ForFutureReference

Millenial musings, stories, sketches, and bouts of photography. Check Please! primarily. Occasionally Red Rising, Hunger Games, and Disney umbrella. Messages welcome.

[kurganfilledwithbearbones]

i would like to remind everyone smugly using "usamerican" that you are not being woke or reclaiming anything you just don't understand how adjectives or languages work

[kurganfilledwithbearbones]

american - national of the united states of america

north american - individual living in or a national of a country located on the continent of north america

south american - individual living in or a national of a country located on the continent of south america

canadian - definitionally, especially lately, person who does not fucking want to be called an american, because "american" in both canadian and american english has the semantic weight of "national of the united states of america"

and this is not, in fact, limited to english

amerískur - icelandic adjective for american (loanword, more on the slang side, bandarískur more often used)

ameríkani - icelandic noun describing a national of the united states of america

américain - french adjective or noun describing a national of the united states of america

you cannot brute force a sea change in multiple languages simply because you personally misunderstand the difference between etymology and semantics and also assume (in, hilariously, a very american-centric way) that the billion-plus individuals must have a closer connection to the concept of continent than they do to nationality or other regional identities. a catfish is not literally a cat. it is a completely random trick of language evolution that nationals of the united states of america are not called unitans or vespuccians. calm down and stop being irritating

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

The day that "Death to America" also applies to Mexicans, Peruvians, Cubans, etc is the day that I'll accept the weird online statement that "America is all of the Western Hemisphere* and only USians think 'American' applies to them".

*That is not to say the One America model is not an accepted continent interpretation (it's no less valid than the interpretion Europe and Asia are several continents). But to claim it's the only valid interpretation is absolutely bonkers.

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

Caloenas & Cinnyris

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

Sebastian when Lily almost blurts out "Winter Lamb":

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

"I know it's a little scary to say 'dead', but I don't know how else to say 'not alive'."

If a family film can be upfront about death terminology, instead of using workaround words like "unalive", so can social media users.

[json-derulo]

I'm not gonna articulate this well, but there's this phenomenon I keep seeing on the left that I'll call "bean soup rhetoric," wherein someone fails to understand that they are not the target audience for a particular message, or just can't conceptualize why a speaker would craft their message differently to resonate with a target audience that doesn't already completely agree with them.

"The 'God Made Trans People' billboard is stupid! God didn't make me! I'm an atheist!" Okay. The billboard sits along a major highway in Kansas. We can deduce that the target audience is not you—it's the centrist evangelical Christians driving along that road who could probably be persuaded to become allies as long as we choose our words carefully and don't make them feel attacked for not already knowing everything about trans rights issues. Another one I see a lot is, "We shouldn't be talking about how right-wing legislation catches [privileged in-group] in the crossfire when [marginalized out-group] suffers far more!" I know. I agree with you. Which is why you and I are not the intended audience of this argument!

The entire point of rhetoric is to win over someone who doesn't already fully agree with you. In this case, let's say that someone is Jennifer, the moderate center-right mom in your neighborhood who doesn't really know or care about transgender issues but would be absolutely horrified by the idea of her teenage daughter having to submit to an invasive inspection of her body just to be allowed to play soccer. Tell her, "Banning trans students from sports will inevitably subject all student athletes to invasive gender-policing," or "Legal restrictions on gender-affirming care will make it harder for you to access the hormone replacement therapy you take to treat menopause symptoms," and she is more likely to question her existing beliefs and listen to the rest of what you have to say than if you lead with leftist talking points that she already has a calcified opinion about or which she thinks do not personally affect her.

Tailoring the argument to the things she already cares about does not mean we're forgetting that she has more privilege than most—entirely the opposite, in fact. A privileged ally can be extremely valuable. Jennifer votes in every election. And so do all the other ladies at her book club, and church, and in the PTA, and those folks listen to Jennifer. There's a reason both parties were courting suburban women so hard in the last election cycle! If we can find common ground with her on this, if we can get her calling her representatives and talking to her friends and phone-banking and door-knocking and making a stink, that's how the needle starts to move. If I can convince her to take her support away from the candidates who are actively restricting my rights and throw it toward those who want to restore and expand those rights...then I'm sorry, but Jennifer is a more valuable ally to me than the people who agree that the legal boundaries of gender ought to be abolished altogether but refuse to actually do anything except complain online about how both sides are equally bad because the right is trying to force everyone to drink the cyanide kool-aid while the left keeps serving bean soup and they don't like bean soup

[vaspider]

"Meet people where they are" is Activism 101, and people seem to be allergic to seeing that this is exactly that.

