19 | she/her | poc | pan | AuDHD | DMs open (don't make me close them again.), asks open | single | 🧿 | has the audacity of a kamikaze bomber | all my rambles, all at once
April Fool’s Day is in a few days, and I just wanted to make this clear. This blog is safe, and I can promise you no screamers, nothing emotionally abusive, no fake posts, and nothing to intentionally trigger dissociation. You are safe here.
This is the first time in my life when it's actually fair to criticize the President for gas prices. I've spent so many years explaining to people that Presidents have pretty limited influence over the price of oil and that they do not have a magical lower-gas-prices button on their desk, I almost forgot that the President does actually have a raise-gas-prices button on their desk called "start a war with Iran for no reason"
Those fanatics have been chanting "Death To America" for decades now.
Don't forget, these are the same people who killed Leonidas and burned Athens to the ground.
The fact that a hostile regime is capable of closing the strait of Hormuz is reason enough to incapacitate them or install a friendlier government. Better a short-term, manageable (and honestly not all that extreme) petroleum shock than allowing them to hold that threat over the heads of the civilised world forever.
If you allow these problems to fester, they eventually become very difficult to solve. Failing to attack the USSR after 1945 and failing to deal with North Korea in the 1990s had consequences we are still dealing with today.
It is time for the Shah to return, or else it is time for Iran to be permanently taken off of the geopolitical chessboard.
“These are the same people who killed Leonidas and burned Athens to the ground”. That was thousands of years ago. Absolutely not a proper justification for war. Also, it’s not like the ancient greeks were free of sin and attacking them was some sort of total evil.
Attacking the USSR would have lead to Nuclear War, while attacking North Korea would probably have lead to nuclear war with China.
Joan of Arc was a literal teenage girl who lived long before the concept of war crimes, and her death was ordered by the British.
When was the chanting "death to america"? That was recent!
The USSR didn't have nuclear weapons in 1945, that's why it was so vital to attack them then.
Joan Of Arc was killed by fellow French people, and the concept of war crimes absolutely did exist. Again, look at what happened to her buddy Gilles de Rais!
So, immediately after ending an extremely devastating war, the US should have started another one? The UK and France absolutely would not have joined in.
Her death was ordered by the British. She was a teenage girl. The British were invading her homeland. The Geneva Convention did not exist then. She was burnt at the stake for the crimes of heresy, cross dressing, and sorcery. British judges tried her. This is common information.
Okay, don't be silly. You have either not researched this AT ALL or you are not taking this seriously.
The concept of unlawful conduct in war is ANCIENT, literally.
It can be found in the Mahabharata, written centuries before the birth of Christ.
We can get to your other points later, but this one really isn't subjective; it's just plain wrong.
Are you also going to claim that the trial of Peter von Hagenbach wasn't a war crimes trial because it predated the Geneva Conventions? That was just a few decades after Joan of Arc's trial!
Joan of Arc was a filthy war criminal. Say it. Say it!
“If you’re a child and you go to war, you should be tried and executed”. Fascinating.
Also, that’s Geneva Convention rules you’re talking about. I don’t think those rules existed in medieval times. So, yes, I was right to bring up the Geneva Convention because they’re an actually good source of what a war crime is.
“Joan of Arc was a bad person” is such a bafflingly terrible argument everything else you’ve said should be discarded.
Taking children to war is frowned upon because it endangers children, which is not an idea which began in Geneva! Again, look at Gilles De Rais and Peter von Hagenbach, harm to children was a factor in BOTH of their trials!
Those rules ABSOLUTELY existed in Medieval times, one of the reasons the Ottoman Empire was so hated was its habit of taking child-soldiers called "Janissaries", that's why Hungary and Wallachia were so adamant about fighting them!
Joan of Arc was a commanding officer, under the doctrine of command responsibility (which DID EXIST in medieval times, again see Peter von Hagenback's trial), she is responsible for any children she knowingly allowed to be in her army. Including herself.
