the next child safety act will be locking every child in a plain white room with absolutely zero stimulation inside to prevent any bad ideas being picked up by exposure to anything at all
Cookie Run:Kingdom Official!
macklin celebrini has autism

gracie abrams
Show & Tell

Andulka
Today's Document
Mike Driver
Xuebing Du

tannertan36
noise dept.

Kiana Khansmith
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

blake kathryn
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
One Nice Bug Per Day
★
Jules of Nature
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
h
NASA

seen from Türkiye

seen from Singapore
seen from Singapore
seen from Iraq
seen from Brazil

seen from Germany
seen from Australia
seen from Switzerland

seen from Paraguay

seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from France
seen from Russia
seen from Italy
seen from Iraq
seen from Costa Rica
seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Guernsey

seen from Canada
@xcal1bur25
the next child safety act will be locking every child in a plain white room with absolutely zero stimulation inside to prevent any bad ideas being picked up by exposure to anything at all
While I'm normally against Trump putting his face on things, I think Trump Passports are actually a great idea, because people have to go out of their way to get them by applying in person on one specific date. This means that anyone who presents one at an international customs point will be identifiable as a fervent Trump supporter until 2036, which can only be useful for every other country in the world.
Here are some questions I hope that different regions might ask:
In Europe: I see you supported Trump as late as 2026, after he made comments about annexing Greenland and disparaging Ukraine. Have you been sent here to help destabilize the European Union and support foreign incursion into European holdings? Prove it. Wait here for ten hours while we search all of your bags.
Central and South America: Were you personally involved in bombing fishing boats, kidnapping Venezuela's president, and running concentration camps for migrants on American soil? Are you here to identify targets, or get revenge on specific individuals who spoke up against this treatment and were deported? Prove that you aren't. Wait here for ten hours while we search all of your bags.
Canada: Are you psychologically incapable of experiencing fear or shame? Do you lack contextual awareness?
man the public defender discourse pisses me off so bad. yeah. yeah I do think that every single person deserves representation. yeah that includes people who *have* committed rape and murder and abuse. when I say every single person I mean every single person. if your idea of justice excludes one person it excludes everyone. next question
“so you’re saying you’d represent someone who has admitted to sexual assault?” i’m saying I have.
“so you’re saying you’d represent someone who has admitted to domestic violence?” i’m saying i have.
"so you’re saying you’d represent someone who has admitted to child abuse?" i'm saying i have.
and i am saying i have given each and every one of those clients the same level of professionalism, effort, and zealous advocacy i have given my clients who are victims of the same. that is how due process works, and every person is guaranteed it.
i have nothing but respect and admiration for my colleagues in the public interest sector who represent those who have committed and/or been accused any and all crimes, no matter how "morally reprehensible" others may find them.
public defenders are among the best, brightest, and most selfless attorneys out there. they are on the front lines of combating the carceral state and protecting the rights of every day people. get it straight in your heads. thanks.
Being a public defender is one of the most essential and under-recognized jobs someone can do to help maintain our democracy. Fuck absolutely anyone and everyone who goes after them. If you’re against public defenders you are fighting for fascism. There’s nothing more to say on the matter.
even "bad guys" deserve rights. yes, even *those* "bad guys", because when you decide that some people don't deserve rights, then you throw the door wide open to be declared one of the types of people who don't deserve rights. *our* freedoms require that we *also* protect the people we don't like.
who do you think it is that provides those rights to the "bad guys", hm?
went to see nolan's odyssey with my father yesterday. the first thing he said as we walked out of the theatre was that he found it to be a deeply conservative movie
Consider the following:
When the health food store unionized, something wild happened that I thought was just a goofy one-off, but makes more sense now.
There was a big push to eliminate "degrading jobs" but the strategy was to eliminate the position, then create a new position outside of the bargaining unit to do the work. So like, we wouldn't have dishwashers, but we'd have people who washed dishes that weren't eligible to be in the union.
I was like A) what the actual fuck? Dish washing isn't "degrading", it's fucking vital. B) What the actual fuck? You want to create a union just to exploit different people?
There were enough of us to be like "Absolutely the fuck not," and put a stop to it, but I was absolutely flummoxed that people involved in a union would say that out loud. Working with more leftists now, it makes sense.
I think it was coming from a background that viewed labor as necessary to accomplish anything, but advocated for the equitable distribution of the gains made by labor... and then being thrown in with people who just thought labor was icky.
The first time someone told me that busing tables was "degrading", I was like "Oh, uhh, yeah, like it's very necessary work but under compensated for how vital it is?" and they responded "No, touching plates that other people have eaten off of is disgusting."
