#extradirty
ellievsbear
taylor price
roma★
One Nice Bug Per Day
gracie abrams
Love Begins
Show & Tell
No title available
bliss lane
No title available
NASA
Noah Kahan
@theartofmadeline
No title available
izzy's playlists!
Andulka
shark vs the universe
Keni
Jar Jar Binks Fan Club
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Ireland
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Malaysia
@sanctvs-obscvrvm
So I think I might be bi? But if I am it changes almost nothing about my life because I am happily and monogamously married. But if it doesn't really matter, why do I have so many feelings about it???? Anyways, I am asking you because it seems like there is a 50/50 chance of a delightful and pithy answer or a picture of a bird as an answer.
ALTERNATE CONCLUSION
oh wow, thanks homer!! i wondered when his next book was going to come out
You know what the most frustrating thing about the vegans throwing a fit over my “Humans aren’t Parasites” post is? I really wasn’t trying to make a point about animal agriculture. Honestly, the example about subsistence hunting isn’t the main point. That post was actually inspired by thoughts I’ve been having about the National Park system and environmentalist groups.
See, I LOVE the National Parks. I always have a pass. I got to multiple parks a year. I LOVE them, and always viewed them as this unambiguously GOOD thing. Like, the best thing America has done.
BUT, I just finished reading this book called “I am the Grand Canyon” all about the native Havasupai people and their fight to gain back their rights to the lands above the canyon rim. Historically, they spent the summer months farming in the canyon, and then the winter months hunter-gathering up above the rim. When their reservation was made though, they lost basically all rights to the rim land (They had limited grazing rights to some of it, but it was renewed year to year and always threatened, and it was a whole thing), leading to a century long fight to get it back.
And in that book there are a couple of really poignant anecdotes- one man talks about how park rangers would come harass them if they tried to collect pinon nuts too close to park land- worried that they would take too many pinon nuts that the squirrels wanted. Despite the fact that the Havasupai had harvested pinon nuts for thousands and thousands of years without ever…like…starving the squirrels.
There’s another anecdote of them seeing the park rangers hauling away the bodies of dozens of deer- killed in the park because of overpopulation- while the Havasupai had been banned from hunting. (Making them more and more reliant on government aid just to survive the winter months.)
They talk about how they would traditionally carve out these natural cisterns above the rim to catch rainwater, and how all the animals benefitted from this, but it was difficult to maintain those cisterns when their “ownership” of the land was so disputed.
So here you have examples of when people are forcibly separated from their ecosystem and how it hurts both those people and the ecosystem.
And then when the Havasupai finally got legislation before Congress to give them ownership of the rim land back- their biggest opponent was the Parks system and the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club (a big conservation group here in the US) ran a huge smear campaign against these people on the belief that any humans owning this land other than the park system (which aims at conservation, even while developing for recreation) was unacceptable.
And it all got me thinking about how, as much as I love the National Parks, there are times when its insistence that nature be left “untouched” (except, ya know, for recreation) can actually harm both the native people who have traditionally been part of those ecosystems AND potentially the ecosystems themselves. And I just think there’s a lot of nuance there about recognizing that there are ways for us to be in balance with nature, and that our environmentalism should respect that and push for sustainability over preserving “pristine” human-less landscapes. Removing ourselves from nature isn’t the answer.
But apparently the idea that subsistence hunting might actually not be a moral catastrophe really set the vegans off. Woopie.
#love seeing discussions about this#because everyone wants to see western conservation as infallible#without realizing that it’s still built on white supremacist and colonialist beliefs
- @finding-my-culture
performing an exorcism but i recite the lorem ipsum dolor sit amet placeholder text
Reciting semi-accurate Cicero is NOT A BAD CHANT ACTUALLY. "Lorem ipsum" is cut down from the words "dolorem ipsum," which translates to "THE PAIN." The whole sentence that's from:
"Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure."
It's about the same meaning as singing Linkin' Park lyrics.
true or false, everyone should be making their best effort 100% of the time, it’s lazy to do otherwise.
excellent! now true or false: leisure time is only valuable if you spend it productively. if you are not creating something or enriching yourself, you are just wasting time.
terrific work!
so logically, you can stop feeling guilty about “wasting” time on “useless” things, because it’s neither wasteful nor useless if you enjoy it.
glad ya’ll are enjoying this post
Please do your research! There is so much misinformation out there and a lot of lies.
