occasionally subtle
The Bowery Presents
No title available
The Stonewall Inn
shark vs the universe
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
$LAYYYTER
Jules of Nature
tannertan36
Claire Keane
No title available
Cosimo Galluzzi
macklin celebrini has autism
Kiana Khansmith
blake kathryn
Xuebing Du
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
roma★
Cosmic Funnies
Show & Tell
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Bahrain
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Bahrain
seen from Bahrain
@coldinfluencerbeliever
People really pretend this
Is the same as this
north americans hate the idea of beans on toast because their baked beans are in a fucking molasses and brown sugar mess instead of a tomato sauce
Wait wait wait, American beans are SWEET???
Baked beans specifically. If you look you also can find beans in a more tomato-based sauce, like the various iterations of pork and beans. Due to being a staple of cook-outs, baked beans are the most represented of their type.
I'm thinking again about the modern conflation of the concepts of "redemption" and "repentance" and "atonement" and how bleak of a picture it all paints when the definitions are homogenized.
What a lot of people mean when they talk about a person "redeeming themself" or (in fact and fiction) "redemption arcs," are actually repentance and atonement.
Repentance is the act of feeling regret for past behavior, of trying to change so that you can (and will) act differently going forward. Contrary to what you may have heard repeated in certain Christian circles, the literal meaning of the Ancient Greek word μετανοέω used in the Bible is not "to turn around wand walk the other way" (though that does provide a handy mental image). The elements are "change" and "to perceive with the eyes;" essentially, it means "to change your perspective." Or, more closely to how we would say it, "to have a change of the heart."
Atonement, on the other hand, is the process of actively trying to make up for wrongs and offset the bad you've done with good. Etymologically, it cleaves closely to 'uniting' and 'reconciling'—atonement is about mending what you've broken. If repentance is the inward change and the shift in personal behavior, atonement is about the active changes you make in how you interact with the world. (As a tangent, it's for this reason that I like to privately refer to what most people call characters' "redemption arcs" as "atonement arcs," simply because in the absence of a higher power that's actually much closer to what they are. But I get ahead of myself.)
Both repentance and atonement are good, noble, crucial things. And by virtue of being, respectively, an internal change and a set of actions done under your own power, they don't require any outward validation. In this, critics are wrong to say "some people are beyond redemption" in cases where they are, in fact, conflating it with repentance and atonement; it is somewhat ludicrous to make 'being sorry' and 'striving to do good' contingent on the acceptance of others. A person may be unrepentant. A person may refuse to atone. But in both these cases we are speaking of "will nots," not "cannots."
True "redemption," is contrast to both repentance and atonement, is not something that comes from within. "Redemption" speaks to an exchange, to a 'buying back'—by its nature, it appeals to a higher authority. A prisoner cannot absolve himself of his crimes, but he can (in an ideal system) be redeemed in the eyes of the law and of society by serving his just sentence. If I wrong my sister, I can atone by lowering myself and seeking her forgiveness, and in so doing find redemption. I can (if you'll allow me a small joke), redeem a coupon for a free sandwich, but I cannot simply will the coupon to be a sandwich by virtue of my being hungry. In all cases, redemption is something I must seek out and be given by an outside party. I can (and should) strive for it, but I cannot earn it—it is out of my hands.
But what of cases where there is no higher authority? What happens when I kill a man and no amount of private grief or public good deeds can bring him back or lay his accusations against me to rest? What happens if I seek forgiveness from my brother and am not given it? In a material framework, we must give up on the hope of redemption. If a man kills my friend, I may forgive him for the pain he has caused me, but I am not a high enough authority to forgive an attack that was committed against someone else. None of us are. The poor sinner remains trapped. In this, the critics (now actually speaking of redemption itself) are correct about some people being "beyond redemption."
It is only when we step outside of the secular viewpoint and present our penitence to, as C.S. Lewis says, "the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences"—the one whose moral laws we have broken and who suffered personally as a direct result of our crimes—that we receive our answer. "I forgive you; now come, walk with me." In this, once again, the critics are proven wrong; no longer because they are conflating redemption with repentance or atonement, but because they themselves are not a high enough authority to forbid it. None of us are. The sinner remains freed.
"what if someone regrets transitioning" if you are 18 or over in free country usa you can walk into any tattoo parlor and ask for a tattoo that will be on your body forever and ever and ever and they will give it to you with the understanding that if you dont like the result or you regret it later that's your fucking problem and not theirs
Over 18? Absolutely. Under 18 is a rather different story.
before there were blorbos there were little meow meows and before there were little meow meows there were cinnamon rolls
and smol beans.