But I want to eat off of clean plates. So somebody is going to have to touch/clean those plates. And I respect that person and want them to be able to afford to live.
Those people sound like a guy I'd make up to be mad at.
I mean, that job definitely had a Truman Show vibe. If they hadn't been in-person interactions, I'd think I was getting trolled.
Just to put a bow on it:
In bargaining, someone on the Union side suggested that we eliminate all the cashiers and exclusively use self-checkouts (they were a cashier and didn't like it). The organizer told them that the union wasn't in the habit of eliminating bargaining unit positions. (This is the same person I've talked about how said that "as a prison abolitionist" we just needed to execute most criminals.)
When I explained holiday scheduling (time off requests granted in order of seniority, shifts assigned in reverse order of seniority). Someone was angry and said that time off requests potentially being denied "wasn't in the spirit of the union". When I pointed out that our departments made like 30% of our annual revenue between Thanksgiving and New Years and that required production staff to be working, they said that we just needed to create a class of positions ineligible for the bargaining unit that wouldn't be able to request time off. (Which again, most of us figured we'd just rotate holidays or something, but assumed that some holiday production was mandatory.)
I was on leftie tiktok (as a creator) for a bit and I saw this attitude there as well. I specifically remember one argument around cleaners where someone said that employing a cleaner was, like, ethically bad, and that "after the revolution" we wouldn't have cleaners.
It got me thinking, along with Ann Russell talking about how to treat cleaners (being a cleaner herself), about how we conceptualise domestic service as particularly degrading in all its forms, when, really, why is that? Why is paying someone to do something intrinsically bad?
Like, even in a moneyless, gift economy society, there would still be people whose primary contribution to their communities would be cleaning. Some people like to clean, and are really rather good at it.
I've talked ad nauseam in the past about how British attitudes towards cleaners and other service based positions today are the descendants of Victorian attitudes. That is, both the attitudes of conservatives and many progressives of that time. The trade union movement was particularly exclusionary towards service workers.
I think people on the left thinking about forms of labour can sometimes be worse than people on the right. People who have taken these positions generally just conceptualise them as something you need to do to get by, and there are particular employers where these positions are degrading but in general the jobs themselves aren't.
Yeah, that really sums it up. There's stuff that needs to get done, so I'll never be of the opinion that it's degrading work. I worked in kitchens for a long time, and every other position is reliant on having clean dishes, so nobody can really be "above" washing dishes. The shitty thing about washing dishes or busing tables is how people treat the people doing it. The work itself is vital.
And some of those jobs are like, sure, you can throw almost any warm body at it and get it done adequately, but you still run into people where you're like "Holy shit, you're good at this."
People doing a job most people don't want to do should be paid MORE in order to get people to do it. That's how it would work if we weren't mired in a schema assuming that less-frequently-desired jobs are the province of people who "can't do better" and "deserve" poverty because they have less value as people.
Peer reviewing the tags: #these attitudes are also why ppl are weird about sex work#and weirdly enough visibly disabled people working - like esp thinking of like#places that employ ppl w LDs as workers and volunteers#what they FEEL is 'these people make me uncomfortable'#and they say 'they shouldn't have to do that'#so the solution is. no visibly disabled people getting to work#the fact that. they want to work. and want jobs#is irrelevant#too many people base their politics off their like. gut feelings of discomfort and unease#which are completely disconnected from both practicality and actual morality
Everything said so far: yes. and also.
The trade union movement was particularly exclusionary towards service workers.
i, alas, never read E.P. Thompson's The Making of the British Working Class, so I can only speak to the USAmerican context, but in the US context, farm laborers and domestic service workers were explicitly left out of the New Deal laws that allowed for labor organizing and worker protections and unions. This was not a coincidence.
This was because these were the two forms of labor that were primarily made up of Black workers. It was by leaving Black workers out of the New Deal that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to get it passed by Southern lawmakers. (Also by leaving Black homeowners out of the FDIC program via redlining.)
When OP mentioned that their former coworkers wanted to create a position outside the bargaining unit to do the jobs they felt to be beneath them, this is the first thing that comes to mind. Like so many people, they don't actually want equality, they just want a new system where they aren't in the underclass anymore.
kind of harmonically beautiful
yayyyyy hard times!! yayyyy
Richard Hanania in 2023:
One thing the Tech Right provides to conservatism is intellectual and cultural capital. ... The Tech Right having both tons of money and intellectual and cultural influence is a powerful combination, and leftists are right to be worried. They haven’t faced a challenge like this before.
Richard Hanania in 2024:
