Claire Keane
we're not kids anymore.
ojovivo
Jules of Nature
No title available
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
taylor price
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
Origami Around
hello vonnie
Misplaced Lens Cap
sheepfilms
roma★
★
h
One Nice Bug Per Day
Kaledo Art
oozey mess
pixel skylines
ellievsbear
seen from Colombia
seen from United States
seen from Poland
seen from Pakistan
seen from Pakistan
seen from Germany
seen from Germany
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from Austria
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Argentina
seen from Poland
seen from Malaysia
@witchboywitchboywitchboy
Felt like sharing some of my world building for the campaign setting I'm designing for d&d. Check it out if you're interested! Always looking for feedback and gauging interest. It's written as an in-world document and I used the homebrewery for formatting.
Reblogging from my fandom/creative sideblog
Cosmopolitan, July 1972.
How do you pronounce “orange”?
Hard “O” (like in “toy”)
Soft “o” (like in “soft”)
Secret third option (???)
Depends if it’s the fruit or color
I don’t speak English
In linguistics we would refer to this as degrees of openness. Hard and soft don't really work for vowels.
For example oat, oath, hope, rope are all more closed /o/ vowels as compared to obvious, ought, cloth, not
In addition to removing fact checkers, Meta also added some new language to their Hateful Conduct policy:
yes this is real. as a reminder, Meta runs Instagram, Facebook, Messenger, and Threads. not that Meta has ever been an ally, but blatantly writing this in your website’s conduct policy is certainly a choice
for those in the notes hoping this was a typo:
Meta rolled out a number of changes to its “Hateful Conduct” policy Tuesday as part of a sweeping overhaul of its approach toward content mo
they also made the following changes:
The CNN headline adds some more
Users are now allowed to, for example, refer to “women as household objects or property” or “transgender or non-binary people as ‘it,’” according to a section of the policy prohibiting such speech that was crossed out. A new section of the policy notes Meta will allow “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality.”
She/her also personally fought against transwomen in prison seeking gender affirmation surgery...
Here’s an article that gives more details on the story, and what Harris said about it. The key points:
It was the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation that refused the surgery to the inmates. When the inmates fought the policy in court, as Attorney General of California, it was Harris’s job to represent the Department. Yes, she did it, but it wasn’t something she decided on her own to do. (Also, not for nothing, the inmates won the case.)
Her characterization of the episode: “On that issue I will tell you I vehemently disagree and in fact worked behind the scenes to ensure that the Department of Corrections would allow transitioning inmates to receive the medical attention that they required, they needed and deserved,” Harris said.
A policy now exists for inmates to receive transition-related care in California prisons (although apparently the DoC isn’t doing a great job of holding up its end of the bargain*--quelle surprise).
(*For the record, Harris finished her time as AG and became a Senator shortly after this agreement was reached, so it’s someone else’s job now to enforce it.)
The thing to keep in mind here is that, as Attorney General, Kamala Harris couldn’t wave her hand and have everything in the entire California Department of Justice go exactly as she wanted it--and she won’t be able to as Vice President, either. We currently have a president who thinks that’s how it works, and we’re damned lucky he’s wrong.
She had (and will have to) work with large number of people who hold different views. (Another article I read said that the California Department of Justice, which she ran as AG, employs about 4,800 people--that’s a lot of different views.) If she had refused to back the Department of Corrections in their case, she would have alienated people whose cooperation she needed to be able to rely on. (If she even had the option of not backing them and staying AG--I’m not sure how it works, exactly.) Even people who agreed with her about the specific matter might have disapproved of her hanging her subordinates out to dry. (Another thing our current president does constantly--notice how Harris isn’t saying that the person in her office who actually wrote these briefs is a bad guy that she barely knew.)
So here’s what actually happened when Kamala Harris “fought against transwomen in prison seeking gender affirmation surgery”:
The Department of Corrections had a policy denying gender-affirmation surgery to inmates.
Two inmates fought that policy in court.
Harris defended that policy in court (or, more accurately, was the supervisor of the person who did so--but the legal documents went out under her signature, and she takes responsibility for their content).
Harris also worked to change the policy.
If you’ve had a job, you’ve probably been in the position of having to carry out a policy that you don’t agree with. Your choices are to quit your job in protest or stay and argue that the policy should change. If you pick option B, you still have to follow the policy while you’re working to change it--again, just about the only person in the world who doesn’t know this is Donald J. Trump, because he’s never had a real job where he answered to anybody.
What this incident shows is that Kamala Harris is accustomed to working in a system where she doesn’t always get her own way, and that she knows how to lose the battle to win the war. As VP, she’s going to need those skills--especially if the Republicans keep the Senate, but even if the Democrats sweep everything in November, we’re notoriously bad at all pulling in the same direction. We’ve had about enough of the “I’m taking my ball and going home” style of leadership.
Bringing back this from 2020, because I’ve been seeing the rhetoric machine spinning up again.
The law, especially in a democracy, is a slow and frustrating thing. Lawyers are sometimes put in positions where they are presenting arguments for something they may disagree with.
The reason why a lawyer would agree to do this often comes down to the political theory that we must rigorously and honestly test ideas, and that requires cogent emphatic arguments from both sides.
