My first contribution (of likely many) to @ectogeo-rebubbles’ Garashir marriage challenge, fitting two prompts in one! It’s Siskarak with endgame Garashir, but I won’t reveal its secrets more than that and what’s in the tags…
rocks and shoals
do you ever make a drawing that frustrates you so badly that even before you finish it you're like "that's it! no more art for the rest of the day! i need to recover from this truly mindnumbing defeat before i start asking myself berating questions like 'why didn't you go into plumbing so your curséd hands could at least bring something of use into the world'"
totally and entirely unrelatedly: here's the pastel drawing of garak that preceded the acrylic gouache painting
its. well its not good at all, and since i'm no longer in Art Hell Brain mindset, this is no longer painful to admit but instead really really funny
(some of my dear + beloved friends have even been so kind as to tell me he has a kind of "charming in his own harrowed way" or that he looks like a humble ego death demon, or that he's like garak if he had a disco elysium portrait intro. hehehe)
and i do love this drawing now, and he genuinely makes me laugh!! but i cannot stress enough that at the time of creation this fucking gaze had a comically ridiculous vice grip on my ego and sense of self
anyway here the pieces are, beside each other, as they exist on the paper, for the full effect of the extremely silly ego killing failure art vs the artist's intended image, created once i rallied myself and tried a different method of approach
Coming from an artist I admire, this means so much for me as an aspiring artist myself. I tend to get caught up on the thought that all artists I like always draw at a certain level of quality and that I am the only one who struggles. Thank you for your honesty, it's really inspiring!
:D yay! i'm glad my goofy Pastels Garak Public Art Diary Entry was useful to you!
Thor meetthe Snow QueenLoki of Jotunheim.
"My own friend, Frankie Carbone, he stabbed him a dozen times. What kind of person plunges a knife into someone over and over?" Don Maroni asks Gertrud about Oswald, calling him a monster and a "cold-blooded psychopath"... and 5 minutes later, in the very same episode, Ed plunges a knife into Tom Dougherty over and over -- 11 times, unless I miscounted.
Oh, the resonances... what kind of person, indeed?
i need lestat to emanate the most terrifying malevolent energy in season two like yes he's haunting the narrative but not as the reassuring presence of your long lost love but as the bogeyman you're afraid is going to burst through your walls any second. when your memory is your past is a monster and the monster is embodied by your husband. you tried to bury him in new orleans but he's clawed his way out you try several times to beat him back but he keeps coming at you. lestat as a specter lestat as a reflection of louis's anxieties lestat changing shape as the narrative changes. his leitmotif should be some creepy distorted version of the original score
Call the distorted track "I Come to You"
Barbiegmobblepot
Did a thing for Barbie day idk
#The best thing about Barbie (2023) is probably Ryan Gosling who method acted too hard
I think about this cake every day
sorry for exposing your tags but this is hilarious
OP, I hope you don’t mind me making an addition:
When I turned 17, we ordered a cake at the grocery store for my party, as we’d done many times before. If you wanted something written on the cake you’d write it into a section of the order form. We requested, very simply, “Happy Birthday Courtney”. When we went to pick it up the day of the party, this is what we got.
The bakery employees had absolutely no explanation for this. The order form, attached to the box, very clearly did not contain any of those extra names. Whomever had done the writing was no longer in, so there was no one to ask how this had happened. The fact that the name ‘Juan’ is misspelled bewilders me to this day. (I’ve never seen ‘Miley’ without the E, either, but it’s believable that someone might spell it that way.) Did this cake slip in from an alternate universe where I’m one quarter of a set of Hispanic quadruplets? Dyslexic Hispanic quadruplets, maybe?
This cake became the focal point of my party. At least two of my friends regularly called me ‘Courtney Mily Jaun Pablo’ for years to come. My siblings and I still reference it sometimes, eleven years later. It is probably the funniest thing ever to occur at any birthday celebration of my life, and may well remain so for the rest of my days.
I love a botched cake.
i googled this on a whim and the first thing i get is nyt race science
just as an FYI for those who don't know - the NYT publishes things that are lowkey eugenics and phrenology and race science CONSTANTLY. it flies under the radar except for journalism twitter calling them out but the NYT SUCKS. it is very hard to encourage people to find reliable sources online when the "reliable sources" like papers of record do shit like this, and the NYT is one of the WORST offenders.
