well? can you?
One Nice Bug Per Day
art blog(derogatory)
macklin celebrini has autism
No title available
Three Goblin Art
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

izzy's playlists!

Discoholic 🪩
Cosimo Galluzzi
Game of Thrones Daily

oozey mess
Stranger Things

Kiana Khansmith

JBB: An Artblog!

JVL
NASA

@theartofmadeline
Peter Solarz

shark vs the universe
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
seen from United States

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 Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Sweden
@huntinggullion
well? can you?
MARIE ANTOINETTE 2006, dir. Sofia Coppola
doing extremely normal things today like reading the entire wikipedia page for falconry
I have learned from my research that kestrels are extremely cute!
are you kidding me!!!!!
You want me to ponder orb? The thing that killed Denethor?
No, no, those were also factors but I really think we need to consider the role that orb pondering played in things.
None of those things would have happened in the absence of the orb pondering
Let's be honest: it's all Faramir's fault.
Denethor: Pondered the orb and died falling from great height.
Saruman: Known orb ponderer, died falling from great height.
Sauron: A long time orb ponderer. Presumably died as his tower collapsed - likely falling from great height along with it.
So what you're saying is, gravity killed all of them, aka, natural causes.
Gandalf and Balrog (neither has pondered the orb) fell from greater heights and survived just fine.
In general I don't think there's a case of a fatal fall in the Middle-earth suffered by a non-ponderer.
my grandpa was a good man. and it really wasnt his fault - recreationally lying to kids is a proud family tradition - but he told me, once, that cutting a worm in half resulted in two worms.
i think he said it so i'd be more morally okay with fishing? i actually dont remember the context.
point was, he told me this, and he understimated (by a very large margin) how much i liked worms. i was a worm boy. very wormy. and after hearing that, i went home, and i dug through the garden, flipped over every rock, did everything i could to gather as many worms as i could, and then i uh.
i cut them all in half. every worm i could find. all of them. with scissors.
i then took this pile of split worms, and i put them in a box with a bit of lettuce and some water and stuff and went to bed expecting to double my worms overnight. i have math autism, so i had a vague understanding that if i did this just a few times in a row, i would eventually have a completely unreasonable amount of worms.
i was very excited to become this plane's worm emperor.
(i think i was...six?)
anyway, i did not become the inheritor of the worm crown. i instead woke up to a box of dead worms and cried. a lot. i got diagnosed with panic attacks as a teenager, but i think i had them as a kid, i just had no idea what they were. i was kind of processing that a.) i had killed what i had assumed was every single worm in my yard, and thus would have no more worms, and b). i was going to like, worm hell.
(six year babylon spent a lot of time worrying about god.)
so i kind of freaked out, and i climbed a tree, because god can only smite you if you're touching the ground (?) and i sat up there mostly inconsolable until my mom came out and asked, hey, what's up? what happened?
so i explained to her that i had killed all of the worms, forever, and was also Damned, and she took me to the compost pile, and we dug for all of five seconds and found like twenty more worms.
the compost pile was full of worms.
and she told me that a). there were more worms, and we could put them back under rocks and stuff and recolonize our yard and b). that one day, i would die, and i would go to heaven, and i would be able to talk to the worms, and i would be able to tell them all that i was very sorry, and that i killed them on accident out of excessive Love, and that they would forgive me, because worms have six hearts and no malice.
at that point, i think i was sixty percent tear-snot by weight, and i had no choice but to gather enough worms that i could hug them. which my mom helped with. and then after that she helped me put some worms back under each rock.
and for my epilogue: i spent a significant portion of my childhood in trees. and for many years after, even when my mom didnt know i was watching, i would catch her giving the space under the rocks a light spritz with the hose. not because she loved worms.
but because she loved me.
Wait, you're telling me I spent the latter half of my childhood deathly terrified of worms for NOTHING? That was a lie?
huh. you viewed worms entirely mythical regenerative powers as something to be feared. i viewed it as an opportunity. something something The Duality of Man.
i am considering that fear produced a better outcome than love for both you and the worm. this feels like an important thought.
