tumblr dot com
One Nice Bug Per Day
Jar Jar Binks Fan Club
h
taylor price
art blog(derogatory)
The Bright Sessions
EXPECTATIONS
Jimmy Eat World
KIROKAZE
@theartofmadeline
Love Begins
Not today Justin
đȘŒ
Discoholic đȘ©
hello vonnie
No title available
cherry valley forever
Claire Keane
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
seen from Vietnam
seen from Argentina
seen from Malaysia
seen from Japan
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Gibraltar
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from India
seen from Chile
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from Italy
seen from Germany
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from Japan
seen from France
seen from United States
@radicalideal
What the fuck is radiation. "Hey there's this invisible force with the magical power to move every single molecule in your body a little bit to the left. Consequently you shit blood and die."
This seemed much less reasonable when I misread "radiation" as "religion"
it is sort of crazy that electric car batteries are just big cubes of 18650's. It's like a child's idea of how you make a big battery. Stick a shitload of AA's together.
especially if the child has seen inside a 9V battery
I didn't think about this until I was an adult wondering what the fuck chemical reaction has a 9 eV electron transfer
this post just cant be on its own. it needs the accompanying pic âwhen youâre level 80â that is exactly the same image, but the stick has glowing runes on it and the crabs are purple
Ok, I had nothing better to do with my monday night
This gets better every time i see it.
has anyone got the version âwhen youâre level 1 but bought the cosmetic packageâ and heâs wearing a santa hat and hitting the crabs with a candy cane
So sick of the "protect the children" rhetoric literally kids are receptive to anything
For example:
Penny: But do daddies carry babies?
Me: Well, some daddies can decide to carry and have babies. You usually see mommies do that but some daddies can, and that's not really any of our business.
Penny: cause it's their body? And they get to decide?
Husband: yes! Like in our family mommy carried you and I went and got soft pretzels whenever mommy wanted
Penny: oh I love pretzels. And I've decided to be a which mermaid
That's it that was the whole discussion
It all comes down to children as property instead of people, doesnât it? Theyâre trying to protect their kids from being damaged not in the sense of âafraid and confusedâ, but in the sense of âmy property disagrees with me and might be less willing to submitâ.
tbh "religious liberty" always felt like a uniquely weak reason that you should be allowed to do something. "I know it seems bad, but have you considered that I'm doing it because it's important for no reason?"
idk like. even modern secular liberal societies display such a common penchant for using innocuous feature of religion as an excuse to harass and legally punish the other that an instinct to carve out protections for religious practices seems indisputably useful? otherwise you get situations like France's "muslim women can lose their jobs for wearing hats, even ones required to do said job," nominally coming from a place of secularism and no state religion and feminism and in fact just an excuse to harass muslim women.
so i think understanding "religious liberty" as providing a degree of presumptive (but not infinite) protection is a good instinct for society to have bc people are always trying to figure out new excuses to be dicks to members of social groups they don't like and religion is a major axis along which this dickish behavior occurs.
The other thing is, religious liberty frequently protects choices and behaviors over which people are willing to defy the state at great personal cost.
Insofar as we take "liberalism as armed truce between competing ideologies" seriously, it makes sense to be especially demilitarized on topics where people are especially willing to escalate.
I think the responses here are missing the point. Something like âreligious liberty â can be a good policy but a bad justification.
Why should people need a âgood justificationâ for wearing hats?!
No, really, why?!
Muslims should be allowed to wear the hijab, because anyone should be allowed to wear a hijab, because itâs a fucking hat, and the government has no business whatsoever legally mandating what amounts to a personal fashion choice!
Letâs seriously run with the way OP phrased this, ok? âI know my decision to wear a hat on my head seems badââ DOES IT?! Does it REALLY?!
In isolation, headscarfs are completely morally neutral! There is nothing at all about deciding to wear a scarf on your head that is uniquely and inherently repressive â as evidenced by the fact that countries which ban the hijab arenât banning women from wearing hats for non-religious reasons. The only argument that you can possibly make that putting a piece of cloth on your head is a harmful activity that the government should get to control is that when a person does so as a Muslim, that fact so completely changes the act of putting that cloth on their head that now thereâs suddenly, magically, a compelling government interest in banning it.
