A Multi-Interest Blog

1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
derinthescarletpescatarian
phantomrose96

"Toph did not have a 'life changing field trip with Zuko' episode because, being absent from season 1, she did not have significant Zuko-related trauma to unpack" - reasonable, sensible, passible explanation.

"Toph did not have a 'life changing field trip with Zuko' episode because doing so would have meant sacrificing Ember Island Players, thus denying the Avatar crew the opportunity to have the stupidest pre-series-finale recap episode ever" - stronger, smarter, worthy of throwing hands over

derinthescarletpescatarian

Toph didn’t have a life-changing field trip with Zuko episode because the fallout would’ve taken a fourth season to clean up.

derinthescarletpescatarian
moniquill

Hot take: there is no valid reason that official government ID should have either a sec or gender marker on it. First name, last name, dob + up to date image will suffice. Address, if relevant.

11thfempachi

Y'all know it's crucial to paramedics, right?

moniquill

Any of my followers who are paramedics/first responders/emergency room staff want to attest that no, it isn't.

What do you think happens in dire medical emergencies where an unconscious person presents and doesn't have ID on their person at the time?

hollowedskin

I'm always confused by why people seem to think that there is some sort of Penis Emergency that will kill you if paramedics perform the Vagina Procedure on your fully clothed body.

moniquill

Hospital spoilers btw: blood isn't sorted by sex, it's sorted by type. The sex of the blood donor doesn't factor in at all when receiving a transfusion, and you will not be harmed by receiving blood from a donor whose sex is different than yours. Saying this because it's another misconception that I've heard.

fetus-cakes

if you're unconscious at the hospital and they need to operate and insert a catheter in your urethra, don't worry! they'll figure out if you have a penis or a vagina without having to look at a laminated card in your wallet

moniquill

And if you have ambiguous or surgically modified genitals, they'll find your urethra anyway!

blackcandlesinwinter

I think this is one of those things where folks are so used to it that they just sort of assume there must be a good reason for it. But the only reason for your sex to be on your ID is if your legal rights differ based on your sex. Like, it would be important for your ID to say F or M if, for instance, one of those categories was allowed to open a bank account but the other one wasn't. But as far as I can tell, we have mostly decided that legal rights should pertain to everyone. Which means that sex documentation really is just a throwback to a time when women were not considered full legal persons and therefore their legal status had to be officially displayed on their ID in order to maintain that distinction.

Honestly, the only major thing I can think of that still strictly legally requires sex distinction is the military draft. Which, A) still doesn't require sex be recorded on your drivers license, B) could be made sex-neutral, or C) could be abolished instead.

words-writ-in-starlight
fixyourwritinghabits

I feel like I'm spouting some sort of conspiracy when I say this out loud, but it feels like every spellchecker has gotten significantly worse as time drags on.

mama-qwerty

From what I've read, they are. Many are powered by AI and if AI scans the interwebs and finds the same spelling error over and over again, it assumes that is the correct spelling and instructs you as such. So "should've" becomes "should of".

This also applies to figures of speech, such as "for all intents and purposes" becoming "for all intensive purposes" and "take things for granted" turns into "take things for granite".

Always double check things you're unsure of, and use trustworthy sites like merriam-webster.com to find the proper spellings, usage, and phrases.

lucifer-is-a-bag-of-dicks

tangentially related but my iphone's predictive text function has been consistently removing apostrophes from words like don't and can't to a frustrating degree

it's especially heinous because I have dyspraxia and really fucking need predictive text to type efficiently, I have to imagine this is affecting people with dyslexia similarly

so on top of just being annoying as shit, it's also an accessibility issue

lightningparadox
psychic-waffles

We're at the "JK Rowling is personally funding litigation to try and destroy AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL" stage of rabid UK terf brain.

Screenshot via Alejandra Caraballo @esqueer.net on bluesky

Quoted tweet from Trans Widows' Voices. @transwidows: Whilst I understand the detriment to Beira's Place is real, and focussing on @jk rowling get clicks it's a shame that mainstream press coverage of the Amnesty debacle is not also focussing on us smaller groups listed who do …  Tweet thread from J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling:  Should any of the women's organisations targeted by @AmnestyUK's recent 'anti-rights' blacklist wish to take legal action, applications can be made to the JK Rowling Women's Fund. jkrwf.org  Gay men's organisations named on the list are welcome to contact me through my website. While the JK Rowling's Fund was set up to support women, JK Rowling herself is more than happy to donate to your legal fighting fund.ALT

Tldr Amnesty International, global human rights organisation, published a report called 'A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK'. In it is detailed, amongst others, a whole bunch of transphobic groups and organisations, including Beira's Place, JK Rowling's trans exclusionary sexual violence support service. JK Rowling threw a shit fit and got Amnesty to take the report down by threatening libel. This was obviously not enough, because you can't appease a fascist, so now she's going to bankroll a bunch of lawsuits anyway through the JK Rowling Women's Fund.*

You can read an archived version of the report here, please save it and share it.