Check out the bonus panel on the site.
SMBC ◆ PATREON ◆ INSTAGRAM ◆ TWITTER ◆ STORE
Get this comic as a print on Hivemill!
this may shock the viewer but I actually do prefer the temporary violence the bourgeoisie will suffer in the event of a revolution over the unending and worse violence the working class suffers every day just to maintain the status quo
Horrendous take, thanks. Revolution is not "temporary violence", and it's definitely not limited to the bourgeoisie. The working class and the very poor will be the ones to suffer the most no matter what happens.
The French Revolution proper lasted 10 years, on paper (1789-1799). The worst of the violence was from 1793-1794, in the Reign of Terror. We think of that as being mostly about aristocrats, but at least 16,000 people were killed, most of whom were not aristocrats or bourgeois. A very high percentage of them were actually revolutionaries themselves! But they supported the wrong faction of the Revolution.
However, the period we term "The French Revolution" is actually only a small part of the larger picture. France suffered repeated uprisings, revolutions, and shifts in government from republic back to monarchy back to republic until it lurched into stability (and democracy) in 1873-75 with the Third Republic. Both monarchial and democratic governments included assassinations, censorship, arrest and execution of "enemies" on a grand scale, imprisonment, and deportation/exile. We literally do not know how many people died in political violence over those 84 years. However, we know it was a lot of people, and that most of them were not members of the middle and upper classes but members of the working class and the poor. (Middle and upper class people being more likely to buy their way out of trouble, and also more likely to escape what they can't buy off.)
And the French Revolution is a successful revolution. It's one of the ones that has the greatest long-term success of any revolution so far. The American Revolution doesn't really count; local and state government and policies didn't change, the main difference was the replacement of a king with a president and Parliament with Congress. If you're talking "a revolution which majorly changes aspects of society" the French Revolution is the cream of the crop. That's what success looks like.
10 years of fighting to start with, including 16k executions in a single year, followed by 75 more years of fighting, counter-revolutions that wipe away all of your gains, and uncountable numbers of people killed and lives ruined. With poor and working-class people bearing the brunt of the violence and suffering. That's generations worth of death. "Temporary"? Interesting choice of words, there.
What I keep noticing about revolutions is how extremely bad they are at innovating new societal machinery, even when that's the ostensible point of them.
The mass public executions of the French Revolution directly reflected the traditional French monarchical approach to crushing political dissent going back to the middle ages.
When the Russian Revolution got heavily into nationalizing agriculture, it was following in the footsteps of several decades of tsarist policy of nationalizing the serfs--that is, of transferring the legal ownership of Russia's farmers to the state and crown and away from the aristocracy, who were increasingly obliged to lease their workforce.
I have mentioned this research before and I will probably mention it again, but Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan did amazing work studying violent and non-violent revolutions, and analyzing how well they succeeded.
There's lots of writeups about their research all over the internet, but sometimes their own words are best: 'Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns.' (from Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Non-Violent Conflict). They argue that in many cases, nonviolent campaigns for change are significantly more likely to succeed at their goals. They also distinguish between nonviolent resistance/nonviolent struggle and things like pacifism or isolated protests -- they are specifically talking about organized nonviolent disruption. (Something can be very, very disruptive without being at all violent.)
I highly recommend reading their work.
The people who rise to the top in times of violent upheaval aren't the thoughtful, considerate individuals who thought carefully about policies and who care about others. They're the ones who have the most confidence, charisma, and willingness to bring down their opponents quickly and often permanently; they have a general direction, and little subtlety.
The "enemy" becomes anyone who opposes the new order, even if the new order is objectively dumb.