So no, religious liberty is not âa good policy but a bad justificationâ. Religious liberty is a good justification against objectively discriminatory policies. Thatâs what the concept is meant to protect against, and talking about it as though you can separate it out from that discriminatory context is disingenuous at its core.
Itâs true that there need to be limits to this. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose â religious liberty should not extend to things like murder, or child abuse, or plenty of other unjustifiable actions. And yes, itâs also true that there is some grey area there, too, because what qualifies as a real societal harm is not entirely clear cut.
But donât give me any of that mealy-mouthed âwhy is religious liberty even a concept~?â BS. You know why. We all know why. The excesses of those who exploit expansive religious liberty protection regimes no more define the nature of religious liberty as a concept than racefakers who steal scholarships define affirmative action.
When did I say anything about âwearing hatsâ?
tbh "religious liberty" always felt like a uniquely weak reason that you should be allowed to do something. "I know it seems bad, but have you considered that I'm doing it because it's important for no reason?"
idk like. even modern secular liberal societies display such a common penchant for using innocuous feature of religion as an excuse to harass and legally punish the other that an instinct to carve out protections for religious practices seems indisputably useful? otherwise you get situations like France's "muslim women can lose their jobs for wearing hats, even ones required to do said job," nominally coming from a place of secularism and no state religion and feminism and in fact just an excuse to harass muslim women.
so i think understanding "religious liberty" as providing a degree of presumptive (but not infinite) protection is a good instinct for society to have bc people are always trying to figure out new excuses to be dicks to members of social groups they don't like and religion is a major axis along which this dickish behavior occurs.
The other thing is, religious liberty frequently protects choices and behaviors over which people are willing to defy the state at great personal cost.
Insofar as we take "liberalism as armed truce between competing ideologies" seriously, it makes sense to be especially demilitarized on topics where people are especially willing to escalate.
I think the responses here are missing the point. Something like âreligious liberty â can be a good policy but a bad justification.
Frankly, I don't buy the theory that the repeated sweeping deletions of trans women's blogs have principally been the product of bad-faith mass reporting campaigns abusing automated moderation. I've been falsely mass-reported before, on multiple occasions, and nothing's ever come of it. Someone is pulling that trigger.
Belphie has decided that it's very, very fun to sit on my head and eat my hair
help me, I'm having an argument. would you call my eye colour blue?
Went to the grocery store with my kindergartener. We weighed some bananas: 2 pounds even. We weighed a watermelon: 4 pounds even. We weighed some mangos: a little over 1 pound. We weighed the watermelon AND the bananas: 6 pounds even.
âThatâs funnyâ said the child âbecause 2+4=6 and two pounds and four pounds is six pounds. Itâs like the same as math!â
âWhat happens if you add 6+1?â
âSEVENâ
âWhat if we put one pound of mangos on the scale?â <mangos added>
âITâS THE SAME!!â
âOK, whatâs 7-4?â
âThree?â
âWhat if we take the four pound watermelon off the scale?â <watermelon removed>
âMama! Are you telling me math works In Real Life? Think of all the things you could measure!!â
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Baby fucking SCARPERING the instant mama looks away, lmao.
I love The Good Place so much, it's a fantastic show, but I will never get over how one of the first things Michael says is "Every major religion guessed about five per cent right [about the afterlife]", citing Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus as examples, and then presents an afterlife concept so Christian that I've met multiple real-life Christians who believe that that's how it works.
#you know what that's a really good point#I guess you could argue he was lying?#but that'd make zero sense
I like to think that he just doesn't know shit about religion. He wanted to sound smart and didn't bother looking up the accuracy of his patter first.
I mean he also was lying at the time, he was literally presenting Elanor with a fake Good Place in a completely fake scenario. It's possible he lied about this too, or yeah just guessed without looking into it.
He was making a fake scenario but it would be ridiculous for him to describe his fake scenario as being five per cent of everything when it's so clearly at least 85% Christianity. Like there's no reason to say "he buddhists guessed about 5% right" about the scenario he's presenting unless he genuinely doesn't know shit about Buddhism. Which I think is the case; he just doesn't know much about human religion.
