only for the gist of the quote

Context: I don’t remember the player classes because this was a while ago. I’m also not 100% sure on races, for the same reason. But neither of those are really significant to the story. (Also, it’s worth noting that this is only the gist of what happened because this particular D&D game was almost a year ago and I obviously can’t remember every quote) Anyways, my character had found a secret door under a river and was trying to unlock it. Earlier in the game, we had found a town and I managed to either abduct or use my charisma to charm many townspeople to join me, so I had a following of at least 7 NPCs. The rest of my party had moved on ahead while I messed with the door, and had found a field filled with monsters. One of the girls (player 1) got down to 1 HP because they were so dense and needed extra support. However, I believed there was something important that could help us behind the door, so I was going to keep trying to open it.

Player 1 OOC: oh my god I’m going to come over there and fight you just help! we need your townspeople

*She sent her character back to the town to heal up and then drag me back into battle*

Player 1 IC: Come on, we need you to help us.

Me: But there could be something behind the door, if I can just find a way to open it. It could help us get past all these monsters.

Player 1: The door won’t open. Just come with me and we can look at the door later.

*My character glares at hers.*

DM: Roll for charisma.

*nat 20*

DM: Your glare deals 1 damage.

Player 1 OOC: But I only had 1 HP!

DM: And you just lost it because of this really intense stare.

With a Little Help from My Friends.

Finn Balor/OC- Reader has a little problem that Finn helps her out with.

Warning:There aren’t really any, except for pure smut so yeah.

Hey anon I hope you enjoy this. I wasn’t sure if this was what you exactly wanted but hey I tried my best. Also side note, Finn is my favorite so if yall have request for him please send them in.

@vebner37 @the-geekgoddes

Keep reading

I had in my description that I was only looking for hookups with guys. So this one guy messages me and he was cute so we started discussing if we could meet up for a friends with benefits kind of thing. So I said we’d have to meet at a public place first because I ain’t about that getting murdered life. He responds that he can’t and that we’d have to meet at his house. I’m said something to the gist of um why? And he says because “i’m on house arrest. Lol”. So I asked what for and he said, and I quote, “just assault”. Needless to say I blocked him immediately

ADHD-friendly rant; Supreme Court edition

In light of recent events, and the fact that people are talking about the electoral college, now seems like the time to talk about what I argue is the biggest constitutional flaw in the US. The political judiciary.

I’ve spent a fair amount of time arguing that constitutional theory should incorporate these rules, which are really two sides of the same coin:

  1. Never politicise an unelected office
  2. Never elect an apolitical office

The second one normally comes up in the debate about reforming the office of Governor-General in Commonwealth states, but I formulated the first rule specifically with the US judicial system in mind.

Judicial office should always be apolitical

In fact, it is apolitical in pretty much any other democratic country in the world. Judges are expected to perform their duty “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”. Judges are even expected to never openly state political opinions, just to avoid the perception that they might be biased. The fact that you talk about conservative and liberal judges is absurd.

Donald Trump will be naming the next Supreme Court justices. In any other democratic country, this wouldn’t be much of a problem. Because he wouldn’t be able to find a judge that shared his political beliefs. Because Judges aren’t allowed political beliefs. A Supreme Court justice should be interpreting the law based on established common law principles, not on what they personally believe is right.

It undermines the rule of law. Dicey, a famous UK constitutional theorist, once stated “an Englishman is ruled by the law, and the law alone”. In my opinion, this is the only useful thing he ever said (I’m not a fan), but I would adapt the quote to be “free people are ruled by the law, and the law alone.”

The rule of law is freedom from arbitrary power. It means that laws are passed by democratic governments and interpreted by impartial judges. If the law is decided by judges’ personal political opinions, there is no rule of law.

It’s undemocratic. This is the gist of the “never politicise an unelected office” rule. The reason that Supreme Court judges cannot be fired or have their salaries lowered is to prevent political interference. This is the same in most democratic nations. Except if the judiciary isn’t apolitical this system doesn’t protect the judiciary from interference; it just keeps past political interference in place until that judge dies.

I accept the theory behind judges being able to strike down laws if they are inconsistent with a Bill of Rights, but I don’t accept this system if those judges can strike down laws based on whether they, personally, disagree with the policy. That’s not their place; they are not elected.

Tl;dr: If the highest political decisionmakers in the land are nine unelected people who cannot be removed from office and are legally entitled to decide cases based on their own political views, you do not live in a full democracy. The Supreme Court is a dictatorship by committee. And Donald Trump’s worst legacy will be the irrevocable decisions he makes about who will make up that committee.

im-that-one-weird-kid  asked:

"Well behaved women seldom make history" by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich has had serious problems with people using her quote without permission and twisting its meaning. Can you make a post explaining her book and have her named as the source from now on?

She is named as the source, and I ran it by her when I launched the 1 year anniversary poster. Now that things have settled down, I’m even mailing her a copy (as she’d requested). :)

The quote comes from an obscure academic paper she wrote on Puritan funeral rites. It was a specific response to most scholarship at the time only talking about women as an oppressed minority. With it, she pointed out the “hidden ones” who’d been well behaved and forgotten by the history books. That may be an oversimplification, but that’s the gist of it.

She also seems to have made her peace with the phrase being out of her hands now. She wrote, “[t]he quotation is way beyond my control at this point, so I am sometimes amused, sometimes aghast, but never worried about how it gets used.  That seems to be the way of our internet world.”

(sorry for the late reply, I’m finally catching up on a huge backlog of email)

anonymous asked:

So how does one decide whether a religion has been "closed"? Is there an official board somewhere that announces when this takes place? What if I declare European Paganism as a closed religion? Or are only religions practiced by non-white people available to be "closed"?

Well, fortunately there’s no such thing as a single European Paganism, otherwise your contempt would leave many us without a religious practice.

Generally speaking, a religion is determined closed by the people of the culture from which that religion comes.  If those people no longer exist and/or if the historical line of inheritance was broken, then the religion is usually open, such as the various Celtic polytheisms, Kemeticism, Religio Romano, etc.  There are some religions that may welcome in newcomers outside of their cultures under specific circumstances, like Shinto, but those circumstances are determined by the authorities of those religions and not the newcomers themselves.

It’s not that religions typically practiced by people of color are the only ones that can be closed.  Closed religions tend to be, but aren’t always, associated with communities that have faced some sort of oppression, and while white people certainly aren’t the only ones that can be racist, it just so happens that much of the imperialism that went on and still goes on is perpetuated by white-identified people.

Cultural identity is not always so easy as “skin color = cultural identity.”  What about someone born and raised in India who has pale skin?  Are they less Indian because their skin color is less common, even if they were born and raised there no differently than any other Indian child?  Or is a person of color born in England somehow not English but is only allowed to identify as the culture from which their ancestry may be rooted, even if it was centuries ago and this person actually calls themselves English?  This isn’t addressing how privilege associated with certain skin colors operate within certain cultural paradigms, but I hope you understand the gist of what I’m getting at.

A religion is closed when authorities within or the people of that religion declare it so, no matter how many sarcastic quotes you use.

- mountain hound

My road ID arrived. I love it. The quote is from an ultra book I like. Of course pain can be your body’s warning…not discounting it. The context of those quote helps (definitely not about injury. Different world), but the gist is exactly that. Pain only hurts. In those moments, when your legs burn, your feet hurt, you want to quit, remember it only hurts. That’s it. You can push through.

I don’t feel like my explanation does it justice. It’s from Scott Jurek’s book.