'd say it's putting the cart before the horse, but maybe that's too high-tech.

the mcelroys havent been funny in a while but their amelie bit is an all timer. she cook an egg with a spoon

I'm intrigued why people say that they haven't been funny in a while?

Did I miss something?

unlike many funnypeople of their era who people have decided are cringe now because online humour sensibilities have shifted around their relatively consistent output, the mcelroys actually got measurably identifiably less funny at the exact point that yahoo answers went down and their podcast was no longer about anything

MBMBAM was never that good as its own thing. It's one of those podcasts without a solid central concept or otherwise one that is so sidelined it just turns into another "three white dudes shoot the shit" show. Don't get me wrong, I do like it because they are pretty funny, but only as like background audio churn. It's not what should be being talked about when deciding if you "like the McElroys", you need to treat them as now general media personalities and decide if you like listening to them outside of that specific context.

If you do like them in other things then MBMBAM becomes the absolute worst thing they do (except perhaps for one of the vanity podcasts they do with their spouses, sorry lads but what the fuck are Shmanners and Wonderful beyond "hey I want to do a podcast with my podcaster husband too"), whereas if you only like them for MBMBAM you're going to be disappointed because it's empty legacy content.

TAZ is still quality, but the D&D people have been spoiled on more professional content like Critical Role, and so keep saying that new TAZ isn't as good as the Balance era they romanticise because it was their introduction to actual play even though the modern TAZ stuff is objectively on par or sometimes much better than it in almost every way.

the mcelroys havent been funny in a while but their amelie bit is an all timer. she cook an egg with a spoon

I'm intrigued why people say that they haven't been funny in a while?

Did I miss something?

unlike many funnypeople of their era who people have decided are cringe now because online humour sensibilities have shifted around their relatively consistent output, the mcelroys actually got measurably identifiably less funny at the exact point that yahoo answers went down and their podcast was no longer about anything

MBMBAM was never that good as its own thing. It's one of those podcasts without a solid central concept or otherwise one that is so sidelined it just turns into another "three white dudes shoot the shit" show. Don't get me wrong, I do like it because they are pretty funny, but only as like background audio churn. It's not what should be being talked about when deciding if you "like the McElroys", you need to treat them as now general media personalities and decide if you like listening to them outside of that specific context.

If you do like them in other things then MBMBAM becomes the absolute worst thing they do (except perhaps for one of the vanity podcasts they do with their spouses, sorry lads but what the fuck are Shmanners and Wonderful beyond "hey I want to do a podcast with my podcaster husband too"), whereas if you only like them for MBMBAM you're going to be disappointed because it's empty legacy content.

Am gorl

Genuinely love this so much. It's objectively pretty mundane but I think this is the best photo of me every taken actually