Everyone should know the truth so please try to know as much as you can so you can spread awareness and help!
Free Palestine🇵🇸✌️
we don’t even see the irony
A bird explaining to a hedgehog crossing so it doesn’t die.
!!! ok but that’s legitimately what it’s doing!! That’s a corvid right there (looks like a hooded crow, to be precise), which means it’s intelligent enough to recognize, a) cars are dangerous and streets should be treated with a certain degree of caution, b) this car’s slowing down for them–cars do that sometimes–which means they’re not in imminent danger, so it doesn’t have to fly away just yet, c) that hedgehog’s still gonna get killed if it doesn’t MOVE, FAST (cars can change speed very quickly and the hedgehog’s still in the way), and almost certainly also d) if the bird does nothing it gets a free lunch.
Y’all, Y’ALL. This bird is consciously deciding to put itself in danger in order to save the life of a very stupid creature. A creature which, if the bird did nothing, could be free food.
i can’t - look if you follow me you know I have a thing for corvids, but this is - like!!! People are always saying “ah yes they have sub-human intelligence and don’t consider anything that isn’t immediately necessary for their own survival/pleasure,” but! Whether or not it can do philosophy, this crow is clearly demonstrating compassion. Even if it’s just the kind of compassion a toddler shows to a snail, a social creature that instinctively recognizes the potential for emotion in other beings, that’s still huge and cool and important and corvids!!! are! neat!!!
Also, by the car stopping for them, that hedgehog has two other species actively working to help it stay alive for no gain of their own.
Reminds me of that professor who said the beginning of civilization was when someone took care of another. The broken thigh bone thing.
“Helping someone else through difficulty is where civilization starts. We are at our best when we serve others.” - Margaret Mead
Always a reblog ❤️⭐️
The War Chest Review, Australia, February 1919
New hot trend from 1919: Loudly ogling anti-maskers and their bare faces like “Wow where did you find such an ugly face mask???”
#i hope that lady knew she was the funniest person in australia in 1919 (via @amazonqueendianaprince)
A fun way to get yourself to do chores when you have adhd is to simulate a sense of panic by setting horrible deadlines that fit into other things that you’re doing.
For example, you set up a kettle of water to boil for your tea. Quick! Wipe down the whole counter before it’s done boiling, for the love of god you’re running out of time! Wipe it down! The water is almost boiling.
The water is boiling and your counter is clean. Now set your timer for your tea for three minutes and of my god there’s cups in your room! Quick! Get all the cups from everywhere in the house! Run! You’ve only got three minutes! Get all the dishes into the kitchen!
Oh would you look at that. You got all the dishes in the sink and now your tea is ready. Nice. Now you can chill with your tea.
I’ve found that little stuff like that helps me. Forcing myself into unexpected last minute deadlines. It fills up empty space and my house is a little bit cleaner.
I HATE that I know this works- legit heating something up in the microwave? Rushing to put everything away before it goes off because there is something satisfying about beating it and you feel accomplished.
So I tried this, and I'm genuinely shocked that it worked???
Like, I'm overjoyed that I found a way to do chores without minutes of trying to force myself, but it actually worked??? What kind of sorcery is this???
This will probably work. And I will hate every second of my life while it works.
If you were wondering what use negative emotions have, it’s this sort of thing.
My family and I recently had to clean the entire house and declutter a ton before an inspection from our apartment management (they do inspections a lot because people have forbidden pets, smoke indoors, destroy shit, or leave trash behind when they move out without telling anyone, or create fire hazards...)
We were able to harness the power of panic and undo all the hoarding and clutter that had built up over quarantine and past illnesses or pain days where I was bed-bound for months. The apartment lady said that our place was the best one out of all that she had inspected, and she wanted us to know we did an amazing job.
I don’t know if this kind of deadline happens for anyone else, but it lit a fire under my ass for sure.
I saw another one of those posts going around about how hiring cleaners is immoral and I just want to scream into the tumblrs for a second.
I have employed a cleaner ever since I got post natal PTSD. They used to come once a fortnight, but after my second child was born they came once a week. They’ve been with us for more than ten years now. They come every week and do one hour of basic cleaning - they vacuum, dust, clean the bathroom and mop the floors. That’s it. It’s one hour and it does SO MUCH for me because it means I tidy up for them. I make the house CLEANABLE which my depressed and adhd ass would not do unless I knew someone else was coming in to do something for me.