My view was always that the Tech Right could help solve the right’s human capital problem by making conservatives smarter. But what I didn’t anticipate was that being in right-wing circles makes even the smartest people dumber. Successful businessmen who are publicly supporting Trump regularly fall for fake news and conspiracy theories, and we can watch their transformations online in real time. Twitter has become a cesspool, with the worst accounts profiting off lies rocketing to the top of the algorithm.
All of this demonstrates that no individual is that smart, and also how reliant we all are on our broader environments to have accurate models of the world.
the only based community is the reality-based community.
He sort of ought to have known it because he himself was once the dumb kind of racist.
I continue to be annoyed at how much he leaves the person he used to be out of his picture of how the world works.
What is he now?
take that as you will
I mean credit where it's due to changing his beliefs for the better and having the spine to admit it?
In the Pokémon world the strongest things around are pokémon.
And a pokémon is at their strongest by far under the command of a trusted human companion. Though the trust and rapport required means human commanders can only realistically lead a small band, that they form a kinship with in their own fashion together.
This means for a large span of history, warfare in this world was constantly accessible and was defined entirely by very personally driven small bands that unite under common causes and goals- large scale institutional military systems just don’t work.
Trainer militias define historical pokémon warfare, and given how readily accessible the means of war are and how much of a constant volatile threat pokémon themselves regularly pose, this trainer militia system would have been a hugely present element in society.
Scanning forward to the present this doesn’t look surprising. It explains why pokémon battling (warfare reduced to a respectful and recreational sparring practice) has such a huge hold on society, culture, infrastructure, and economy. It’s a war machine repurposed to peaceful ends.
League gyms are remnants of the militia structure, where a given region is likely to have had several allied but separate militias, given the provincial nature of such organizations, likely not organizing beyond the scope of a specific town. And even now those headquarters serve as training grounds and symbols of a community’s strength.
But there are OTHER things that are also evolved from the militia era. Namely clique fashion.
Militias wore uniforms, and made them distinct. But they weren't governmental bodies with their own funds and infrastructure for it, so these uniforms were less like military or police outfits and more like highly specific clothing that everyone IN that militia wore the same. Everyone wear a striped shirt with a blue scarf. Or everyone wear red and yellow coats. Et cetera. This is not obscure- villain teams emulate this same practice today for cultural legitimacy.
But during the 20th century, as trainer militias were gradually transitioning from a military force to a social group, OTHER social groups modeled their behavior and practices after the ubiquitous trainer militias. Social networks across a given region bound by particular interests or pastimes or professional sectors identified themselves as cliques, and “clique fashion” became a signifier of membership. Meaning: wear the same outfit that everyone else in your clique wears.
This is why even today you’ll see backpackers wear the same hat. Delinquents wear track suits in the same color scheme. Hex maniacs don the same gown and sweater. Rangers, anglers, breeders, fairy tale girls, mediums, super nerds, and so on.
The rigidity of clique fashion varies by region. In some regions it’s expected every day, or else you’re seen as claiming not to even BE a member of the clique. In others the clique outfit is worn on a whim, or worn periodically for reason. In some regions clique fashion has more or less fallen out of practice entirely.
But its existence is a common marker with the same origin as leagues, gyms, villain teams, and the constant affordances and gratuities gifted to trainers on the road.
for full context
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I feel like some pedestrians who don't drive view the relationship between cars and pedestrians as black and white and very hostile. And like yeah it can be, some drivers are assholes. I can't dispute that. But it is also literally just something that many people do actually have to do daily to like, go to work. (And yes, in some cities more people drive than is necessary, and yes we should have better transportation so its less necessary, but I am talking about the current reality where people do drive and many of them don't have another choice). The rules of the road, which apply to both cars and pedestrians, were designed with thought and care in order to keep people safe. They could also improve but they aren't arbitrary, and the fact that some people ignore them is not an excuse for everyone to do that. When you ignore them you are literally making it worse by decreasing the overall adherence rate. You're contributing to the chaos. If you want drivers to follow the rules of the road you do have to also follow them yourself.
I got a library hold on Stafford Beer's The Heart of Enterprise, so I can finally confirm that "The Purpose of a System is What it Does" really was just an idiotic phrase all along.
Examples from Wikipedia, both listed as coming from his book:
Beer deals with a car company that has a system for provisioning spare parts by moving them between repair shops. Beer finds the process to be a slow one, with his car breaking down in other ways, requiring other parts, before his local garage can effect repairs. He speculates that from the company's perspective this may be a system intended to minimise the capital tied up in spare parts, but from Beer's perspective as a customer it is a system for not supplying spare parts.
