[lynchian daymare]

hopelessly addicted to formalism. there’s a fishness in my heart. sensitive to reinforcer devaluation. send me emails. [email protected]

[facelessoldgargoyle]

[tlirsgender]

When you get more objective about the way nature is & away from weird anthropomorphic carnivore slander it is a little funny when the baby sea turtles hatch and every other animal in like a ten mile radius goes "oh fuck yum one million mini sliders"

[tlirsgender]

[ID: a screenshot of the original post's tags that read, "#real turtleheads know this is a play on sliders (turtle emoji) which are a type of terrestrial turtle. but it's also tiny hamburgers #which seems apt. #this has been another episode of Joke Explainer" /end ID]

Keeping these actually. Necessary footnote for this post

[tlirsgender]

Watching a jaguar casually walk up to an adult sea turtle headed back to the water after laying her eggs and eat it like why am I in my sea turtle violence era and why are they like this. Adult sea turtles aren't especially easy to eat in the water they'll swim around with shark bites taken out of them like they're just chillin. And then on land they just kinda

[tlirsgender]

Jaguar watching a sea turtle on the beach: oh fuck yum 100 pound slider

[tlirsgender]

Also today I learned that since the jaguar scares off other smaller predators it's actually good for the sea turtle population if there are jaguars there. Cause less babies get eaten by Everything Else. I'm gonna be honest I didn't even consider that a jaguar could be on the beach

[tlirsgender]

Every other animal in like a ten mile radius: I'm gonna be honest I didn't even consider that a jaguar could be on the beach

[goodmouthobviously]

ok wait I think I got it Ilya is honest/vulnerable in his selfishness, and Shane is honest/vulnerable in his earnesty. And for Ilya, that earnesty feels like the best sweetest juiciest most takeable thing to be selfish for. And for Shane, that selfishness feels like the forbiddenest hottest wrong-rightest thing to be earnest for. And they're both crazy.

[facelessoldgargoyle]

Another year another workplace harassment training. pretty good this year, features realistic stories. i will nonetheless keep grinding my axe about the time someone stole a photo of my wife from my desk and gave it to HR and then HR had a sit down meeting with me about it because in the picture she was doing the pussy eating sign. #wokeamerica

[our-lady-of-haymakers]

Bourgeois thinker: Class doesn't exist, everything is determined by supply and demand, so if you work hard enough and make smart calls, you'll easily succeed. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!

Proletariat thinker: Class exists and is the dominant social relation in determining the direction of society and history. The rhetoric of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is simply another way in which the ruling classes mislead the workers to prevent the overthrow of their hegemony.

Petit-bourgeois thinker: No one knows where the materials for the fandom-themed boots I've made in my special workshop come from. Support this poor artist!

[collapsedsquid]

What then is the explanation? Why do workers typically push for more consumption rather than for shorter hours? Here I think Cohen’s argument is untypically unclear. He tells us that workers do indeed want more goods (other things being equal) but it is also plain that they dislike the toil then need to engage in to get those goods and evidences that claim by making the point that if workers were granted money such that they didn’t need to work at their jobs, very few of them would choose to do so gratis, and there would be a dramatic decline in the amount of work done. His suggestion seems to be that since there is a permanent propaganda campaign in support of people getting more stuff and no corresponding campaign in favour of free time of the kind one can enjoy without extra spending, extra consumption always has a salience for people that additional leisure lacks. I think Cohen’s uncharacteristically feeble discussion of this point can be explained in part by a blindspot in his thinking. First of all, he neglects the way in which states support and encourage consumer spending and simultaneously encourage a culture of work and effort through moralizing campaigns, stigmatization of “shirkers” and the like. Take the first of these elements: states help establish and support structures of lending to help people to do things like buy their own homes and then furnish their homes. They do this in a variety of ways, by providing support to banks and other financial institutions but also by giving borrowers all kinds of tax breaks. In order to buy the things they want, consumers have little choice but to borrow, but once they have borrowed they have to repay and repaying requires income, which requires work. Now perhaps workers could simply refuse the blandishments of capital and refuse to borrow in order to consume and then the option to work less would be more available to them. But I think this neglects the competitive and social aspects of consumption that Cohen rather dismissively refers to as “keeping up with the Joneses”. One need not be of a particularly competitive or comparative disposition to be caught up in social standards of self-presentation that are inherently comparative in nature, as Adam Smith knew in that famous passage about labourers being ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt or, in some countries, leather shoes.

Still feels like everyone's discourse on consumerism & capitalism is stuck in the 1960s, he criticizes Cohen's view and maybe I'm out of touch but this doesn't feel much better. Maybe because the only people who write on consumerism are petite-bourgeoisie who unlike most people do live like this.