Also I pay them. Well. I pay them more per hour than I got as a teacher when I first started work. A LOT MORE. I recognise that they have travel and material expenses, and I put their pay up every year to accommodate for inflation.
They’re amazing people, I consider them friends, we chat a fair bit when they come to do their jobs if I happen to be at home, we exchange presents on significant holidays.
They keep me SANE.
If you treat workers well, NO WORK IS IMMORAL. My cleaners get paid well above minimum wage, obviously enjoy their work and are fulfilling a need. Is it a luxury need? Yeah. But guess what? I have disposable income and this is a luxury I choose to spend it on. Because I fucking hate cleaning, and I wouldn’t do it properly or consistently even if I didn’t.
So fuck off telling me what I can and cannot spend the money that I’ve earned on. I’m not Jeff Bezos, and if I was I would treat my employees as well as I treat my cleaners.
I’m going to keep screaming about this until people understand that all labour is valuable and skilled labour, and that nobody’s job is inherently bad so long as they are treated with respect and paid a fair wage.
That’s why we don’t demean sex work, either. Because work is work, and labourers are labourers, and shaming people’s jobs does nothing to help them to get the salaries and respect they deserve.
Stop discouraging people to fire their cleaners and start encouraging them to pay their cleaners handsomely with benefits. JFC.
#honestly starting to suspect that the anti-cleaner discourse is coming from SWERFs#because if they can make one group’s employment shameful they can do it to another#and we know how these *ERF types operate (via @burnitalldowndarling)
YEP! This is exactly what I’ve been suspecting, too. Same concern trolling bullshit in a shiny, new wrapper. If a SWERF can get their foot in the door by pushing everyone to agree that it’s inherently exploitative to hire a cleaner, it makes disseminating all their anti-sex work talking points infinitely easier in the long run.
I do not really trust the motives of anybody negating the argument that work is work.
What’s this? A post on this topic where people are not horribly wrong in some direction?
Last big post I saw about this was half people arguing that anyone who hires a cleaner or other domestic helper was a white woman who was personally responsible for the exploitation of poor immigrant WoC, and the other half was people saying their family had cleaners when they were kids and their cleaner loved them and loved cleaning and was grateful to have a job. It was interesting to see what common assumptions were being made, like that all white women are wealthy and all women of colour are poor, that it was always directed at women for hiring other women to do traditionally female work, that there was little consideration of disabled people (or if there was, that it was ok if it was a disabled person but not for anyone else, as if that was what made it exploitation or not)…quite a lot of saviourism on both ends of it. I’ve noticed it’s very common for leftist white people to take a fact like “PoC and immigrants have higher burdens of poverty” and turn it into “all PoC are poor and it’s up to us to save them by scolding everyone else,” which circles back into some very weird assumptions about class with paternalistic overtones.
The type of work isn’t what makes something exploitative. Whether you’re cleaning a toilet at your own house, cleaning a toilet as a housekeeper at someone else’s house or hotel, or cleaning a toilet at your job at KFC, the work is the same. What makes something exploitative is when you are not paying someone enough for their time and/or making them work in unsafe conditions. If you’re going to go full Marx and say that any labour you do for someone else is inherently exploitative, I guess you can, but then you can’t single out domestic service industries or sex work for that ire. But this topic tends to draw people who are one of two extremes, where they either assume a worker must in a certain industry must always be treated poorly/taken advantage of or they deny that exploitation could exist around them and that maybe that cleaner your parents paid under the table didn’t ACTUALLY love cleaning or you but had to take whatever jobs they could because they needed the money. It’s definitely a case of “more than one thing can be true at once” and people seem to like to miss that. I definitely believe there are a LOT of people who just can’t see the nuance in anything, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these were SWERF trolls trying to lay a foundation for their bullshit, you’re right.
This tea is boiling.
Trump: I will build a wall, a big beautiful wall and it will keep the bad guys out and secure our borders. And Mexico will pay for it, you’ll see, it’ll be beautiful
The wall, after 4 whole years: *isn’t built*
Republicans: umm trump did build the wall
Democrats: so then there’s no crisis?