Beer observes that his home in west Wales is forty miles from a mainline railway station, and that the small diesel train he must catch is noisy with tourists and has no smoking carriage. He concludes that the purpose of the railway network is to discourage him from travelling by rail, and the purpose of the diesel train is to prevent him from working or smoking on his journey.
This is fucking bizarre! I had assumed the original usage of the term was more measured, but these are the examples I would make up to show how bad the phrase is! I'm not very impressed.
That's not what fucking "purpose" means! Incredibly self centered guy
my problem is if i enjoy something enough i will be nitpicking. i Will have things to say about where and how it failed. out of nothing but love straight from my heart. unfortunately this often makes me indistinguishable from a hater who has never experienced joy or kindness. such is the amateur critic's burden.
all of my favourite things are like beautiful racehorses that trip over their own feet a hundred times. but they get back up again. and goddamn, you should see them run.
Whether a candidate can inspire people, organize them, and deliver for them matters more than where they stand on an imaginary ideological c
Our electability conversations are so strange, because they adopt a model of politics in which basic things like “the ability to inspire people and communicate ideas clearly” simply do not matter. Too many people are stuck inside a rigid idea of how they think politics operates that bears no resemblance to reality. For instance, the Democratic commentator David Pakman says that “extremists” on the left are hijacking the Democratic party, which is now showing “early signs of the same disease that destroyed the Republican Party.” Pakman is so committed to his mental model that says extremism is politically harmful that he fails to notice that the Republican Party, far from being “destroyed,” actually now controls all three branches of the federal government and most of the state legislatures! You might assume that going too far right would have destroyed it politically. But it didn’t.
every couple months i'm like "omg i'm so burnt out i need to take more vacations" and i sit down with a pen and paper to try to divide my ten (10) days of annual leave into two weeks off per quarter, and wow! you would be astonished by how deeply this does not fucking work
If you combine it with three day weekends or even the occasional four day weekend that some companies have, you can do two weeks per year and still have a few days for being sick or really important appointments, but yeah generally speaking the shortage of holidays and time off in the US is pretty dire compared to a lot of other countries.
I have worked at a lot of very international companies and one sent me the paid holiday list for each location. I counted them, and literally every other country had more paid holidays than the United States. Even Canada had 1 more, and the Japanese are nuts for paid holidays so this isn’t a purely “the EU is a beautiful paradise” thing.
Meanwhile this was what various medical professionals in that reddit thread had to say about it.
They do not, in fact, love it.
The proof that chiropractic is an utterly failed medical profession is not that adjustments can cause harm, but that the profession has responded by ignoring and denying the harm, rather than studying it.
All medical treatments (other than complete placebos) have some risk of harm, but for real treatments given by real professionals, the harms are tracked, measured and warned about. If the harms are too severe, the treatment is no longer used.
One of my colleagues was a chiropractor. After a while he began to suspect that a lot of his patients actually just had muscle tears, not spinal issues. He bought an ultrasound machine, learned how to use it and how to read ultrasound, and found that to be the case. Between that and the constant pressure from management to get customers (because lbr, they're not patients, they're customers), he got sick and tired of it and bailed to become a sonographer full time.
And before people pipe up with "but my chiro is good, they have me do exercises and so on!" that's just regular ass physiotherapy. See a physiotherapist. A lot of people who sing the praises of chiros because they saved them from chronic pain would have gotten the same benefits from seeing an actual licensed physio, who can prescribe the same or even better exercises because they have an actual fucking education.
The amount of fucking charts I've seen where a patient went to a chiropractor and now needs a surgery is fucking insane. All I do is medical charts, day in and day out doing medical code. I've gone over hundreds of patients whole year of appointments. Unless the chiropractor is also a physical therapist, that patient is going to get worse and need surgery with very few exceptions. It doesn't matter when they mention seeing a chiropractor, by the end of the year they need surgery for issues that started after *shock and awe* a chiropractor appointment! I've seen patients needing multiple surgeries to be functional after chiropractors. I've seen patients lose their ability to walk because of chiropractors. And all the way up till they need surgery, through the issues piling up and needing more pain meds, the patients insist it's helping because the want so badly for it to be helping. I wish it did
When I found out the creator of chiropractic techniques claimed he learned it all from a ghost, I was shocked that no one has realized it was a malevolent ghost that had thought of it as a way to torment the living.
- The Odyssey (2026)