It’s easy to say in this case that the correct result should be obvious, But we can’t just design a system that says “oh but you can skip the full legal process for stuff that is clearly right/wrong”
BECAUSE THEN THE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU TAKE THAT IDEA AND USE IT TO PUT YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS IN JAIL OR EXECUTE YOU.
So yes, we apply this really onerous process to things that seem really obvious because we must apply the same standard to everything.
When you don’t you get shit like the current Supreme Court.
Don't make me tap the sign that says "when presented with unqualified information on the Internet, stop to think who benefits from you believing this." Do your own research, there's nothing wrong with healthy skepticism
astonishing how good it can feel to get some chores done sometimes. you’ll be sitting there like damn i am some type of horrid little smeagol like creature who should be crushed to death. but then you do some laundry and you’re like wrow. im actually gods most fuckable soldier.
time is moving so fast and being alive on this earth is so scary and im not even in love. whatever. *watches another movie*
remember to pay attention to me btw. remember to pay attention and to be in love with me. btw. right now
Hey folks, if you want to fight back against the twitterfication of tumblr USE IT LIKE IT'S TUMBLR!!!!!! REBLOG THINGS!!!!!! USE THE TAGS TO SCREAM AT YOUR FRIENDS!!!!!!!
Woke up to this having more reblogs than likes! Keep it going! Do it on every post! REBLOG THINGS ON THE REBLOGGING THINGS SITE!
There’s some common threads I see in the anti-voting posts going around, and I feel like I need to discuss some of them. Let’s start with the biggest one:
Voting to punish evil. I see lots of variations of this. Biden is supporting Israel, therefore we can’t vote for him. Is there any viable candidate who would stop the genocide? I don’t think the anti voting crowd actually cares. They are appealing to moral feelings rather than political strategy, because strategically, you have to realize that voting is not going to change foreign policy, and that change has to be pushed by other means. It’ll probably be something in the long haul.
Democrats should run someone else. First of all, this is a shit strategy. You don’t primary your president in the second term unless your party is falling apart. This may come from people from countries where replacing the head of government is easier, but the POTUS is the de facto party head. Also, going to the lack of thought to the goal — do you know someone willing to primary Biden and able to win who would do the things you want?
Biden hasn’t done anything anyway. This is just a way to bat away pro arguments. There’s plenty of lists of progress on lots of things. Student loans, insulin price caps, regulations, anti-trust.
Putting the entire Palestinian genocide on Biden. I’m not saying there’s not culpability there, but understand that the entire US government is in support of Israel, on both sides. It was a miracle we got a handful of Senators to call for investigations. We should cut off aid, absolutely. Who’s running to do that? And keep in mind that Israel chose to engage. US officials would have liked a more limited response, not out of care for Palestinians, but because they know from experience that it will come back to bite Israel in the form of newly radicalized Hamas recruits.
Liberals just have no hope for change. This is a new one. Just some idea that people are stuck in a rut and that’s the reason the two party system exists. The two party system is a mathematical consequence of the way we vote. There is reason to hope for change. The change, though, whatever means you choose, will take decades. Keep working at it. The hope is not that this election will fundamentally change things. The hope is that many small political actions over the years will push things forward.
Funnily enough, I haven’t seen a whole lot of third party promotion, just lots of this rhetoric aiming to punish. When voting, ask yourself:
Is this problem I have with this candidate something that the other candidate would be better on?
Are there other political actions I can take that will help?
What things can change with a different President or Congress, and what needs to be pursued by other means?
Withholding your vote as a punishment isn’t really going to help. Biden doesn’t know who you are or why you are not voting for him, and there is no one with a chance of winning that will do everything you want. But you have other means. Protest, organize, donate, build up alternatives, advocate for a different system.
Vote to give yourself space and get a little bit. Do other things to keep things moving.
i honestly dont get why people stopped reblogging things they like on here bc like what are you afraid of??? people thinking youre cringey?? guess what bitch! youre on tumblr! it’s all cringey! reblog everything you like and do it shamelessly no one fuckin cares
people stopped reblogging things because it is a lot easier to like things than to reblog them on mobile, and that’s what the majority of people use. It’s a design flaw not the users fault
idk if most people are aware of this, but if you hold the reblog button down you can literally just swipe to the icon of the blog you want it to reblog to. it‘s quick and easy
I just reblogged this for a second timr. Wrote this note, too. On mobile. Took seconds. No biggie.
oh shit, it never occurred to me that people might be unaware of this!
i only have this one blog so for me a like is almost always an instant reblog
if the idea of 'fat people are hot' makes you so agonizingly uncomfortable that you have to pop up with 'fetishization' or 'glorifying' or 'not everyone--' please consider that your discomfort with my fat body being hot is a You Problem and i am not interested
underrated form of humor: just making shit up in past tense
My personal favourite:
But this isn't just making up the past tense, it's inflection that's consistent with strong verb alternations following the ablaut series!! The verb classes aren't coherent anymore, but people still create these playful forms through analogy to established paradigms.
the full article by Arwa Mahdawi
this in the singularity
Someone is legit going to get deradicalized as a kink
whatever it takes, man
