He's here...
Happy 1st birthday George.....
[ID: a twitter thread by Leiracal Muse @LeiracalMuse that starts with a picture of a Pizza Hut building with the signage removed. It has the caption, "No matter what you do to this building, everyone knows it use to be a Pizza Hut. That's what the trans community fails to understand." Leiracal Muse says in response to this image, "No, no, wait, this is actually a perfect metaphor. Take the building below." Attached is an image of a Pizza Hut building that has been repainted from red to blue, with signage for Liberty Income Tax. The thread continues, "This used to be a Pizza Hut. No one argues that. But it's not trying to be a Pizza Hut anymore, and the moment it decided it wasn't a Pizza Hut, it wasn't. It is now, exactly what it's trying to be.
No matter how much you scream that 'That used to be a Pizza Hut!,' its role in society is a tax agency. You interact with it like a tax agency. If you try to order a pizza, you look absurd. If you scream to the people inside 'You're not real accountants!,' you look even sillier.
Most of all, if you argue that other people are claiming it was never a Pizza Hut, you're not being honest with anyone, least of all yourself. From the moment it was built, it had the framework to be a Pizza Hut. At some point, being a Pizza Hut didn't work out. So it stopped.
Sometimes these are long-standing locations that were able to maintain the appearance and function of a Pizza Hut for a long time. Sometimes they barely made it a few years before they knew it wasn't working out. But they changed their purpose, and the rest of us acclimated.
The thing is this: it's not societally acceptable to decide a business is inherently bad at its business, simply because it's located in a former Pizza Hut. The building never mattered. It was a source of comfort and familiarity, but it didn't materially affect your dinner.
If you decide a business isn't really valid because it's in a former Pizza Hut, what you're telling everyone is that no building is allowed to repurpose to whatever it needs to be. You're saying if no one can make that building function as a Pizza Hut, then it needs torn down.
There's no basis for that argument, except that the sight of former Pizza Huts makes you uncomfortable, and you'd rather they be torn down than find a good purpose in their existence. You have decided that what's most important is not someone's building, but your icky feelings.
Lastly, what you recognize of this building is far less structurally essential than you think it is. People generally change what they want to change, not to accommodate your icky feeling at seeing a former Pizza Hut, but just their needs for the building. It's not about you.
It's not about your need to not see a building and recognize it as a former Pizza Hut, or to call it out to others, or to feel smug for noticing something that was beneath notice. No one else cares unless they haven't gotten over their icky feelings at seeing former Pizza Huts.
It never was about what the building used to be. It's about the way you've chosen to treat others because you can't get over that. That you think said knowledge grants permission to abuse and harm. No one cares about the Pizza Hut. They just see you yelling at accountants.
Amusing addendum: Under this metaphor, here's the GC bathroom argument: 'Pizza Huts must never be repurposed for other businesses; they must be closed or torn down, because another unrelated Pizza Hut just could claim to be an accountant's office and they'd mess up your taxes!'
No tax fraudster in history has even considered thinking, 'you know what would make this really convincing? Running this scam out of my Pizza Hut!' It has the opposite effect of what is being claimed, and it takes two seconds to realize it's just about the worst possible option.
Addendum the second: Anti-trans activist are already trying to figure out how they can abuse the metaphor so it doesn't make their position look absurd. So let me be explicit: Structure and purpose are separate things. Things can be both restructured and repurposed.
There is no amount of restructuring, even approaching magical levels of complete do-over, that will appease these people who are claiming structure is fundamental and inescapable. What they're actually protesting is the repurposing. They seek to deny granting others purpose.
Some think the purpose of Others is to serve beneath them as they see fit, and can't have people choose not to. Some feel trapped in their purpose and can't bear the thought of others repurposing themselves, because it begs the question why they've never chosen to do the same.
It ultimately doesn't matter; just know that their argument is disingenuous on its surface. They will bounce around from structural complaint to structural complaint, but it's fundamentally a distraction and they will never be appeased. They seek to deny choosing your purpose." end ID.]
having a job is like They're trying to close you off from the cosmos
Queer music is impossible to define because we are not a monolith and we all have our own tastes and styles but it sure is not harry styles and taylor swift
I dislike dogs, I think they're annoying and I generally dislike their personalities unless they're a) working (in which case I shouldn't interfere with them) or b) basically cats (in which case, just get a cat, they're far more physically pleasant to touch). I'm not afraid of them and I don't hate or resent their existence, they're important animals, I just don't want them around me.