Few are old enough to remember the Bishies...
Holy crap I have not heard bishies in so long. I think it was my sisters using it, what, a decade ago?
"I want my media to be historically accurate"
Cool, so you want natural fiber costumes with no/nuanced corset slander, people wearing colors, historical hairstyles, people wearing hats or headcoverings and long sleeves outside during the day, no potatoes or pumpkins in pre-columbian Europe, actors with textured skin and wrinkles, minimal makeup, consulting HEMA groups and weapons scholars for all the weapons and fight scenes, a good soundtrack that includes traditional instruments?
Oh, you mean you want 100% white people. Even in crowd scenes in port cities. There's a different word for that.
All of it. I desire all of that AND appropriate ethnicities for the time period and region. Or go the route of the last King Arthur movie and don't pretend you're being historically accurate.
You can tell apart the right wingers who want to better this country from the "right-wingers" who are just vengeful haters by how they react when they hear about residents of Seattle or Portland or LA trying to improve anything.
Some of you are Jonah sitting under a fragile leaf raging about how you would rather watch the city be burned with fire from heaven than that people should wake up and go wow this place sucks, we need to change what we are doing
Similarly, there are right wingers who acknowledge that they are neither perfect nor superior to foreigners. And then there are "right wingers" who either think they are spotless and better than everyone else or they are simply lukewarm.
Unfortunately, in the UK we mainly deal with the latter. We have right wingers who are either "holier than thou" haters who think the British are spotless, perfect and ignore the elephant in the room within their own people and culture, or lukewarm spineless people. And when the only choices we have to fight radical leftism and the islamification of the country is these two choices, we are pretty much doomed.
Reform UK and Restore Britain are both radical and, although they have some good points, the more I get to know them, the more discouraged I get. I used to have hope for Reform when they started but not anymore. As for Restore, they and their supporters are dangerous. We don't have a right wing party and haven't met right wingers who are neither far right nor lukewarm. And that gives the left and their muslim friends huge power.
Best be getting ready for a left and Muslim-dominated future then, depending on which one achieves dominance of course. Can't have Restore or Reform win, they're icky and you don't like them either. Wonder which language you'd need to learn, Pakistani maybe?
i'm not sure if i've seen this posted anywhere but here's the berserk tribute art drawn by kusanagi included in the 20th anniversary official artbook.
I have started following the journey of a German soccer fan in the US for the world cup
@laeffy the euros have found buc-ee's
He should come to North Carolina. It's even greener, and more of the highways and interstate are lined with greenery. I took a flight from Atlanta to Raleigh, and I just had to look out the window at the forests below to know when we had crossed over.
Well, I'm starting off my Monday strong with a 3-minute voicemail that I'm pretty sure was a butt dial. It was worth listening to the whole thing to hear the little "Oh, my god" right before they hung up, though. Anyways, my med refill is kicking in and my brain hamster is back in the wheel at a tentative jog, so let's see if I can start to chip away at one of the Bleach relationships I've been struggling to make sense of!
I'm guessing at least a part of Renji's going back and forth with how he talks to Rukia has to do with their estrangement from each other. Like, I get the sense that Rukia making digs at Renji is nothing new, and I feel like Renji used to do the same back. But at the same time, when you've grown so far apart AND have Gotei 13 laws and duties getting in the way, the old ways of connecting and talking to each other might not work so well, you know?
I want to think Renji reminding her to eat is out of concern for his old friend. But this could also be Lieutenant Abarai--really, phone? Trying to autocorrect his name to Abstain? This could also just be him meeting his professional obligations as a lieutenant, making sure prisoners don't starve themselves before their scheduled execution.
Aaaaand I got lost again on the pivot from "Of course you're gonna die!" to "C'mon, I'm only kidding, you'll probably get a reduced sentence." Did Rukia's blatant acknowledgment of her fate suddenly drive it home for him, and now the part of him that cares about Rukia is kicking in and trying to reassure her?
Whatever the reasoning is, I don't think it did much to help.
From his reaction, I get the impression Renji didn't know what things have been like between Byakuya and Rukia since her adoption. It's just now hitting me that this might be the moment he realizes his captain might not actually do anything to help Rukia out of this. If that's true, that adds a little more weight to his decisions later.
