Color Me Curious
$LAYYYTER
oozey mess
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
Love Begins
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Interview Vampire Daily
macklin celebrini has autism
The Stonewall Inn
ojovivo
ellievsbear
Fai_Ryy
TMBGareOK. The Official They Might Be Giants tumblr
@theartofmadeline
h
taylor price
RMH
almost home
Fieri Frames
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from Indonesia
seen from Canada
seen from Canada
seen from Germany
seen from Venezuela
seen from Malaysia
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from South Africa
seen from Türkiye
seen from Albania
seen from United States
seen from Congo - Kinshasa
seen from Colombia
@jessemgolden
When Michael Gove called mask-wearing a form of politeness, he was referencing a oft-forgotten virtue
taking time to make yourself smart is a signal that you are going to take someone seriously. It’s a gesture of respect, an indication that you are treating this encounter with the weight it deserves.
The “class war” isn't happening where you think it is.
Since this is all very abstract, an image might help. Visualize two horseshoes—a lower horseshoe whose two prongs point up, and an upper horseshoe whose two prongs point down. The lower horseshoe has the underclass at the bottom/midpoint and the hub city working class and the heartland working class as the points of its two opposing prongs. The upper horseshoe has the managerial elite proper as its midpoint/apex and the professional bourgeoisie and the small business bourgeoisie as the points of its two opposing prongs. Arranged in this way, the two horseshoes form a rough outline of a circle, with the managerial elite at the very top, the underclass at the very bottom, and the two working classes and the two bourgeoisies distributed in between.
Immanuel Kant provides an apt illustration. In a famous passage from Perpetual Peace, Kant explains that the problem of building a just society can be solved, even in the case of a society of devils. It is enough that those utterly evil and utterly egoistic beings are intelligent. This will allow individual devils to see the true nature of their self-interest, which of course includes neutralizing the self-interest of others to the extent that it threatens their own, which in turn requires agreement about neutral rules. Even devils, if rational, can be peaceful players of the game of society.
What Kant did not recognize is that, far from being a harder case than humans, devils are easier. They are fallen angels, to be sure, but angels all the same. As a consequence, they are pure spirits that soar in a special kind of elongated temporality, the so-called aevum. This enables them to shirk the need to reproduce, so they can focus all their energies on the game of self-interest.
By contrast, the existence of men is limited and lasts, as we have seen, at most one century. And so the human species, the same as the other living species, keeps going by replacing the individuals that disappear—replacing them with new individuals, which are begotten by individuals and born to them. A civitas—a nation, culture, or people—is, so to speak, constantly surfing on individuals. If it ceases to do so, it won’t last longer than a century.
In other words, without new life, Kant’s peace won’t be perpetual. And because his peace is perfect only if the players of the game see themselves and their lives in terms of their own rational self-interest, it’s not at all clear why they won’t cease to have children. Indeed, many will say that it’s a positive duty not to reproduce.
ALLEN LEFF
Consider what a "finder" of law must do. He must reach for a set of normative propositions in the form "one ought to do X," or "it is right to do X," that will serve in, indeed serve as the foundation for, a legal system. Once found, these propositions must themselves be immune from further criticism. ..
Imagine, now, a legal system based upon perceived normative propositions-oughts-which are absolutely binding, wholly unquestionable, once found. Consider the normative proposition, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Under what circumstances, if any, would one conclude that it is wrong to commit adultery? Maybe it helps to put the question another way: when would it be impermissible to make the formal intellectual equivalent of what is known in barrooms and schoolyards as "the grand sez who"? Putting it that way makes it clear that if we are looking for an evaluation, we must actually be looking for an evaluator: some machine for the generation of judgments on states of affairs. If the evaluation is to be beyond question, then the evaluator and its evaluative processes must be similarly insulated. If it is to fulfill its role, the evaluator must be the unjudged judge, the unruled legislator, the premise maker who rests on no premises, the uncreated creator of values.
The New York Times Magazine has a long article by Nikole Hannah-Jones about school segregation and integration in New York City this week. It’s an interesting story, but there are several issues...
Even if you distributed those 15 percent of students equally across the entire city, you’d have all schools that are 85% non-white. Unless you believe that a small number of white students would act as a magic pixie dust on schools, you have to assume that this would have zero effects on outcomes. Moreover, about a fifth of the white students are in Staten Island and can’t be plausibly moved to other more segregated schools. The Bronx only has 4% white students, and it’s not clear that you’re going to demand kids get on the train in the Upper West Side or Fort Greene, and travel all the way to Yankee Stadium, just to go to first grade.
One dose will erase your whole political mind.
Here is one way to check out any idea you don’t want to believe: assume it’s true, then build a new reality around that axiom.
Once you fail, you get to say: I can’t see how this could be true.
I don’t want to believe the CIA did 9/11. I try to build a reality in which it did. I fail spectacularly. I go back to believing it was an al-Qaeda conspiracy. I don’t want to believe OJ is guilty. I assume he’s innocent, then look for the real killers. But I can’t even imagine them.