*Not so friendly reminder there is no way to engage in the wizard books without enabling this shit.

derinthescarletpescatarian
silvaurum

"i would kill a pedophile to protect my child" ok but would you teach your child how to say no? even to adults? even to adults you like? would you teach your child the words "penis" and "vulva" and then use them? would you let them ask questions about their body? would you answer them honestly? would you learn how to cope with your feelings when you talk about human bodies, so they don't feel ashamed? would you set a positive example for how you talk about your body? would you tell your child they don't have to hug or kiss anyone? would you tell your family the same? would you stand by them when they refuse to hug someone? even someone you know has never done anything to hurt them? would you let your child avoid food they don't like? would you let you child avoid people they don't like? would you believe them? would you sit in the discomfort of not knowing all the answers and not take it out on them? would you love your child the same if someone did hurt them? would you make them feel valued just as they are? would you let them talk to doctors or nurses in private? would you let them express their feelings? would you show interest in their life? would you let your child say no to you? would you help your child feel safe coming to you when they make a mistake? would you apologize to your child? would you believe them? would you put aside your anger to focus on what would make your child feel safe and loved? would you put your ego aside for your child? would you take your child's concerns seriously? would you listen to your child? would you believe them?

shychick-52

I would both do all those things AND kill a pedo to protect my child, if I had to.


thecourtofcaligula

Yesss

silvaurum

i'm gonna add this comment by @papercrane:

"Maya angelou's family killed a pedophile that raped her, and that just traumatized her more. "I thought that I had caused the man’s death, because I had spoken his name. That was my seven-and-a-half-year logic. So I stopped talking for five years."
Read I know why the caged bird sings."

and here is my comment:

the fantasy of killing a pedophile to defend your child is... an escape from reality. as with all fantasies where a single act of violence stands for a lifetime of effortful care. it lets us off the hook for the day to day labor of actually protecting the human beings around us. it gives us an excuse to look away from what abuse actually looks like.

it allows us to ignore that setting boundaries is a daily practice. it allows us to ignore the subtle ways in which we punish children for having boundaries. it allows us not to think about things we can do, the effort we can put in, in smaller repeated ways, to be kind and caring. to be safe to talk to.

it is a grand gesture that, were you to actually go through with it, would neither prevent the harm that you fear nor help your child to heal from it. it is an idea with no bearing on reality for 99.99% of people, while rape and abuse are a reality for a large fraction of people.

it is not useful to imagine killing a pedophile. it is not useful to claim you would kill a pedophile. it wouldn't be useful to actually attempt to kill a pedophile in almost any situation.

it is useful to think about how you can help your child know they can get help. they can say no. they can tell adults to stop. they deserve to be comfortable. they deserve to be informed.

the entire point of the post is that your child will not be saved by your imagined wrath. the entire point is that your day to day actions, and your attitude towards children as people, are more impactful to your child's well-being. far more realistic. more important.

not least because your child doesn't need you to be wrathful. they need your love. they need care. they need attention.

meanwhile, the public performance of wanting to kill child abusers doesn't do anything to child abusers. most child abusers believe they are doing the right thing for their children.

saying you want to kill abusers doesn't signal anything good to children, either. as others have said, it makes children more afraid to speak up and ask for help. that might be their mom, their coach, their troop leader. it gives those abusers leverage; the children cannot tell if they want things to be stable.

and it makes it harder for adults to BELIEVE children, too! because if their child was really abused, then they've staked their honor on committing that violence, even if it was against their brother or spouse or grandpa or pastor or neighbor or their other kid's favorite babysitter. and if they don't want to do that, well... then they must decide whether they believe completely their child, or whether their child's boundaries must really be respected, or... if maybe it's impossible to know.

how many abuse survivors have tried to disclose, only to be told that so-and-so wouldn't do that, or they didn't mean it, because so-and-so loves you and we all like so-and-so. this dichotomy goes both ways, psychologically. if a child abuser is entirely evil and has to be killed, then someone who's not entirely evil and i don't want to kill can't be a child abuser. this must be something else. there must be a mistake.

you can not adequately protect your children from abuse if you hold on to this idea. i am telling you. your insistence that killing pedophiles will protect your children is holding you back. it is not useful. it is not cute to talk about how much you want to do a single act of violence to abusers as if that would ever be enough to outrun the culture of abuse and the dehumanization of children in our society. you cannot cling to this like a talisman that would ward off any harm your children may come to. you cannot escape reality by telling yourself you'd be a total badass and kill that bad guy dead. this is not helpful.

caspercryptid
charlesoberonn

The boulder pushing punishment is iconic. But I think more people should know the reason Sisyphus was punished to begin with, which was for cheating death, twice.

The first time he cheated death, Sisyphus had just angered Zeus by revealing the location of the Asopid Aegina whom Zeus abducted. Which is super valid, fuck Zeus.

Sisyphus knew that Zeus would send the god of death Thanatos after him, so he prepared a trap and trapped Thanatos in the chains meant for him.

After that, nothing on Earth was able to die so long as Thanatos was in chains. Which meant no animals could be sacrificed to the gods. This angered the gods, who made Sisyphus' life so miserable with pain and illness that he would beg for death. And so he released Thanatos.

But then came the second time Sisyphus cheated death. As he was dying, he asked his wife to dump his naked corpse in the middle of the public square. Denied a proper burial, his soul ended up on the far side of the river Styx, unable to cross.

He complained to Hades and Persephone about how his wife disrespected him, and begged them to let him return briefly to the world of the living to scold her and make her bury him properly. They agreed, and Sisyphus returned to life. He then embraced his wife, and refused to return to the Underworld.

It's only when he finally died of old age that he was sent to Tartarus and punished with the boulder.

I don't remember where I've seen it, but I like the interpretation that Sisyphus doesn't have to push the boulder. He can choose to stay in Tartarus and rest. But he was promised that if he managed to push the boulder to the top of the mountain, he'll ascend to Elysium.

And Sisyphus, in his stubbornness and cleverness, refuses to give up on a challenge.

One must indeed imagine Sisyphus happy, planning and scheming about how he'll cheat the gods next.

charlesoberonn

image
image
image

@heydocverdant Don't hide this gem in the tags.