He also likes to stay as close to the truth as possible because lies are more reliable and easy to maintain that way; he was honest about Doug Forcett in the same explanation. I think he just incorrectly believed that the basics of all the religions he mentioned were pretty much the same.
we imagine to most even nominal white christians, it's so what they expect that they wouldn't even think of it as being "christian" - imagine landing up in that particular version of "heaven" (with its manicured lawns and frozen yoghurt shops) if you came from central asia or the amazon basin or literally any other culture other than west european/white north americas - and perhaps the writers had the same blind spot, or perhaps it was deliberate?
In the fiction that Michael was building, that neighbourhood was built to the preference of the 322 humans it was made to house, and other neighbourhoods would be tailored to their residents. (Though he did insist that they all had frozen yoghurt. "People love frozen yoghurt, I don't know what to tell ya.") Michael was aware that paradises would be specific to the cultures and individual preferences of their residents.
He simply seemed unaware that a system of cosmic justice where exhibiting enough virtue sends you to paradise for all eternity and committing enough sins sends you to hell for all eternity is very much not "all religions guessed about 5% right." Telling Eleanor that there was variation in what the specific heavens were like did not stop them from being modern popular Christianity with Jesus' name carefully whited out.
I mean. It's a fantasy series that starts with the protagonists waking up to learn that most of humanity has been captured by monsters and are now being treated very, very badly â but good news! You, and these few hundred strangers, are in the control group! No need to worry about anything!
And everyone just accepts that. At no point in the first season does anyone even glance at questions like, so what are the torture-aliens getting out of this? What, exactly, makes us so sure we can trust their promises? And wouldn't this entire situation have given me some serious moral heeby-jeebies back when I was alive?
Yeah every time I watch The Good Place I realise that the vast majority of people, if they were put in Michael's torture machine, would realise that something was extremely wrong before going to bed on the first night.
Not because the system is obviously unfair and terrible; that's completely fine. People deal with unfair and terrible systems all the time and there's no reason why going to an afterlife that sucks on a cosmic level means that the afterlife is fake -- maybe the universe just isn't fair. No, anyone who was a fraction less self-absorbed than the four humans would've figured it out by the party.
Because Michael does the little orientation video, where he explains the system. He explains that they, the very BEST people, who did the most good in the world, made it to heaven. And everybody else? "Don't worry about it." He says this to a guy who apparently died after donating his kidneys to a stranger on a bus. He says this to a guy who apparently spent half his life fighting for women's rights and the other half for gay rights in oppressive environments. He says this to a woman who apparently arranged, against the government, a volunteer organisation to personally go out there and clear out minefields around areas frequented by children. And then they all go to a big party...
and they don't give a shit.
At that point it should be blatantly obvious that the good place is fake. Because if you gather a bunch of people together based on the criteria that they selflessly gave their lives to help others, often "bad" people, and you tell them "oh, the vast majority of those people you helped will be tortured forever, don't worry about them, you get to relax in paradise, let's have a party", you would have a riot right there at the orientation. "Good" people, by the criteria Michael proposes, the kind of people who do the things that the actors are claiming they do, would simply not accept that; it goes against everything they are and everything they do. They would do exactly what they did for their whole lives, they would exhibit the priorities and personalities that got them into the good place in the first place.
I'd sit through the presentation thinking "okay, everyone's got their brave faces on, they don't want to attack an angel without preparation, this rebellion will require work, fine," and put on a fake smile, but when they gather at the party and there's not a hint of rebellion, of rage, of righteous fury against heaven? At that point, most people would know immediately that the people around them are lying. It just doesn't make sense for 322 people to change so radically in such a situation.
Fortunately for Michael, he did select four of the most self-absorbed people in the world for his experiment, and they don't pay enough attention to notice.
but this begs the question of what other people in the "real" Good Place were doing? Did they just spend eternity questioning the Judge and angels and Janets and not getting an answer? What makes Chidi & Tahani & Eleanor & Jason special enough that they caused reform in Heaven, despite not being (or at least not starting out as) the very best of humanity? Would the entire system have crumbled with any four selfish clowns getting a fake Good Place? Is the plot moved not by the four main characters but by Michael's failed ambition?
The people in the "real" good place were perpetually hopeless, listless and unhappy, drugged out of their minds on things like cosmic milkshakes that slowly eroded their focus. They probably did rebel a lot to begin with. By the time we see them, it's been centuries or millennia for everyone there. And they haven't been getting memory resets.