Republicans: oh no there’s absolutely a crisis at the border. All because of Joe’s policies
Democrat: but trump built the wall, the borders are secure. Wasn’t that his master plan? Build the wall, keep ‘em out.
Republicans: yeah except Donald trump couldn’t finish the wall, which is why Joe needs to keep building it
Democrats: so Donald Trump did not build the wall
Republicans: no he built the wall
Democrats: the why is there a crisis at the border?
Republicans: because illegals are streaming in over America’s open borders
Found this far funnier than I should have
someone please tell me if this is actually in accordance with how you spell irish stuff
I appreciate your curiosity!! This is exactly how we’d Gaelicise English names.
The J in Jason becoming an S is based on the model of Seán being the Irish version of John, and of Séamus being the Irish version of James. Séason would be pronounced Shay-son.
T is pronounced very softly in Irish, and when it’s followed by an E, it becomes a CH sound. The EA diphtong in Tead is pronounced as ‘ah’. So Tead would be pronounced as Chad, exactly the same.
As above, the EA is pronounced ‘ah’ and the combination GH is silent in Irish, so Hearraigh would be pronounced as Harry is in English, despite the initially alarming length.
Darach is already an Irish name, meaning ‘like an oak,’ and it’s usually Anglicised as Dara or Darragh (pronounced identically to each other), so suggesting Dairech = Derek is just extra funny.
I don’t think I’ll actually be able to scrub Ailfiagh out of my mind. It sounds too Irish, to the point that it’s replaced Alfie as the default spelling for me.
In short, We Need to Talk about Caoimhín (Kwee-veen) is a genius.
The Virgin latinize vs the tead gealicise
@whosayscrimedoesntpay
Daibhí.
Friendly reminder that LGBTQ+, Queer, and LGBT+ are the preferred terms for the community (x).
Friendly reminder that Queer is approved by 72.9% of the people, and the groups who don’t prefer it’s use as an umbrella term are straight people, exclusionists, transmeds, truscums, sex-negative people, and sex work critical people (x).
Friendly reminder that aros and aces are excluded only 9.2% / 8.1% of the time respectively while being included 78.9% / 81.2% of the time (x)
Friendly reminder that exclusionists are in the minority and aro/ace people are included in the LGBTQ+ community by the people within the community.
Also, i checked out the survey the second claim sources a while back: this is not OP choosing the words truscum, exclusionist, etc. These are labels that the survey gave people the option to self-identify as. It’s self-proclaimed exclusionists who dont like the word queer, not random accusations
yeah that’s super important.
This one gets reblogged on main. The reclassification of ‘queer’ as an inexcusable slur is a recent development which stems in part from exclusionist rhetoric. We reclaimed it decades ago. Learn our history. You are not immune to TERF propaganda, but you can absolutely choose to educate yourself to spite it.
Be kind. 💜
Okay. This seems pretty insane if you don’t know what the existing state of terminally ill patients’ options is. So let’s go over that.
Terminally ill patients can sign up to be part of pre FDA approval trials for treatments which might potentially cure them. As these treatments are experimental, untested, not guaranteed to get results, and intended to provide profit to the medical provider in the long run, patients cannot be charged for these experimental treatments. As it should be. It’d be pretty unethical to get people to pay you to be your guinea pig for treatments which may not even help them.
This “right to try” law changes that. It makes it legal for terminally ill patients to be charged for experimental treatments. Furthermore, it removes FDA testing restrictions from the process. Currently a company which tries an ‘experimental’ treatment they know won’t work will get the hammer dropped on them by the FDA. But under this new process, medical providers would be legally allowed to provide ‘treatments’ they know won’t work, without oversight. This would legalize medical predation on terminally ill patients.
Labeling this bill ‘right to try’ makes it seem like terminally ill patients aren’t allowed to seek out experimental treatments right now. But they are! All this bill does is make a terminally ill patients more financially burdened and more vulnerable to predation.
That’s why the Democrats blocked it.
Thank you for explaining it
Reblogging for EXPLANATION
Yeah… let’s NOT let companies make terminally ill patients pay for “experimental treatments” they already know don’t work…
“The great candor in ruling Praes is that if you make a mistake, assassination attempts will follow. Unfortunately, if you do not make a mistake, assassination attempts will also follow, which admittedly makes it difficult to tell if a mistake was in fact made.”
— Dread Emperor Pernicious, the Imperiled (A Practical Guide to Evil)