Studies show it helps patients with an increasingly long list of medical problems.
And notice the tone the scientists researching this.
“What do you mean the fatties live longer? This CANNOT BE RIGHT DO THE STUDIES 15 MORE TIMES!”
And when they can’t figure it out, they simply say “it’s not worth reading” to keep anything POSITIVE about fat bodies from getting out into the public eye.
Because then folks might not but into the billion dollar industry for diet fads and weight loss scams that all of these obesity doctors line their pockets with.
Because then theyd actually have to start treating their fat patients like PEOPLE.
“Willett’s complaints are starting to look less credible, however, because no one has been able to make the paradox go away. One of the most popular explanations is that fat people get more aggressive treatment than thin people, because their weight raises red flags at the doctor’s office. This seems questionable: studies show that overweight and obese people tend to avoid doctors, get fewer preventive screenings, and receive worse treatment because they’re often misdiagnosed as “fat” rather than with a specific medical condition”
Emphasis mine
Also, notice the phrasing.
“No one has been able to make the paradox go away”
They wanna get rid of that shit SO BAD. Because if fat people aren’t as OMG OBESITY CRISIS as folks love to scream, that means their fad diet scams and weight loss surgeries can’t make them millions anymore!
Fuck these obesity doctors. They outchea selling snake oil.
“People are furiously looking for some way to make this not the case,” says Deb Burgard, a clinical psychologist in Los Altos, California who treats eating disorders. “And I think that bears some comment. Theoretically we should be very happy to find out that people aren’t dying the way we thought they were going to, that there’s not going to be this terrible outcome. That people at higher weights are going to be OK.”
“One of the most popular explanations is that fat people get more aggressive treatment than thin people, because their weight raises red flags at the doctor’s office.”
*points and laughs*
I’m sorry, I’m just stuck on this part. That’s hilarious. An incomplete list of things where the suggested solution was “You should lose weight”: My badly broken ankle hurting, a severe bacterial sinus infection, panic attacks stemming from Complex PTSD …
Oh, wow this study has a pretty reputable source and a really big sample size. Y’all could actually show this to the haters.
There are so many studies that show that ‘overweight’ people live longer, that fat people receive atrocious healthcare, that the ‘health risks’ of ‘obesity’ are WEIRDLY the exact same as those of yoyo dieting HMM I WONDER WHY THAT COULD BE, that longterm weight loss is impossible for all but 2-5% of people and those people sustain it by developing pervasive disordered food and exercise behaviours that would be correctly interpreted as mental illness is any context except Fatties Trying Appropriately Devoutly To Be Thin.
The evidence is THERE and it has BEEN THERE for decades now. People do not care. They want to smugly judge fat people and/or rake in 10s of billions of dollars a year convincing people to try not to be one of Those Bad Fat People. They do want to hear that being fat is just a body shape, with no moral value for good or ill. They do not want to hear that weight is as heritable as height. People get reeeeeaally super defensive when you ask them not talk about their endless dieting and attempts at weight loss around you, a fat person, whose body they are going to all this effort not to resemble.
Anyway join your local fat pos movement and fuck fatphobia forever.
So we gonna ignore the fact that most overweight problems take years to cause issues, can come up when you’re no longer obese and that ‘fat people go to doctors and get diagnosed less’ puts any study of how often are fat people sick into question?
We are? Mmm’key.
Let’s check the artcle…
Link: obesity-paradox-scientists-now-think-that-being-overweight-is-sometimes-good-for-your-health/ Title: Scientists now think that being overweight can protect your health
Hey, those things aren’t the same, but it’s fiiiine, right?
Being overweight is now believed to help protect patients with an increasingly long list of medical problems, including pneumonia, burns, stroke, cancer, hypertension, and heart disease.
So you’re less likely to get pneumonia which is connected to being cold which you’re more susceptible to with less fat layer. And I’m supposed to see this paradox as ‘unsolvable’, really?
Together with colleagues, she looked at hundreds of mortality studies that included data on body mass index (BMI), which is calculated by dividing a person’s weight in kilograms by the square of their height in meters. People with BMIs of more than 25 are classed as overweight, and those with a BMI over 30 as obese.
I’m sorry, they checked corpse’s and their BMI, is that right? Well, there goes my trust because if that’s what they use as data (and they do since the ‘advice’ at the end of article tell you to live according to BMI) then they can go to hell. BMI fucks us over enough already, it should burn in hell and be kept far away from any medical studies.
And a strong link between weight and disease only emerges among people with severe obesity. So taken at face value, the results seemed to be showing that a little extra weight is genuinely beneficial.
So the discovery seems to be that 10 extra pounds are fine because being underweight is highly detrimental to your health (more than any excess weight because less food means less energy mean everything in your body being weaker than it’s supposed to be), but getting morbidly obese is harmful. I’m sorry, how is that news?