"Bean Soup Rhetoric" is a very good concept.

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

A big one is the fact that the immigration crackdown and shutting our doors are having an adverse effect on the economy and agriculture. Not to mention your favorite local restaurant will close and raise its prices.

The purist would tell you that utilitarian argument is bad because it commodifies immigrants, and we should be arguing on ethical grounds.

Except... the argument that "immigration should be supported because it's the right thing to do" is preaching to the choir.

The people you're needing to convince are those who think immigrants are a burden. Of course, you're not gonna convince everyone, but the goal is to shift those margins.

The labor fight doesn't even have to come after, but it's still a separate messaging that its own thing.

[mariacallous]

[shofarsogood]

Also, Nuterei Karta (the assholes with the "authentic rabbis" sign) are there.

Those guys aren't your friends. They believe the modern state of Israel is stopping the Messiah from returning. But when the Messiah returns, all gentiles will be slaves. They don't see Palestinians as people, just a means to an end. They're not here to support people's dignity, but because they want the Messiah to come.

They also don't see women as people, which is why you NEVER see women with them. Ever. They won't teach women to read or have any education so they can't leave the cult.

They're also Holocaust deniers.

Fuck Nuterei Karta.

[knight-of-skyloft]

Oh my God I didn't even notice the NK sign. "Authentic rabbis" you are in CHEREM

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

So in essence Nuterei Karta are counterparts to "Christian Zionists"?

Evangelicals: support Israel to bring about Christ's return... afterwhich the Jews who don't convert get chucked in the Lake.

NT: oppose Israel to bring about the Messiah... afterwhich the gentiles and women get enslaved.

Lovely.

[darcylightninglewis]

The MET Gala is a fundraiser for The Met. Putting on the fashion exhibition is VERY costly. Has the politics, inflation, and bullshit gotten out of hand? Yeah. To give you an idea of how much this can cost, the collection I work for has 2 gowns from 1798 & 1809 currently being conserved and had mounts made for them so displaying them wouldn’t cause further damage. They were already in a solid B shape and cost more than 50k to conserve so the public can view them for 5 months each. They will then be reboxed (archival tissue and box) for a minimum of 10 years before they’re considered to be seen again. Oh, and archival material only lasts 10 years before it has to be replaced, whether or not it’s being considered for display.

Don’t like the gala? Support local museums with a textile or fashion collection, they get fractions of the revenue or publicity, and still aim to achieve a solid fraction of what the MET does. More collections are deaccessioning their textiles because they’re costly to maintain, large and need space. However, after big names artists like Van Gogh, Botticelli or da Vinci they get the most interest in from the public. The study of clothing is an opportunity to shine light on women & minority stories as well. Don’t let the fact that some of the guests suck and have more money than any of them need take away the importance of museums and dress study.

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

One of the easiest ways to support a museum is with a membership.

A basic membership already helps to financially contribute and, in the case of many US art museums, helps to keep general admission free. And a couple trips to a ticketed exhibition is usually enough to more than make up the difference.

That's not getting into the memberships that offer reciprocality.

[spanishsongs]

"What is happening now in left and progressive spaces quietly reverses that progress. It teaches people, often without realizing it, that some identities can be treated as morally contingent. It reshapes how people think about other groups. It lowers the threshold for dehumanization. It makes it easier, over time, to more broadly justify dismissing suffering, othering, acts of discrimination anywhere it becomes politically inconvenient.

That is exactly how prejudice evolves itself into something systemic. By changing the rules of who is allowed to be seen clearly. And this is where it becomes personal.

Most people reading this do not think of themselves as antisemitic. They would never use a slur. They would never straight out and openly deny someone’s humanity. But that is not how this shows up anymore. It shows up in smaller decisions we make as progressive and left leaders these days. In what we excuse. In what we scroll past. In which deaths feel complicated instead of tragic and unacceptable. In whether we instinctively see a person or a position when we hear the word “Zionist” or “anti-Zionist.”