They probably were furious when they arrived. They probably fought and pleaded against their keepers for years. And their keepers had meetings where they talked about how unhappy the humans were and what they could add to make the afterlife more fun, like unicorns and giant mini donuts (not the same as regular donuts -- Dave will explain).
But the most iron-willed human in the world can only hold up for so many centuries against an impossibly powerful force that simply will not accept that systemic problems exist and that is continually plying them with happy drugs.
Now im the âlegal eagle kink meme girlâ :(
Btw keep reblogging my post with fun tags and keep using your tagging system as it was intended, idc what that fuckass update say, we gonna make tumblr roll that shit back
But let's be clear, this is clearly some corporate speak for "we gonna force that bullshit on you someway somehow anyways" we will have to be more vigilant about tumblr constantly fucking with the reblog feature, them adding a goddamn menu button for reblogs on desktop was only the start, it genuinely feels like these people don't use tumblr or their main social media is twitter because they are constantly trying to shit all over the best tumblr features to make it more like fucking twitter, the battle might have been won but the war continues
When I told you the battle has been won but the war continues this is what I meant, tumblr has rolled out once again this very exact same updated but this time it only affects the least protected users of this website aka the gifmakers, edits makers, artists and creators of all sorts, because not only is every reblog of a gifset it's own post, but now every reblog of a gifset can get flagged without OP even being aware of it
They get flagged on your blog AND in your queue, and sometimes you can't even tell what the fuck was even in the post so you can give a justification for asking an appeal
And if you aren't scrolling your own blog or queue constantly like a maniac, you won't even know the reblog is flagged cuz they get put in your Review Flagged Posts section of your app and website, somewhere NOBODY even checks, and has no number next to it to tell you how many posts are in there
I got reblogs flagged all the way to 2017 in there, and the only way to know is to SCROLL DOWN
And the cherry on that bullshit Sunday is that some of these reblogs can be flagged without you even being able to appeal them like I have a bunch of them which are simply impossible to appeal, even if yet again the post is completely innocent
Tumblr seemingly continues to find new and original ways to make this place absolutely worst for creators by taking any & all agency you got on your creation away, and they fucking hiding it behind their April fools green cat
Kind of basic question while the more in-depth post is still going on, just to make sure I'm not totally off base: The collection of all sets that don't contain themselves *does* form a proper class, right? In most well-founded set theories that collection should just be the proper class of all sets, but I assume that even without well-foundedness it still qualifies? And so does any other collection of the form {x : x is a set satisfying P}?
Most of that is correct. Whether B := {x : P(x)} is a set depends entirely on the set theory and what P is.
âą If P(x) is the formula âx is not an element of xâ, then B canât be a set in any consistent set theory per Russellâs Paradox (it would be an element of itself iff it was not an element of itself).
âą If P(x) is âx â xâ, B is the empty collection, which is a set in every set theory Iâve ever heard of.
âą If P(x) is âx = xâ then B is the universe, which is not a set in any well-founded set theory (it would be an element of itself) but is a set in for example NF.
If P(x) is âx is an element of xâ then B is a set in any well-founded set theory (being empty) but not in NF (otherwise its complement, the Russell collection, would be a set).
Etc.
Any set theory has to somehow specify a collection of formulas P which define sets, without running into a paradox. Of course, per Gödel, we can never prove (within that set theory) that it has succeeded for any mathematically interesting set theory. Whoops!
reblog this if your blog is a safe space on april fools and wonât have any jumpers, screamers, or anything scary or anxiety inducing
Can you play an instrument? (Any skill level)
Yes (which one? đ)
No
Nuance (up to interpretation)
Iâm just curious how many people at some point in their lives have played/learned to play an instrument of any kind.
I included a nuance button bc I know there might be some folks who might be like âwell I played the recorder in grade school but idk if that countsâ â count it if you want or hit nuance if youâre unsure! đ
To be clear, if you studied an instrument to any level of proficiency, even if youâre out of practice now, please select yes!
Reblog with your instrument, if you wish đđŒ Or just for more accurate results
Boosting again! Iâve been enjoying reading everyoneâs responses so far, it brings me joy to see music has reached so many lives!! đđ«¶đŒ