Speaking as a member of the salaried class, while I do appreciate the gee-gaws I am able to purchase with my full-time job, speaking as I believe a somewhat representative member of the professional-managerial class I am more concerned with rent, health insurance, and the ability to hopefully retire at some point, and these guide my financial decisions. I purchase some fun stuff I didn't choose my career to be able to afford a fancier grill. I crave the respectability of not living in a van.

Now there Is perhaps a discussion of how I could move to somewhere cheaper like Montana or Spain and why I don't do that but if you're going to discuss this issue I think you gotta address issues like that directly

[morlock-holmes]

Yeah I was going to say...

What is this mythical leisure time you can enjoy without extra spending?

If you're hourly time spent on leisure is time not earning money while fixed expenses (Food, rent, transportation) continue to accrue.

At some point if you're salaried you have paid vacation... How many people negotiate for more of that, and how many succeed at getting it?

[morlock-holmes]

Actually, check this, I do work in a restaurant and a lot of the workers aim for (and get) a four day schedule.

I think maybe a more sensible thought then the one I had above is that workers are not likely to view "consumption" and "leisure" as two separate alternatives, because you pay for both; you have fixed expenses that continue to accrue during leisure time.

Not to mention, frugal leisure is not necessarily very leisurely; I might prefer to spend my leisure time indulging in a hobby, or viewing a movie, or having someone over for a meal, all of which require spending on consumer goods.

So as a worker you pay for leisure the way you do consumption goods and fundamentally view leisure as another consumption good, not a separate class of activity.

[morlock-holmes]

Actually, the glaringly missing piece here is that, in the modern day capitalist economies, many workers are in a position where increased leisure time requires negotiations with the boss, and increased consumption *does not require such negotiations*.

Suppose I have earned X number of dollars that I may spend as I wish, and suppose X dollars is enough to pay for, I don't know, 3 months of vacation.

I can only purchase that Vacation if the boss allows it.

What if the boss instead says, "No, obviously not, I need all hands on deck, your contract says you get two weeks and we can't get you those two weeks until this major project is done."

Max Weber was talking about a very different situation, one in which adding more pay didn't result in longer working hours; but this supposes a large degree of freedom on the part of the workers to choose how much they work.

Meanwhile, if my boss says "No, obviously we aren't letting you take a three month vacation" I can still take that same X dollars and buy a car, or a big screen TV, or what have you, and this does not require any negotiation with, or assent from, the boss at all.

This alone will make consumption in some way more appealing.

When put in a position to easily choose between leisure and consumption it's not obvious that workers favor the latter (My experience is that freelancers who can get away with it spend quite a lot of time not working) but many workers are not in a position to choose with total freedom.

[discoursedrome]

Yeah I think this is basically my take on it: in the workplace, workers are respected more the more they work, and being viewed as lazy or uncommitted is risky in ways unrelated to any of these tradeoffs, to the point where people will often choose to work unpaid overtime just for reputational reasons. The stigma isn't even strictly related to productivity: people love a worker who gets a week's work done in 80% of the expected time and then spends the leftover 20% on other work, but someone who does their work in 80% the time and then takes the other 20% off is less respected than someone who just takes the normal amount of time to do it, even if the former charges 20% less. There's just a lot more reputational risk associated with working less, to the point where "how to work at an artificially slow pace" and "how to slack off when your work is done without being obvious about it" are, like, timeless core vocational skills

[lyssatbqh]

I lied I don't have Netflix we're pressing on each other's bruises until someone taps out

[avtavr]

The exposed neck: from the accessory nerve (emerging) to the vocal fold. © Mosby/McMinn

[gettingintoknives]

Acceptance by Jeff Vandermeer

[facelessoldgargoyle]

I wish that people consistently tagged posts about Shane’s pussy. I don’t hate all the posts I’ve seen, but sometimes they do feel pretty fetishistic and/or transphobic, and because ppl don’t consistently tag I don’t have the choice for whether I click through; I just see it.

Filtered content/tags: Shane’s pussy. Shane pussy. Shanepussy. Shussy. I swear to god I don’t care what I have to block it’s fine just please tag it with something

[kaftan]

Cannot take it seriously when fans of Any fiction where abuse or trauma is #upforinterpretation complain about those readings in a “why can’t you suspend disbelief/let [characters] be happy” way. The only one who needs to be happy is ME. In my beautiful and correct and beautiful sandbox.