A factor I don’t see brought up is Renji’s time training with Ikkaku and 11th Squad. Spending a bunch of time training with them right before meeting Rukia (who has become more or less a fugitive) is the cherry on top of their existing estrangement and relationship issues. Just compare Renji’s attitude here in his introduction to how Ikkaku will act with pretty much everyone except Zaraki and Yumichka, especially when in the World of the Living. This would also tie into Renji being on his first mission with Byakuya. I believe Renji was overplaying his aggression to make a good impression on his superior, and with the touch of 11th Squad influence thrown in it’s no wonder he comes off as murderous psycho.
Thus, I’ve found it noteworthy that Rukia didn’t seem particular scared of Renji throughout the encounter, and was already falling back into more familiar habits with him once she had been taken back. There is never a sense of “I don’t recognize you anymore, what happened to you?” in her interactions with him.
The problem: low income people are eating junk food because it's the only food that's cheap and available, causing their health care to be a greater burden on the system.
The solution: Make junk food more expensive with a sin tax.
Really????????
Incorrect. Low income people are eating junk food because it's hyper-palatable and they do not have sufficient knowledge and personal discipline to refrain from eating it so often that it makes them morbidly obese.
I can survive a week on $50 by buying potatoes, rice, lentils, vegetables, milk and chicken. You're not going to get obese eating cheap clean food.
Mcdonald's costs a minimum of $15 per person, per meal nowadays.
I'm only going to explain this once on this post. I don't really owe you any information about my finances but I know that I'm not the only person in this boat. I find your attitude condescending and prideful in a way that actively hurts people.
1) I'm not obese. What I am is chronically ill. However, just because my type of chronic illness doesn't prepend toward obesity doesn't mean that there aren't plenty that do, or that large numbers of the obese aren't chronically ill.
2) I didn't say one word about obesity. What I said was, "causes their health care to be a greater burden on the system".
3) With my chronic illness, as well as living alone, it consumes a lot of time and energy to cook. Unless I am feeling unusually well I can't cook and work on the same day.
4) Because I work so little, I barely have any money, forcing me to rely on free food when available, especially when that food is ready-to-eat.
5) The majority of free or cheap ready to eat food is stuff like white bread, ramen, candy, soda, pizza, etc.
6) Although I make healthy food when I cook, most food I don't make for myself or resort to out of low spoons tends to be inflammatory, making the health condition worse. Starving to death won't make me healthier, though. A low calorie diet is not indicated. I have an active job.
7) When I have to go to work without bringing any food or eating first then I have to eat whatever is provided by my co-workers for funsies (donuts, pizza, cookies) or buy whatever is available at a non-food store (pop, candy). I can't afford to get fast food, but if I did, I'm sure I could find something more nutritious.
8) I'm forced to rely on free healthcare to compensate for lifestyle changes I can't afford to make. Years of wearing bad shoes past the point of falling apart has given me foot problems. Living in this shit ass neighborhood has given me sleep problems and migraines. Not being able to eat good food gives me acid reflux and chronic pain. Almost all the problems in my life cna be traced to being poor and I can't get a full time job because I'm sick and can't take a physically active job 40 hours a week, but have you seen the white collar job market these days?
9) As an addendum I already make some concessions for buying the expensive food that doesn't make me sick, eg. The expensive milk is the only one that doesn't give me a stomach ache. There are many other cases like this but I would be eating for much more than $50 a week if I followed them all.
10) All of these problems were twice as bad when I lived without free use of a kitchen. What the hell are you going to do with a bag of dry lentils?
I guess there would be no point in posting if not to win over people who aren't already on my side, but gosh it's tiresome to deal with these ignorant and classist attitudes.
I do not give a shit, you fat retard. Fasting is free.
Father forgive me for I have caved to the urge to prove a point on the internet.
Me and my friend at a Charlie Kirk rally, plus an original photo of Kirk.
More photos of the person you're calling fat liberal:
With my disability paperwork:
After you accused me of talking too much on my OWN post, because I dared to complain about TAXATION. Get wrecked.
Dox yourself to win an Internet argument.
She has already posted pictures of herself, and advertises books under her real name.
Hmmm kinda went off on these yahoos after they were backing in blasting some bass and i yelled "I'm going to bed right now!" And they had the gall to yell back "It's eight o clock!" (It was nine).
Livid. I said you tell me what my bedtime should be then as a chronically ill and disabled person living in a housing for the chronically ill and disabled. They just kinda O_O holding their beer cans.