After WWII, Romania went through its own "eat the rich" phase, bringing down the monarchy, the former aristocrats, and the bourgeoisie. I won't lie; as far as I can tell, while the urban middle class seemed to be doing fine, the poor rural classes were probably doing absolutely not fine.
It's a long story and I don't want to get into post-WWII politics, but Romania and the surrounding countries fell under Russian influence (in no small part thanks to other great powers), and became communist. Supposedly, the communists were for the lower classes and against the upper ones.
So, in the first years, there was violent repression - I'd urge you to read this section on the history of the Danube-Black Sea Canal from Wikipedia, which describes the labor camps. But let me quote bits:
By 1950 the forced labor camps set up along the length of the planned canal were filled to capacity; that year alone, up to 15,000 prisoners were held in those camps. In 1952, more than 80% of the workforce at the canal consisted of detainees. [...] estimates put the number at 40,000 or 100,000 for the entire period. British historian and New York University professor Tony Judt assessed in his book, Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945, that, overall, one million Romanians had been imprisoned in various prisons and labor camps, including those on the path of the canal
For context, Romania had a population of about 17-18 million at the time.
The prisoners were dispossessed farmers who had attempted to resist collectivization, former activists of the National Peasants' Party, the National Liberal Party, the Romanian Social Democratic Party, and the fascistIron Guard, ZionistJews, as well as Orthodox and Catholic priests. The canal was referred to as the "graveyard of the Romanian bourgeoisie" by the Communist authorities, and the physical elimination of undesirable social classes was one of its most significant goals.
Dispossessed farmers, priests, as well as people from opposing political factions. Dispossessed farmers - not aristocrats owning vast tracts of land, but farmers. Whether richer or poorer, these were still lower class individuals who opposed the new regime that was actively confiscating their lands and crops.
Political violence was especially strong during the first years, but once most people settled into line, it loosened. It never went away, however, until the regime fell in 1989. I think it's only now, in the 2020's, that Romania's starting to recover from the damage that's been done to it in 40 years.
On the one hand, as many defenders of communism pointed out, communism came with rapid industrialization, much-needed urban development, an emphasis on education and more opportunities to study, even for lower classes.
On the other hand, the constant threat of violence, the lack of free speech, the wide-spread spying on citizens, the censorship of anything (knowledge to art) that didn't fit with the official politics, the lying-lying-lying to pretend everything's going well did so much damage. What good is rapid industrialization, if your products are sub-par and keep breaking down constantly? What good is urban development, if your people are freezing in their homes? And how good is it that you bring education for all, if you fill it with propaganda and are suspicious of any learning that doesn't confirm the official ideology?
People try to win violent revolutions - and the winners of violence must be tyrants. They can't be benevolent democrats, or their enemies will have them for breakfast.
i'll also add that the 1989 revolution (violent, resulted in the actual death of a dictator) didn't change the regime itself. new leaders didn't come out of nowhere, they were old political elites and they continued using violent repression in the early 90s until they realized it was more profitable not to, and switched to gross electoral fraud and outright theft.
people who glorify The Revolution are either naive enough to think torches and pitchforks stand a chance against people who can afford machineguns or have hollywood blockbuster-level brainrot where they believe they will personally plant a flag on top of the smoking ruins of some billionaire's mansion. i've met both and they honestly terrify me.
gonna be a big one under the cut
CHIVALROUS AND SINGLE KNIGHTS IN YOUR FIEF WANT TO PLEDGE THEIR FEALTY TO YOU‼️ CLICK HERE NOW‼️‼️
Well if the shoe fish
well if the shoe fish
"the world isn't kind" ok??? Much more importantly are you?????
"the world isnt kind" skill issue. I am
You right tho
im kinda bored of this whole computers thing. i think tomorrow im gonna go outside and see if i find some kind of creature to look at
Deactivated.... Op did it boys
Woman murders man in broad daylight
the sirens wouldnt even have to sing beautiful or anything. id still come over to the shallows and rocks to see whats up see whats happening. whats all going on
the idealized version of my tomorrow self will fix this
not again
Huh