[facelessoldgargoyle]

a director checked in with me after the call because I “sounded defeated” and she “wanted to make sure I was doing ok” uh oh besties 😶😶😶

[hothockey]

🌻

i don't understand why so many people think ilya is the opposite of fastidious or neat (and conversely that shane IS suuuuper fastidious or neat as a joyful characteristic).

they are both rich guys with people who are paid to clean up after them 24/7 literally at home and at work. their houses and clothes and dishes will literally not be dirty.

hockey players are notoriously superstitious and demanding about how they want their equipment, their set-up, and their routine. and they spend their lives on the road. packing and unpacking the same bags, taping the same stick, being ironed down by the same hegemonic-conformist culture. they get real good at it.

shane has specific anxiety around being gay/changes affecting his hockey specifically and that drives his devotion to not deviating from routine -> and if that reads as OCD, then compulsive checking does not equal fastidiousness, its an attempt to regulate his internal world thru his external world. if it's autisim, then resistance to change, focused interests and sensory reactivity are literally textbook and it's an attempt to regulate his external world thru his internal world, which can or can't be fastidious/neat.

ilya specifically demands control in his life to an exacting degree that requires work and attentiveness because he was stripped of it in childhood. this manifests in attention to details, control over situations and people, and purposeful approaches to his actions and others: - in his super neat home where yes everything is labelled by his nutritionist/cleaned by a housekeeper but he cares about just how cold shane's ginger ale is etc. sets a timer for the sammies and controls his own emotional activation w his family before returning to the couch bc he wants to convo to go a certain way/also pushes shane through the convo - in conversations like sochi/post first time anal/shane panicking at the cottage/sveta jane pushing where he shuts down or pushes paths of action. - in his appearance/fashion with his curated and rich and clean outfit choices and well kept hair. - in the club when he may be seen as 'messy' by being promiscuous but he deliberately chooses to go out as a coping technique and rejects or picks girls to get with and is very forthright about it from all we can see -- not misleading or letting it get in the way of other things. - in family matters keeping track of his father's abuse/demands towards ilya and then his father's medications/illness/QOL as well as being the primary monetary support for all his relatives with listed examples bc he knows what the money is being spent on! and criticizes his brother for not being as organized. and puts money and gifts in a trust for his niece and sets boundaries to what alexei gets/does not get. - in sex with shane where he guides shane and takes his time with each act, likes to be called by honorifics, likes to order shane around, likes to have all of shane's complete attention and often cleans up quickly. - in his plans for the future where he makes plans about his relationship with shane and tries to make conversations/interactions go just how he imagines them. thinks about signing with boston and thinks about his contracts and his immigration status and how to get what he wants. - etc. etc. i could go on

ilya demands high levels of performance from people as a captain and as a lover and can be very hard to please. locker room: you fuckers each owe me 1,000$//cottage couch vacuum blowie. in hockey/sex, his intense drive and agitator antics mean, if anything, he is aware of mess and how to cultivate the illusion of it or take advantage of it.

shane and ilya do not have to be the opposites in everything. in fact, they are very similar in many, many ways.

i think people are overly invested in false dichotomies in life. they want a binary system to help them actualize how things are in opposite to something else, not as the thing exists. because that is fundamentally less labor, to just say. oh thing 1 vs thing 2. but these are illusory, reductive dichotomies: male is not the opposite of female, curly hair is not the opposite of straight, blue eyes are not the opposite of brown. etc.

so how i think this 1 vs 2 seeking philosophy presents itself in fandom is that have one character who performs at just the same level as another and doesn't show signs of being particularly messy in any way getting labelled as messy/unorganized, simply because the other character has been labelled as neat/meticulous.

also specifically i wonder if ilya's slyness and meanness is just twisted into being messy in an attempt to soften it or reduce it to something cutesy that shane can take care of as an attempt to ""power balance"" their D/s.

--

send me a 🌻 and ill just tell you whatever the fuck i want 🤗🌈

[tdogkisses]

i’m gonna forcibly masculinize everyone who reblogs this.

[meanbuddhist]

let’s all make the really uncomfortable decision of being brutally present in our bodiesssss 😍😍😍😍

[facelessoldgargoyle]

I wish that people consistently tagged posts about Shane’s pussy. I don’t hate all the posts I’ve seen, but sometimes they do feel pretty fetishistic and/or transphobic, and because ppl don’t consistently tag I don’t have the choice for whether I click through; I just see it.

Filtered content/tags: Shane’s pussy. Shane pussy. Shanepussy. Shussy. I swear to god I don’t care what I have to block it’s fine just please tag it with something

[pooblet]

SOURCE

I SAW THIS & IMMEDIATELY THOUGHT OF @shrimp-bird