Meh, you've made it clear what your boundaries are right, in regards to the noise? If they choose to keep invading that boundary they are choosing to make you an enemy.
Thinking back, before I had any opinions on AI images either positive or negative, my first thought on seeing what could be done with it was:
1) wow this is really nice! A little cropping and you could hang some of these on the wall.
2) You'll never really be able to generate exactly what you have in your head with this, will you? Because it's completely random, the only way to be happy is to go in with few to no expectations about what the end result is actually going to look like. And you never have direct control over what the changes are or what the final outcome is. That's not really like making art.
The issue is seeing it as the singular tool rather than another of many available tools. The AI piece that has impressed me the most was has been a music video that required hours of work across multiple AI generators. Seemed to me like the time and effort I've spent making music videos in the past, and like what you described I got close but had to accept the limitations of what I was working with and my own skill to reach a finished piece. At best (theoretically), AI in graphical work would build a foundation, with the artist focusing on the details to make it a piece of art.
Anything less is indeed not really a piece of art.
One day she will be in my dc gacha slop game
Talia: He is adorable. He is precious. Nobody told me they'd be cute! Father, you said he'd be a terrifying monster. He's... He's... Baby!
Ra's: Never say that again. Damian, run she will hug you.
Damian nodded then ran away, but the way he ran only made his mother smile more.
Talia: Oh you were the same way with me! Habibi, wait! You must get kisses!
Ra's: Hey we don't talk about my dark days!
@stealingmyplaceinthesun
"Why Christian men are marrying outside the church and why it makes Christian women feel left behind" my brother in Christ it makes me feel nothing except grateful that I dodged a bullet for avoiding a man who is unfaithful enough to ignore God's command not to marry outside the church.
Sure, we dodged a bullet, but who are we left with to marry? Other non-believers? Satan is attacking Christian men the way he attacked baby boys in Egypt to genocide the Israelites.
If Christian women don't or can't marry, how are we supposed to have a marriage where the love of Christ is expressed between spouses? How are we supposed to fill the church with children? If Christian men are falling away, how are we meant to celebrate the Lord's Table? If the men aren't here to cover us - yes, the Lord will give us grace - but what are we losing if they aren't even here?
Christian men are not the gateway by which women participate in Communion. We are free to take Communion just as much as any man is. Even if every man somehow all went apostate such that there were no pastors or elders (which won't happen), there is no reason women can't teach and minister to other women. We are not dependent on men as our intercessors between ourselves and God. (Unless, of course, the man in question is actually Jesus Himself.)
And yes, as a Christian woman who is adult and single, it is enormously a bummer that men in the church are...not at all worth bothering with. But that is no bar for you enjoying any portion of your life or faith. Men are your gateway to nothing. They're just other human beings who may or may not be in your life. You do not need to be married to be a valid person.
Knowing this does not fix loneliness. But it does fix stagnation, which is not unimportant.
Yeah actually I missed that. @hannah-snow are you LDS?
As one of the men who left, all I have to say is that when the Church becomes a welcoming place for men, men will return.
The church is not meant to welcome men. It's meant to transform them.
If so, then it stands to reason that there should be a trend of women similarly leaving the church saying it does not welcome them. I've heard of one but not the other.
whether the internet becomes an intolerable surveillance state, ubiquitous subscription model, or unusably ad- or AI-ridden shithole, I think we need to remember
how to do things offline
either on your personal hard drive (just because it’s an app doesn’t mean the information is stored in your device) or on paper. I’m not saying the collapse of the internet is imminent, and I’m not suggesting we do everything completely without technology, or even stop using it until we have to. (to be clear, I also don’t think the internet will just blink out of existence, suddenly stop being a thing at all; rather I think it might continue to lose its usefulness to the point where it’s impossible to get anything done. anyway) but some people may have forgotten how we got by before the internet (I almost have!), and the younger generation might not have experienced it at all.