You can oppose Israeli policy. You can reject Zionism. You can defend it. None of those positions require you to sort Jews, Israelis, Palestinians, Arabs or Muslims into categories that determine whether they deserve empathy. If your framework depends on deciding which Jews are acceptable and which are not, or which civilians matter and which do not, then the issue is not that your politics are controversial. It is that your reasoning has already crossed a line that civil rights traditions were meant to prevent. The civil rights standard was never agreement. It was consistency. No collective guilt. No dehumanization. No conditional empathy.

We already know how to apply these principles. We are watching what happens when we fail to. The only question is whether we are willing to apply them when it challenges our own assumptions. Because if we cannot, then all we have really done is learn how to recognize injustice selectively.

And selective justice is not justice for all."

The Return of the “Good Jew” and the “Bad Jew”

How We Learned to Sort Jews Into “Acceptable” and “Unacceptable” Again and Why No One Wants to Admit It

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

Full reminder that allyship and activism can be critical... but it should never be conditional.

[omgcheckplease]

cr: evolverozanov

Backstage before the hockey romance panel at BookCon 2026, and Rachel tells me she loves Check, Please! and is Kickstarter backer.

HUH????

[omgcheckplease]

You can now watch the entirety of the hilarious and insightful Hockey Romance Panel over on YouTube:

[prokopetz]

The real reason your sapient dragon character needs a "rider":

Dragons on the wing are vulnerable to being mobbed by smaller, more agile flyers, particularly in your large rear blind spot, like a bird of prey being mobbed by crows. Having a human armed with a long spear perched on your back helps to dissuade anyone from getting any funny ideas.

Breath weapons are impressive enough on the ground, but in flight they're really only good for strafing stationary targets; trying to use your breath weapon in an aerial dogfight is a good way to get fire up your nose. A real fight calls for sterner measures – and, concomitantly, a crew to aim and reload the cannons.

In today's competitive world, it's not enough to devour a flock of sheep and call it a day if you want to keep your edge. You're accompanied at all times by a qualified personal alchemist tasked with carefully regulating your internal furnace to ensure peak performance, and sometimes you even listen to them.

No dragon of any quality would be caught dead without their valet. It's not as though you can announce your numerous long-winded titles yourself when introductions are called for, can you? You suppose next you'll be expected to pick up the spoils of your conquests yourself, like a common brigand. Perish the thought!

[mikkeneko]

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

Warning to dragons that having a rider is a long term sapient commitment. Don't just get one for the fad of having a talking guard pet that can be accessorized and paraded around on your back. Besides, the happier they are, the better they look.

[mariacallous]

[sprinkledsalt]

I’d like to remind folks that part of Spanberger’s success is due to the Democratic majorities in Virginia’s state legislature, too. They couldn't pass any bills when the previous governor would just veto them because he was a Republican piece of shit (excuse the redundancy). This is what Democrats can do when voters give them power at both the executive and legislative level! You need to vote for your state representatives and state senators, too!

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

Are we gonna forget the most hilariously awesome thing she and the legislature did?

For why this really matters: Richmond, Virginia was the capital of the Confederacy. It's also the cradle of the Lost Cause, with groups such as the Daughters of the Confederacy originating there and Monument Avenue largely dedicated to Confederate like Robert E Lee.

Within the past decade however, Virginia's been at the forefront of dismantling that legacy; literally in the case of taking down the statues. And now, Spanberger's telling the Lost Cause, "We may have brought you into the world, but I'm gonna do my damndest to take you out of it." while being an encapsulation of this meme:

[omgcheckplease]

Backstage before the hockey romance panel at BookCon 2026, and Rachel tells me she loves Check, Please! and is Kickstarter backer.

HUH????

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

The hilarious thing about the nuking of Antarctica becoming a meme is that it probably, to a lot of non-book readers, sounds like Stratt personally launched a bunch of ICBMs to wipe that continent off the map while declaring, "Fuck them penguins."

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

Hottake: as silly as Weir's assertion was that his works don't have any political or social commentary, I'd rather someone clown themselves in thinking they are apolitical but cram their work with important messages... as opposed to someone making a huge show of activistic language but ultimately providing a toothless message and superficial representation.

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

The Pitt's Day Shift:

The Pitt's Night Shift

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

Anyone else briefly get a bit on edge when Al-Hashimi began driving, and we see a couple people standing at the end of the parking lot?

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

On a scale of Michael Crichton to Andy Weir, how much faith do you have in humanity and its ability to pull together aa a whole?