Okay. Weighing in on this.
tldr; Thomas Talhelm (PhD student, University of Virginia) interviewed over 1,000 Chinese college students from the wheat-growing regions in the north versus the rice-growing regions in the south, and found differences in their approaches to answering particular types of questions which could not be attributed to either pathogen prevalence or GDP. There was a correlation between holistic thought and rice agriculture, which requires an extremely high level of coordination, planning, awareness of neighbors' needs, and community involvement because of how the crop grows. The study did not involve cultures outside of China. All of this occurred between different communities of Han Chinese people. It is an analysis of regional differences involving people of the same race.
tldr; The phenomenon might better be described as "rice agriculture versus non-rice agriculture," but even then, there are cultures that score higher on holistic thinking than North Americans and Western Europeans that primarily grow crops with relatively lower community coordination (parts of Africa, South America, Russia, and the Middle East). Beyond this, the cost of crop production/effort to grow is not consistent throughout the world, because local growing conditions vary. The study is limited and needs to dive into other possible variables, but it's not completely without merit.
The author of the NYT opinion piece, T.M. Luhrmann, is a highly respected Jewish anthropology professor from Stanford who primarily studies the way in which different cultures treat psychiatric illnesses, and how the West's lack of compassion leads to poorer outcomes for the mentally ill.
Her opinion piece from the screenshot, which is all of 887 words, summarizes Talhelm's study and then ends with 3 brief paragraphs condemning the individualism of the United States, Congress, and Silicon Valley.
Genuinely everyone on the internet needs to develop better news literacy & research skills and understand that in any publication, there will be some variation in the quality of the reporting based on who your writers / opinion piece guests are. Especially when it comes down to non-scientists having to interpret scientific findings for the general public. But this isn't one of those cases - other than the poorly conceived illustration (which Luhrmann neither created nor approved), her article is absolutely fine. Other people may have run with the study and misattributed its findings, but that's not on her or the NYT.
PLEASE send me any questionable articles by the NYT that allude to race science, and I'd be happy to look into them and dig up the actual scientific papers to determine if / how they've been misinterpreted.
idk what the article actually said because i clicked on the link and the website told me to give them $60
ill be honest your reply makes me angry. Don't spread assumptions like this about articles based on the headline and a tbf absolutely horrendous caricature. like this is what @beemovieerotica means when they say people need better news literacy. Like it literally says in your very own screenshot that it is an opinion, not an actual news article. Sure the paywall on nyt sucks but maybe just don't post about it then when you simply do not know.
^^^
@kushblazer666 download uBlock Origin (or any other comparable, free adblocker) and click the "Turn off Javascript" button, and it will disable any paywall on any news article
#actually read/watch/listen to things before you opine on them #because seriously you sound like FOX news #playing telephone and getting mad about screenshots #yeah different cultures have different values #and sometimes those values are influenced by things like food production and climate #where did you think cultural values came from? #inherent natures of a group?
THANK YOU for that last bit, @squeeful.
#reminds me of that post about how difficult it would have been to build big stuff in pre-contact north america#because of terrain and lack of suitable draft animals#some people talk about the 'leave no trace' ethos of some indigenous north americans as if it indicates superior virtue#perhaps as a hyperreaction to the old colonial view that it indicates primitivism or lack of ingenuity#but it makes more sense to understand cultural ethos as an adaptation to a particular environment#there's nothing morally superior or inferior about monumental architecture or the lack thereof#people learn how to live with the landscape and resources they're afforded
I care more about being spoiled about what Chocolate Guy is making at the start of his tiktok videos than I do about Marvel movies. Don't post "chocolate guy makes a ____" in the description, I want to see him pour chocolate into an egg mold and then 2 minutes later be like "oohh shit " when I realize that it's actually a life size chocolate model of himself making a life size chocolate model of himself making a solid chocolate model of himself making a
Do you guys think Julian’s parents had a bad relationship, which lead to his negative views on the concept of marriage? Or was he just a professional slut and hater
Not necessarily. I think Julian's feelings about his parents' marital dynamics color his view of marriage.
It's possible that Julian believes that they have a "bad marriage," but Richard and Amsha disagree. I suspect that Amsha is much more tolerant of Richard's failings than Julian is. She seems like someone who's made a lot of compromises, but she may see that as a fact of life and marriage, rather than a personal failing or a sign of an unhealthy marriage. (And that's fair, in most circumstances.) To tell you the truth, I think she regrets and is saddened by Julian's hurt over the genetic enhancements, but I'm not sure she really feels she did something wrong.