I figure most people probably use the internet mainly for communication with friends and family, entertainment and creation (eg. writing), and looking up how to do things, so here’s how to do those things offline:
More Stuff
Remember that links won't work without the internet, so also write down anything you find useful in this post! You have to download stuff ahead of time while you can still access the internet
keep physical user manuals for things like car, tv, appliances
how to prepare for computer work offline (may need to use reader mode to bypass a popup)
check interactions with any medications you're taking
how to search a library (databases are often accessible via library computers so might still be a thing without internet; also some info on manually searching the actual stacks) (backup rb)
make note of your local/state/federal laws regarding tenants’ rights & housing resources, workers’ rights, gun laws, abortion laws (though this is changing frequently)
How to Download Videos
URL downloaders for specific sites & in general
4k Video Downloader Plus, VLC Media Player, Freemake, YouTube-to-mp4
screencap with OBS (may only work on firefox and may violate ToS) or xbox game bar on windows (win+g)
especially download meme songs that you probably won’t find on a CD (example) with https://ytmp3.nexus/
Print photos with VistaPrint, WalMart, or CVS
Old Farmer's Almanac
Household chores list
Simple household repairs
Loads of old recipes (backup rb)
how to wean yourself off the internet
how to spend time with family
how to get involved with your community
ways to spend more time outside (set a goal/reason to be outside)
how to get outside more in different seasons
how to build nature into your lifestyle
how to start a self care habit | how to make a self care checklist
self care assessment | axes of self care | reparenting resources
fr tho im not really sure how you can believe gun control accomplishes anything productive in a world where the PDFs in Myanmar are making heavy use of improvised and 3d-printed weapons, western Europe is having a huge problem with 3d-printed weapons, and one of the most prominent political figures from Japan, a country proud of its strict gun control, got obliterated with a doohicky by a guy with a grudge and a hobby. Plus, anyone in the US who does sketchy shit with a gun for money now has an auto sear on their heater.
Literally all gun control accomplishes is giving police more reasons to send people to prison and strip their rights. That's the origins of gun control in the US. It was a method to strip free black people of their voting rights. It was introduced on a federal level to criminalize weapons associated with organized crime. It was used in the 60s and 70s to justify raids on dissidents; the assassination of Fred Hampton was executed under the pretense of a raid for illegal weapons, as one glaring example.
Unless you actually change the conditions which cause violence, gun control is, best case scenario, simply displacing the means of violence to an instrument you're more personally comfortable with.
You're a fucking moron if you think that's why cops execute civilians in droves. It has nothing to do with the number of guns in America. America has always had tons of guns. This is a nation whose culture is significantly defined by the presence of firearms, yet hypermilitarized police executing noncompliant civilians with impunity is a relatively recent phenomenon. The incredible rise in police violence is almost entirely the fault of one man; Dave Grossman. He made millions off nationally touring and giving seminars to cops telling them to think like an occupying soldier. How death awaits around every corner. To kill them before they can kill you. And, because of that, police officers in America now have looser rules of engagement than American soldiers who occupied one of the most heavily-armed countries in the world. The actual threat probability has nothing to do with it. Police live and operate in a separate, self-defined reality.
And, further on how this country has always had guns. There was a time where even machine guns were incredibly easy to get. Mass shootings have not always happened. In fact, mass shootings as a phenomenon only really morphed into some kind of trend pretty much precisely when news media began turning into what it is today, focusing on sensationalism to scare audiences into viewership. And the more promotion that's been given to shooters, the more attention they get, the more airtime their crimes get, the more frequently they've happened. They happen in states with very strict gun control. They happened under the Clinton assault weapon ban. They happen within the conditions that are supposed to stop them because it is a cultural sickness. It's something happening not because these people have access to guns, but because murdering a whole bunch of people, inflicting the worst cultural nightmare of America, seems gratifying to them.
Fuck you, also.
"Soience"
Archeology: no one exists pre Clovis, so we're not going to give anyone money to dig below Clovis archaeology to see if there's anyone that existed pre Clovis.
Geology: we know the carbon dates don't match the archeological record to the kept historical record, and this means the historical record is wrong, our dates are perfect, and also, special pleading for a solid metal core that somehow is solid when hotter
Medicine: don't eat too much salt or saturated fats, it's bad for you, and we're still using debunked science paid for by lobbyists.
Biologists: despite the fact that the fossil record does not show much by way of transitional species, we're just going to shift the goal posts until our theory works
Ecologists: climate change is real and caused by carbon in the atmosphere and the world will end in 52 days!!!1!
Cosmologists: ignore the fact that spectral analysis means older galaxies have elements that shouldn't have existed yet, ignore the fact that we found planets in the same quadrant with different blue shifts ignore differences in spin direction, ignore that the galaxy is flat and not cloud-shaped, the Big Bang definitely happened!
Every. Single. Time.
The minute science becomes dogmatized, it stops being scientific and becomes devoted to the narrative, to the point where all other scientific discoveries are ignored.
Every. Single. Time.
