Cozy Storm

27/She/her - - - o/ Doors Open!

[1-rain-1]

Watching other people's children grow is the absolute perfect amount of children for me.

[1-rain-1]

I get to experience some of the joys of watching a little human grow up with none of the parts I don't want

[1-rain-1]

Watching other people's children grow is the absolute perfect amount of children for me.

[partywithponies]

Fascinating how what's considered feminine and what's considered masculine can change over time. The rebranding of being a horse girl into being a stereotypical feminine girly trait needs to be studied.

[partywithponies]

Look at classic children's novels. As recently as the 50s and early 60s, being obsessed with horses as a girl was depicted as strange and tomboyish, and the very concept of being obsessed with horses from early childhood and loving toy horses and desperately wanting your own horse being a "little girl thing" and not a "little boy thing" would send someone from the 1800s and earlier into a coma.

[partywithponies]

There's maybe a point to be made here somewhere about how when keeping and riding horses stopped being necessary to the functioning of society and became a more "frivolous" thing, it was rapidly rebranded as silly and girly and for women, but what do I know.

[dizzyghoast]

i wrote a paper in my masculinity studies class in college about this exact phenomenon, specifically about how high heeled shoes started as a practical way for Persian cavalry to keep their feet on their stirrups, then likely due to that association, became a popular fashion item and status symbol among the upper classes of Europe, before the Great Male Renunciation of the 18th-19th centuries, when men started shunning opulence in favor of utility, leaving them as a fashion item for women instead.

I've joked that the two genders are Aesthetic and Utility before but thats just kinda the case

[door]

this is great. slowly we will build a house

[sketchywiring]

Thats crazy dude mind if i join you

[1-rain-1]

Got a roof yet 👀🌧️

[dragon-in-a-fez]

I love seeing the FBI warning pop up at the start of a movie I pirated

[2colde]

how it genuinely feels

[cosmonautroger]

[nooneandeveryone]

@thelawfulchaotic

[thelawfulchaotic]

As someone in the comments said, finally a use for the DSM-V

[jordanbolton]

To the Person Who Asked If I Was OK

Pre-order my new book here

[cheaphalloweencostume]

the best piece of relationship advice i ever got was “a relationship isn’t 50/50, it’s 60/40 with each party excited to be the 60”. which to me means that you should be with someone who makes you want to do more, be more, open your heart even wider. why WOULDNT you like making life easier for your loved one(s)?

[kirimisosoup]

angel and demon

[1-rain-1]

The coolest part of doing hobby photography is 110% when my friends start sending me cool photos of the stuff they see around them

[1-rain-1]

Like, yessss when you start looking for beauty in your everyday life you see it everywhere! Keep noticing things! Keep sharing them with me!!

[1-rain-1]

The coolest part of doing hobby photography is 110% when my friends start sending me cool photos of the stuff they see around them

[pitviperofdoom]

I try not to fall into the "I never liked their work anyway" ditch when an artist/creator reveals themself to be a terrible person

BUT

a feeling I do have and will stand by is "While I enjoyed their work overall I did have some gripes that I overlooked out of affection and whimsy, but now that my loyalty is gone and my affection tainted there is nothing holding me back from enumerating my many grievances, to which the revelations of the creator's shittiness may or may not provide a new and infuriating context."

[beatrice-otter]

#such a good summation of this actually#because yeah there’s usually things that were always present#but which were easy to overlook or give the benefit of the doubt#that suddenly become relevant after a revelation about the creator#and it’s really not the same thing as the self-defensive “’I never liked it anyway’

tags via chimaerakitten

[thelawfulchaotic]

Finally I have it

Can you believe this was published fifty years ago?

Also can you believe that two different libraries wouldn’t let me ILL it? I had to hunt down a used copy on the intraweebers

[thelawfulchaotic]

Until recently... Law was seen as a reflection and reaction to social values and behavior patterns (that is, as a dependent variable) rather than having in its own right some positive impact on the social order. Recent uses of the law as a conscious instrument for promotion of social change (as in racial desegregation and equal opportunity policies) helped produce a rethinking of this passive concept of law. But in the area of crime and delinquency analysis, it has taken sociologists a long time to heed the wisdom of Hermann Mannheim's sensible comment:

"We have made considerable efforts to discover what sort of person the offender is and why he has broken the law, and we rack our brains to find out what to do with him... Hardly ever do we pause for a moment to examine critically the contents of the very law the existence of which alone makes it possible for the individual to offend against it."

Oh wow. Ohhhh. Oh I gotta sit down. Wait, I'm already sitting down.