I do think Julian respects Amsha a little more than Richard, mainly because he doesn't respect Richard at all. Amsha is probably just an all-around less aggravating person to deal with on a personal level. But I think it's clear that despite their differences, Amsha and Richard function as a pair, and Julian for the most part treats them as a pair, likely because he sees that too.
I don't know that Julian has a "negative" view of marriage. I think he's afraid of commitment and is parroting a kind of simplistic, antiquated view of marriage to rationalize his fear of settling down (and opening himself up to being loved because deep down he sees himself as a freak). I don't know that he's put much actual thought into his view of marriage at all. He has a romanticized view of romantic relationships in general (i.e. we finished each other's sentences), but I do think his kind of hero-worship of Miles early on had something to do with his hardworking married everyman persona. So he does see marriage as something to strive for (albeit in an abstract way).
This looks like Istredd went bar hopping with them on an evening that was proclaimed as a "girls' night out" three margaritas in, and is the only one sober because he's the designated driver.
Ban Ard, boyfriend, beer-bus
Source: instagram.com
WGA's asking people interested in all the tree law fun to also sign this petition about a god damned bitch of an unsatisfactory situation on another street on the Same FUCKING lot. NBC Universal (whose CEO is Mike Cavanagh just btw in case Ron Pearlman is listening) has started a construction project that completely removed the sidewalks from five different gates, in two cases forcing pedestrians to literally walk into oncoming traffic. In addition to being an ADA violation, it's just flat out despicably evil of them and WGA's asking for public support on this issue.
Ultimately the debate over changing the minds of our oppressors with angry words versus kind words is meaningless because it rests on the assumption that people in power will be swayed by words at all. In reality, people who have power over you have limitless ways of tuning you out or reinterpreting your words to death. It's often the case that they won't actually hear you unless there are material consequences for not doing so.
Sorry about going on a huge journey under your post... There’s a somewhat more useful framework that’s sometimes used in organizing, where you first mentally divide society into 5 groups:
- You, your organization or your community: you have a goal you want to achieve and are ready to take action to achieve it.
- On your side: people sympathetic to your goal who are not currently an active part of your organization. They may be funding or defending you, or passively agreeing with you. Their core priorities may be something other than your goal.
- In the middle: people without a strong affiliation in favor or against you.
- On their side: people sympathetic to your opponent. They may be funding or defending your opponent. Crucially, their core priority is something other than supporting your opponent. Those who would support your opponent at any cost forever can be groups in as 'your opponent'.
- Your opponent: the one standing in the way of your goal. in most cases they will never come to your side willingly.
To get closer to your goal, you can pursue different strategies for each group:
- You: want to stay active without burning out. Actions that achieve this: working at a sustainable pace without constant pressure, caring for each other, celebrating the smaller victories together along the way, etc.
- On your side: these are the people and organizations that you want to mobilize. That's where your growth comes from. You don’t have to convince these people of your cause, they’re already convinced. Instead, you do have to make them want to participate. For example by offering them easy low-risk ways to start participating, by broadcasting your smaller victories so they start to believe that you could actually win and that this is a worthwhile investment of their time, etc.
- In the middle: these are people and organizations you want to bring on your side. Often this group is very big. You don’t have to win them all over though, this is about bringing in more people that can eventually be mobilized, for long term growth. So choose parts of the middle that you think you can win over. Some might never be mobilized to take action but can be convinced to donate or to start defending your case to others in the middle. This is where a little kindness may be a useful tool, but more important is (1) Can you articulate the problem in a way anyone can understand quickly? (2) Can you articulate the solution in a way anyone can understand quickly? (3) Can you convince people that the solution is possible and that you're going to win?
- On their side: you want to push people and organizations in this group to distance themselves from your opponent, in practice moving to the middle. You don’t have to totally change their minds, you just have to make them want to no longer associate with your opponent. Sometimes you can do this by undermining the reputation and authority of your opponent, sometimes by making it materially costly to stay on the side of your opponent.