"she put herself somewhere where there's danger, so now she should be killed by... not the danger she put herself in"💀💔 what a stupid argument I'm so bored😭😭😭
If by some miracle sweet potato Hitler doesn't win come the end of the week, this won't be necessary, but should he win here are some of the first things to be aware of or do.
If you know a trans person, no you don't. Respect them as best you can in private but you know nothing in public.
Be aware that TikTok will likely be banned, find new platforms to spread information. Fuck Twitter and what ever tiktok replacement he's working on.
Learn to Garden, even in winter so you can feed yourself should prices skyrocket
Get an air purifier. The Clean Air Act is likely to be stripped of its power with the EPA deregulated, air quality is going to suffer
Should you have kids, try to supplement history/social studies education. That's the first place they will attack, if you need help ask, history teacher will help
Try and do what you can to be aware of your health before January.
Help one another. That's the best way we can move forward and make change in the future.
If You Wanted A Situationship, You Should’ve Said So Before I Started Saying ‘We’
The Rise of The Emotionally Lazy, and Why We Keep Falling For It (from my Substack 😝)
Modern dating. A plague in the minds of many. We’ve gone from “going steady”, to mind games, “situationships”, and now we’ve taken the express train to dating like we’re all afraid of being arrested—because, clearly, commitment is a criminal offense.
Somewhere along the way, everyone got scared. Not quietly scared—performatively scared. Scared enough to build entire personalities centered around not caring… because caring became the most embarrassing thing you could do. Enter the nonchalant clique: emotionally available in theory, allergic to it in practice.
But dating is supposed to be easier. Dating apps were supposed to help facilitate easier dating.
But we’re human.
We fuck things up one way or another.
Exhibit A: The Illusion of “Options”
Suddenly no one was real. Everyone was a profile. Part of an algorithm. A static image, a looping video, the same four lines of text and about 5 hashtags describing the inanimate object on the other side of the specially curated gallery. Yes, my dearest Tinder user, you are an avatar—a fake—on everyone else’s screen.
We suddenly managed to find ourselves in a world where liking someone based on their body or face is “shallow”, but somehow those same two things are okay on an app because we can also throw up a little blurb of forgotten, unchanging text. 10/10 logic, because it obviously makes perfect sense to know whether or not you like someone when your best shot at guessing is deciding if you like their face or the amount of effort they put into a “200 character or less” bio.
But now everyone thinks they have options because they’ve matched with 40 people on Bumble and “99+” on Tinder. When do we get the update where these apps tell you how many other people your newest match is talking to?
Exhibit B: The Performative Vulnerability Era
But there are people who do realise that the whole “your bio is your personality” thing doesn’t work well… and when we go on dates, we over-correct. We weaponise self-awareness as a shield. We’re “emotionally intelligent” now—except that emotional intelligence means nothing if it’s never used to build anything.
Everyone talks about their “attachment style”, trauma dumps on the third date, and posts sad Instagram stories, but no one follows through with actual intimacy. Not sex. Intimacy.
Essentially, we’ve become really good at sounding emotionally available without actually being available. It’s like lighting a candle and snuffing it out immediately, and then pretending that the smoke and heat from the wick counts as it still being on fire.
Exhibit C: Bread-crumbing & Emotional Snacking
So with no actual intimacy, we now get crumbs.
A good morning text here.
A long, bullshitted paragraph pulled straight out of the small intestine when guilt hits.
Maybe a forehead kiss if the Super Blue Moon’s in Gemini.
But don’t get it twisted—it’s not love. It’s emotional snacking. And you’re not full. You’re being rationed.
It’s become a sort of custom to give someone just enough affection to keep them around but not enough to truly commit—love bombing on a smaller scale. Being “mysterious” is the goal, and no one knows when exactly to drop the act. But some don’t want to drop the act… ever. Because some just want the perks of a relationship without the effort. It’s like a glorified friend with benefits, but with less sex and more mind games.