But if a dog comes over and wants pets or play then I WILL pretend I love it and I will pet it so much because it's not the dog's fault that I don't like them. It wouldn't understand my rejection and I don't want to make it sad. Just because it's an unpleasant animal doesn't mean it deserves to be sad.
There seems to be a deeper philosophy one could derive from this but as it is its solid.
Behaving with basic compassion for other living things regardless of whether they fulfil your own emotional and aesthetic preferences. The world makes me happy but the amount of happiness I bring others isn't contingent on them making me happy first. It's not a serotonin transaction.
"The trannies should be able to piss in whatever toilet they want and change their bodies however they want. Why is it my business if some chick has a dick or a guy has a pie? I'm not a trannie or a fag so I don't care, just give 'em the medicine they need."
"This is an LGBT safe space. Of COURSE I fully support individuals who identify as transgender and their right to self-determination! I just think that transitioning is a very serious choice and should be heavily regulated. And there could be a lot of harm in exposing cis children to such topics, so we should be really careful about when it is appropriate to mention trans issues or have too much trans visibility."
One of the above statements is Problematic and the other is slightly annoying. If we disagree on which is which then working together for a better future is going to get really fucking difficult.
Someone who says they don't care if dudes wear dresses and makeup is a better ally than someone who says they're a safe space for women and non-binary people. I am not joking.
how the fuck does a relationship just run its course
Guys. It's not a bad thing. It sounds very frightening, especially when you're young and the worst thing you can imagine is becoming vulnerable enough to love deeply and then end up single again, but the reality is a long term relationship is about more than love. It's a long-term project of building a life together, and that requires being in sync on a number of levels, including some choices that cannot be reversed (like having children, for example). When you reach that point and realize you and your partner are out of sync, you have these choices:
1. One of you completely submits to the other and get strongarmed into a life you didn't want, leading to a lot of grief and suppressed anger;
2. Neither of you fully commits to anything, leading to constant tension, arguments, and false starts;
3. You come to the realization that you and your partner are incompatible, and in order for the two of you to continue to live happy, fully realized lives, you must part ways.
1 and 2 are disastrous. They hurt you and your partner and your loved ones, they lead to hatred. 3 sounds cold, impossible, incompatible with fairytale romance, and it's not easy, but it's the only one that's rooted in actual mature love, the only one that will let you both grow and flourish. And you can still love that person after the fact. Love is not a finite thing! It can change forms and directions, and the surest way to destroy it, to grind it into nothingness, is to refuse to let it do so. A relationship that ends will always be a valuable stage that helped you become who you are. There's no point in your entire life where you and your partner will fossilize and freeze in place, and neither will any relationship. You will never be fully able to love and be loved until you can embrace impermanence, and be honest about yourself and what you want, and understand that isn't the same as failure, or the end of love.
if i had twin children i would name them Minneapolis and St. Paul after the divine twins of roman mythology
haha that's a nice starry-eyed ambition you've got there buddy. sure hope the narrative doesn't warp it into something ruthless and all-consuming
there was something at about the lighting and stainless steel while i was cleaning up at work that made me go WAIT HOLD UP GOTTA GRAB ME CAMERA
this looks like a renaissance painting
just saw a job listing that requires a masters degree in accounting and they want to pay $14/hour. good luck with that
i told my girlfriend about this and she said "they do know those guys can do math, right?"
we really can’t overstate how damaging it has been to indoctrinate the public with the idea that if they let themselves eat as much as they want, they’ll eat too much. human bodies, when permitted over the long term to eat as much as they want, actually get really, really good at calibrating their hunger and satiety, and will over time eat exactly the right amount for themselves. the common conception of a balanced eater as a minimal or restrained eater is absolutely wrong. balanced eaters eat quite a lot (compared to diet cultural ideas about right intake amounts), and they do so consistently and permanently. healthy, balanced eating isn’t some tightrope walk, it’s a gigantic net of total permission to eat.
tags via @theendofmybody
Image ID:
The idea that humans can’t regulate our own desires & morals without the guidance of authority seems to be pretty popular…
Hmm hope there’s no immense political or social implications to that concept!
Assimilate // 2019
Part 1 of an on-going body of work
I had to redact one of my photos since tumblr staff lied about nudity being allowed in art apparently