We often prefer to see crime and delinquency as alien phenomena, as somehow existing outside of society, involving attacks on society. These disturbing acts, we would like to think, do not reflect the normal workings of our social system, but rather represent some kind of aberrational malfunctioning of the system. Were it true, such an idea might well be reassuring, but clearly it is not. Crime and delinquency, along with other problems, are integral features of the social order and cannot be explained by reference to some "external" or "abnormal" phenomena or occurrences. Unfortunately, the persisting unwillingness to face up to this fact (and the related fact that legislation itself "produces" crime and delinquency) has even led some sociologists to commit what they term the "evil causes evil" fallacy. This fallacy, that "bad" consequences must have "bad" causes, blinds one to the ways in which socially disturbing behavior may be grounded in aspects of the dominant social structure and prevailing value systems.

published in the year of our lord nineteen hundred and seventy three

A corollary of this reasoning is the belief that such problems as crime and delinquency always require special solutions... One particularly unfortunate result of this is an inordinate focus on the individual deviants or "offenders" themselves. Such individuals are seen as being basically different from nonoffenders...and it is in this basic differentness that the "causes" of delinquency problems are believed to lie.

maybe I gotta lie down

[1-rain-1]

That last paragraph puts into words something that's been on my mind for a while now. It's like the people around me see criminality not as a social construction, and not as something they regularly participate in by speeding or drunk driving (drinking culture is strong around here), but as a deep ontological reality at the hearts of the people who commit crime.

Sure they may break a law, but they're not a criminal. They may fantasize about getting the opportunity to commit righteous, or even simply justified, violence but they're not a criminal. In defense of castle doctrine, in defense of his right to shoot someone on his property that he believed was stealing his stuff, a coworker of mine said: "I worked hard for it. They can too".

Another coworker of mine is a member of the national guard. When ICE came to Minneapolis I asked him if he'd be one of the troops that was on standby, and what might happen if he gets deployed. He said the guard would "keep the peace". I didn't ask what he meant - he'd already made it clear he thought the anti-ICE protesters in the other cities shouldn't be protesting. The actuality of aberrant behavior is secondary to the identity and affiliation of the perpetrator and the victim of violence. The law is being enforced on illegal people. Stopping protests against that is "keeping the peace"

The idea that they could be labeled as criminal or straight up illegal seems as alien to them as the thought of losing their whiteness.

[1-rain-1]

Never underestimate the power of an awkward asexual

[cryptotheism]

Intelligence isn't real. Locking in isn't real. Manifesting isn't real. Tryharding isn't real. Nobody has a divine feminine, or a love language, or a humoral temperament. Men aren't real. Women aren't real. The club is a projection. The world is not a hologram. There are no afterlives, sacred frequencies, or psychological archetypes. Your body is a temple but like, one of those Sumerian ones that was mainly for storing grain. Epicurus was right. Get it twisted and always be twisting it.

[andyboops]

"The best thing we can do with power is give it away" - On the leftist critique of superhero narratives as authoritarian power fantasies:

The ongoing "Jason Todd is a cop" debate has reminded me of a brilliant brief image essay by Joey deVilla. So here it is, images first and the full essay text below:

"A common leftist critique of superhero comics is that they are inherently anti-collectivist, being about small groups of individuals who hold all the power, and the wisdom to wield that power. I don’t disagree with this reading. I don’t think it’s inaccurate. Superheroes are their own ruling class, the concept of the übermensch writ large. But it’s a sterile reading. It examines superhero comics as a cold text, and ignores something that I believe in fundamental, especially to superhero storytelling: the way people engage with text. Not what it says, but how it is read. The average comic reader doesn’t fantasize about being a civilian in a world of superheroes, they fantasize about being a superhero. One could charitably chalk this up to a lust for power, except for one fact… The fantasy is almost always the act of helping people. Helping the vulnerable, with no reward promised in return. Being a century into the genre, we’ve seen countless subversions and deconstructions of the story. But at its core, the superhero myth is about using the gifts you’ve been given to enrich the people around you, never asking for payment, never advancing an ulterior motive. We should (and do) spend time nitpicking these fantasies, examining their unintended consequences, their hypocrisies. But it’s worth acknowledging that the most eduring childhood fantasy of the last hundred years hasn’t been to become rich. Superheroes come from every class (don’t let the MCU fool you). The most enduring fantasy is to become powerful enough to take the weak under your own wing. To give, without needing to take. So yes, the superhero myth, as a text, isn’t collectivist. But that’s not why we keep coming back to it. That’s not why children read it. We keep coming back to it to learn one simple lesson… The best thing we can do with power IS GIVE IT AWAY." - Joey deVilla, 2021 https://www.joeydevilla.com/2021/07/04/happy-independence-day-superhero-style/

[generallemarc]

Kids don't want to be Batman because he's rich, they want to be him because he's got tons of cool gadgets he invented himself, is a badass martial artist, is a genius on par with Lex Luthor, and uses all this to be on the same level as Superman despite having zero actual superpowers. They see the little boy who lost both his parents, decided nobody else should ever have to live through that, and want to be like that.

Kids don't want to be Superman because he's superior to humans(he isn't, that's always been a core part of his character that he rejects that outlook and it's always just Lex projecting his view of Superman onto Superman himself), they wanna be able to deflect bullets and shoot lasers from their eyes because Superman uses all that to show the best side of humanity, to show how humanity isn't even tied to actually being human but to how you act towards other people.