Crazy isnt it?
This is what the fat acceptance movement does.
Study: those who muffin top a pair of tight jeans are just as, if not, more healthy than skinny people.
Fat acceptance people: see!?!?! You can still be morbidly obese and healthy! Being fat has no connection to health! Saying a 600+lb person in unhealthy is straight fatphobia!
People with an IQ above salad dressing: seriously?
Being fat means you have more weight to carry around. Strange but true, right?
Consider: if you need to constantly carry around additional weight, your body will continually consume more energy, leading to less endurance.
Being in shape is therefore self-evidently a better way to live.
Since art is dead, it has evidently become extremely easy to disguise police as artists. — Guy Debord
How American Parents Turn Their Daughters Out
It was the dreaded Moms’ Night Out at my son’s exorbitantly expensive Montessori preschool.
There were a few aged rock stars and insufferable list B-actors with children at this school, but that wasn’t going to stop me from providing my firstborn with excellence in developmental education that mainly seemed to involve depositing smooth pebbles into various bowls using hand-hewn stone implements.
We were just digging into pizza and our third bottle of Chianti when a stylish, glossy-haired mother of two started talking about her daughter, who was three. In a voice filled with breathless anticipation, she described her plans for when her baby would enter the sexual marketplace. “I just want her to know she can tell me anything. As soon as she gets her period, I’m totally taking her to get on the pill. I just want us to be close.”
She turned to me. “Have you thought about when you’ll put your daughter on the pill?” My daughter was one at the time.
The family structure we’ve held up as the cultural ideal for the past half century has been a catastrophe for many. It’s time to figure out better ways to live together.
If you want to summarize the changes in family structure over the past century, the truest thing to say is this: We’ve made life freer for individuals and more unstable for families. We’ve made life better for adults but worse for children. We’ve moved from big, interconnected, and extended families, which helped protect the most vulnerable people in society from the shocks of life, to smaller, detached nuclear families (a married couple and their children), which give the most privileged people in society room to maximize their talents and expand their options. The shift from bigger and interconnected extended families to smaller and detached nuclear families ultimately led to a familial system that liberates the rich and ravages the working-class and the poor.
Visit the post for more.
There was a right way to organize human affairs—which could be codified, studied, and interpreted, much like a religion—and a wrong way. The wrong way had been that of the 19th-century, with its succession of Great Men, describing an arc from Napoleon to the outbreak of the Great War. And look where that had got us. Far better to build on the example of the civil service system, which had begun in 1883
The world is shaking apart. The coronavirus is the last straw in what I believe will be the coming Great Contraction; nations will turn inward and whichever country is most self-sufficient will be …
Like the S.S. Poseidon in Irwin Allen’s classic 1970s disaster film (a film in which a young Gene Hackman and an aging Ernest Borgnine simply bark at each other for two hours while other actors try to keep up), the world is upside-down. We must now claw our way out of the broken mess-heap and cut our way through the hull to safety. Except, to get to the surface before the ship sinks, we must, in fact, go deeper down into the ship–because the vessel has capsized.
Tony Benn famously stated that those in positions of economic, social, and political power should always be asked five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?” Benn repeated this many times at rallies, protests and marches. He commented to his friend and fellow campaigner John Nichols that his favourite question was the final one. “Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system”
For liberalism is not “only a form of government designed to permit a broad sphere of individual freedom.” In fact, liberalism is not a form of government at all. It is a system of beliefs taken to be axiomatic, from which a form of government can, supposedly, be deduced. In other words, it is a system of dogmas. About what? About the nature of human beings, reason, and the sources of the moral obligations that bind us.
Crossing the first red line is always harder than the second. Victoria Taft's article notes how the promotion of assisted suicide in Canada is moving its rationale from alleviating the suffering of the dying to providing human spare parts for the seriously ill...
The other assumption of Mao's dictum that "nothing is impossible" is not only "nothing is forbidden" but "there is no monster in the basement." We can foresee events, and we know we can manage unintended consequences. But as civilization advances deeper into the 21st century and the global world becomes ever more complex, the ability of great states to foresee events and control the future is ever more in doubt.
A little-known start-up helps law enforcement match photos of unknown people to their online images — and “might lead to a dystopian future or something,” a backer says.
While the company was dodging me, it was also monitoring me. At my request, a number of police officers had run my photo through the Clearview app. They soon received phone calls from company representatives asking if they were talking to the media — a sign that Clearview has the ability and, in this case, the appetite to monitor whom law enforcement is searching for.
This finding fits the overall pattern revealing that women who are more educated and professionally successful have an even stronger preference for successful male partners, relative to less successful women. The evolutionary psychologist David Buss, discussing his research on how professionally successful women select partners, found that “Successful women turned out to place an even greater value than less professionally successful women on mates who have professional degrees, high social status, and greater intelligence and who are tall, independent, and self-confident.” The more professionally successful a woman is, the stronger her preference for successful men.