- Your opponent: this is who you want to isolate and pressure. Material consequences are a very good form of pressure, but you can also use law suits, attacks on their reputation, etc. Make ‘em sweat. The more they feel like they are under constant attack while losing allies, the more likely they are to give in to your demands because eventually doing so seems less costly to them than not doing so. If this feels like an impossibly large task: remember that those who are used to always having a lot of power can feel vulnerable when they lose even a little bit of it. (Of course if your goal is the total destruction of your opponent, pressure isn’t going to do it and your goal for this group might start with ‘isolate and put on the defensive’, then ‘isolate and paralyze’, then ‘begin to dismantle’, etc.)
Now this is all just theory, it's not going to apply to every situation. If you're a union preparing strike action, some of this is gonna be different. But it can be a helpful tool to plan what works.
#it's not helpful to lump all members of a demographic group together as 'your oppressor'#if you're a minority in a democracy you really do need the sympathy of members of the 'oppressor' group#some of them might be hell-bent on oppressing you and no they can't be persuaded#but there are a lot of white people and cishet people in the middle#and yeah actually they need to be persuaded and not alienated#but if your attitude going in is they're all 'the oppressor' you're probably not the one to do it
IS MOON DAY!!! MOOOOON DAY!!!! THE DAY OF MOOOOON! HAPPY MOON DAY 🌝 (we landed on the moon today in 1969)
The thing about the fandom’s interpretation of Data and Pulaski is that it makes both characters extremely flat and boring while also erasing their whole relationship. Data’s made into this flawless, naive baby that can’t defend himself (when he does - when Pulaski mispronounces his name, he tells her exactly why she should pronounce it correctly), while Pulaski is an ugly bitch-hag who is morally reprehensible. Most fanfics portray Data as being uncomfortable or scared of her, while Pulaski’s chomping at the bit to break him into parts. Their whole relationship in season two is based around the fact they both have flaws, and that Data is still learning about what exactly he is capable of as an android.
In “Elementary, My Dear Data”, the big question of the episode is if Data can solve a narrative mystery without it being based on his knowledge of the original stories. Geordi doesn’t know the answer. Pulaski doesn’t. Data doesn’t. From what they know of Data, Pulaski outright dismisses the possibility that Data can, which sparks the episode’s plot.
So when Geordi goes back later and prompts the computer to alter the program to be more challenging, both Data and Pulaski are excited! They want to see where this goes! They are openly having fun with this.
In her first episode, Pulaski dismissed Data when he tried to stay during Troi’s labour, and only relented when Troi said she wanted him there. But by “Penpals”, she assures Sarjenka that Data will be at her side the whole time. When Data expresses doubts, she assures him that this is what’s best for Sarjenka, but that his memories of her will still be important. This is also the same episode where Pulaski defends both her and Data’s personal involvement in the situation to Worf.
In “Measure of A Man”, the game opens with some of the crew playing a poker game. Data and Pulaski are obviously friendly and comfortable enough to socialize together outside of professional circumstances. And again, the scene shows Data calling the game simplistic and assuming he will win, but he turns out to be wrong.
Later in “Peak Performance”, Pulaski sets up Data to compete in Strategema, only for him to end up losing, to everyone’s surprise. The reason why Data’s confidence falls is because he had the exact same assumption about his computational abilities as Pulaski. They were both wrong! When she sees how much losing has affected him, she apologizes:
Data says that he must be malfunctioning. It’s not until Picard tells him that failure can happen even when you do everything right that Data accepts he can make mistakes - and that making mistakes is okay! By the end of the episode, they both know that Data is not infallible, and that he can be affected by failure as much as any human.
Pulaski makes assumptions and mistakes, and so does Data. They learn and grow from them, and their relationship is overall a very positive one despite their very different personalities. It’s an interesting dynamic that gets rewritten by fans entirely, despite the fact that it’s weirdly one of the more developed dynamics in the show.
Pulaski and Ezri were the two characters who I feel most conflicted about, because while I would prefer continuing the continuity of the characters they replaced and thus would ‘vote them off the Star Trek island’, so to speak, I love both characters a lot and wish very much that they had both had seven seasons on another Trek show. In fact they could have served together, the grumpy doctor and the young-but-old counselor coordinating on crew issues over on the USS Excelsior? Would have been great.
This is deliberate. Greg Abbot killed these people.
for those that didn't see this bit of news: abbot and his cronies squashed city mandates that outdoor workers have water and shade breaks right before the summer heat waves rolled in.