Exhibit D: The ‘We’ Illusion
Here’s the thing though; some people are simply evil. Some give you all of the vulnerability, all of the consistency, and all of the effort… just to make the simulation feel more real.
I started using “we” because you let me. Because you acted like “we”. Because you said “we”. Because the silence between your actions and your words was loud enough to write a novel. Because the performance you put on was titled “We”, and the “love” you played looked like “we”.
Because I thought “we” were something real. Because I thought love was a mutual hallucination you chose to keep feeding. But while I was building a future, you were building an inferno that even Dante would be inspired to take notes on.
“We” Was A Lie, But I Wasn’t
And when you’re gone and moved on to the next collectable homosapien, I will be left to pick up my own pieces. To rebuild alone. To seek comfort elsewhere. To long for what could’ve.
The energy required to become aware of and untangle yourself from an illusion you helped paint is devastating. It costs so much time and effort. It feels like carrying around the weight of a building on your back, praying you don’t lose strength. And in the end, nothing can undo the roots that an experience like this can plant. The grief… grief of losing them—and yourself. The embarrassment. The “How could I be so stupid?”. “How could I have fallen for this?”.
But This Isn’t Just My Story
The worst part about it is that I’m not special. There are thousands of us walking around with “we” tattooed in our minds, while the other half of “we” was only ever thinking “you’re fun to pass time with”.
Emotional laziness is now culturally normalised. People now say “I don’t do labels” like it’s a personality trait. We keep accepting low-effort affection because we’ve been taught it’s better than nothing. Because “at least you have someone” even if that someone is on a timer.
And yet we keep falling for it.
Because we want to believe. Because being wanted—even briefly—feels better than being alone. Because “maybe” is one hell of a drug. And because even fake love still feels like love when you’re touch-starved and lonely.
But despite how many times we fall for it, it’s never actually our fault. Because you didn’t ask to play a game, you asked to be held. Seen. Loved.
So next time, if you want a situationship, say so before I build an entire fucking altar to us.
P.S.: Love isn’t supposed to feel like waiting for someone to choose you back. It’s supposed to feel like home.
Glossary of Modern Dating Bullshit, For Your Convenience
“I’m not ready for anything serious.”
Translation: “I’m ready to waste your time with the emotional intensity and the benefits (physical and the like) of being in a relationship, but none of the labels or accountability.”
“Let’s see where things go!”
Translation: “I will never intentionally go anywhere, but I’ll enjoy the free emotional energy, effort, time, and consideration you put into me while you hope otherwise.
“I need space.”
Translation: “I’m either (a) slow-fading you, (b) dating someone else, (c) bored of you, or (d) waiting for you to break up with me so I don’t have to be the asshole.”
“It’s not you, it’s me.”
Translation: “It’s absolutely you, but I lack the vertebra to say it.”
“We’re just vibing.”
Translation: “We’re keeping each other warm until someone I actually like comes along.”
“I don’t do labels.”
Translation: “I’m allergic to responsibility and accountability and I’m using this as my way to avoid you thinking I’ll ever commit to you so I don’t turnout being the asshole.”
“I’m focusing on myself right now.”
Translation: “I’m focusing on everyone but you right now.”
“You’re too good for me.”
Translation: “I know I’m trash, but I’d rather you dump me than admit it.”
“We should keep things light.”
Translation: “I will take every ounce of emotional and mental energy you have and give nothing in return!”
Bonus Sidebar
Signs You’re in a Situationship (Because It Is A Disease That Needs To Be Eradicated)
Your plans are always same-day.
They refer to you as “this person I’m talking to” after 6 months.
The most romantic text you’ve gotten is “u up?” at 1:43 AM.
You’ve met their dog but not their friends.
They don’t want you to meet their friends.
“What are we?” is met with nervous laughter or sudden amnesia and/or confusion.
If anyone you know has been afflicted with Situationship, please feel free to share this post with them! They are in our prayers.
prguitarman
theartofmadeline
dededos
annaxmalina
jacobvanloon
gummygunk
pixelskylines
kaledo-art
