Beau/Queer not lgbt/Genderfluid/>18 Pronouns fluctuate, default to it/its. Life is a puzzle and I will have solved it when I construct a post that makes everyone on tumblr block me. Icon is Lappland from arknights. Lappy :)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
It's fine to disagree with the IAU about the definition of "planet"; however, if your definition includes Pluto but not Ceres, Orcus, Haumea, Quaoar, Makemake, Gonggong, Eris or Sedna, you don't actually care what a planet is – you just want the exact list of nine planets you learned in primary school back. Your cute little Pluto-including orbital distance mnemonic ought to be at least seventeen words long, and good fucking luck with the Q!
iy think any planetary-mass object should be called a planet. the moon is a planet. so are the galilean moons. ganymede is bigger than mercury, so whiy not? just because it happens to orbit another planet too? a star can orbit another star, so whiy can't a planet orbit another planet?
Sometimes when I'm feeling especially contrary I'll advocate for a definition of "planet" which includes the inner planets, the trans-Neptunians, and all planetary-mass moons, but specifically excludes Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
It's fine to disagree with the IAU about the definition of "planet"; however, if your definition includes Pluto but not Ceres, Orcus, Haumea, Quaoar, Makemake, Gonggong, Eris or Sedna, you don't actually care what a planet is – you just want the exact list of nine planets you learned in primary school back. Your cute little Pluto-including orbital distance mnemonic ought to be at least seventeen words long, and good fucking luck with the Q!
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
grace lands on calling rocky "he" because he has a split second of panic in one of their first interactions and thinks "uhhh he or she or oh gosh this species might have a dozen sexes and use pronouns I don't even have words for um uh okay I'll just use 'he' because using 'it' for a sapient creature feels wrong. why does no one talk about how to use pronouns in first contact." personally I find this hilarious because it characterizes grace as being just about Gender Aware enough to conceive of and be cool with the idea of sex and gender existing outside of the socially constructed binary and is probably even down to use neopronouns for people, but also a) he still opts for "he" over "they" and b) is completely unaware that zillions of people are absolutely having fifth dimensional discussions about pronouns and first contact.
grace never refers to adrian by pronouns.
grace thinks of adrian as rocky's spouse specifically, not husband or wife.
there's a tiny bit at the end where grace says if he shined a light out of the clear xenonite of his dome then he could "see an eridian going about his business," meaning he's probably just using "he" as the pronoun for all eridians.
bonus round that doesn't actually come up in the text but is a metatextual thing I think some people are probably missing: "adrian" as a name on its own has a masculine connotation but grace 100% picked it because rocky balboa's girlfriend/wife in the rocky movies is called adriana "adrian" pennino. this genderless rock whom grace probably thinks of as being a he/him married to another genderless he/him is named after a female character who goes by a masculine nickname.
like, do I think andy "I don't do politics" "socially liberal fiscally conservative" weir was knowingly and deliberately doing queer gender things with eridians? no, and it would feel especially absurd to say that when the contemporary scifi novel scene is so full of authors who are doing queer gender things on purpose. I think what's happening here is that weir is competent enough to make his characters gnc agender intersex gay men by accident as a result of being committed to worldbuilding an alien species that feels genuinely alien in its social and physical norms, which is the opposite tack to the "how do I create a scifi allegorical representation of an already existing human queer experience" approach that a lot of other authors take. and I can't say I don't enjoy the idea of a gay little he/they genderless rock spouse with a tomboy name who according to the movie apparently works in aquatic habitat maintenance.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
drunk witch vibing, creating a thotty homoculus in a bubbling cauldron: premarital sex, 100 gecs. dollskill haul in the mail, snails and puppy dog tails. bone dry puss, snap score = sus. fuck the weed man for an edible, say his dick game incredible.
tiny homonculus giving her best angles in her 30$ boohoo clubwear fit:
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
It's been 55 years since Milton Friedman – cursed be his name – published his NYT editorial, "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits," in which he invented the idea of shareholder supremacy out of whole cloth and declared it to be a universal, freestanding, inarguable truth:
Friedman's editorial railed against the idea of "corporate social responsibility," arguing that corporate managers should confine the exercise of their consciences to projects involving their own money and resources. At work, managers must harden their bleeding hearts and do nothing except increase the returns to their shareholders.
Friedman wasn't merely arguing that this would give rise to better companies – the crux of his argument was that by adopting this "fiduciary duty" standard, it would be easy to determine whether a company was being well-managed or run into the ground:
Friedman argued that "being a good person" was a squishy, undefinable standard that could never be objectively measured. But "maximizing shareholder value" was a crisp, bright-line test that could be readily evaluated by any reasonable person. "Did this manager make as much money as possible for the company's owners?" feels like the kind of question we can all agree on, while, "Did this manager behave in an ethical way?" is much harder to answer.
But even a few moments' thoughts reveal the flaw in this line of reasoning. We can all agree whether a manager made money for the shareholders – but how can we know whether the manager made as much money as possible?
Think about how much "corporate social responsibility" cashes out to performative and insincere nonsense and/or cynical marketing. Target didn't stock Pride merch because they love their LGBTQ friends. They stocked it because they thought they could sell it (same goes for BP marketing its "green" gasoline). Google supports its coders' environmental/queer/antipoverty efforts because being the "don't be evil" company lets you hire in-demand workers who might otherwise go to work for Meta, and every engineer a Silicon Valley firm hires adds an average of $1m to the company's annual bottom line.
Further: it would be absurd to hold managers to the "make as much money as possible" standard in a competitive market, because in that market, there will always be a company that comes in second. If "as much money as possible" is the standard and you're Chairman of the Board of the number two company, with $10b in profit, while the number one pulled in $11b, "as much money as possible" demands that you fire the C-suite immediately, since they objectively could have done 10% better.
So the real standard isn't "make as much money as possible," it's "try to make as much money as possible." And here again, there's no objective way to evaluate managerial performance. Target made a lot of money by selling Pride merch…until they didn't. Do we fire the Target C-suite because they failed to anticipate that 2024 would mark America's transition into the chuddocene, an era in which selling Pride tchotchkes makes you cucked and soy and, you know, gay?
Whether it's "make as much money as possible" or "try to make as much money as possible*," shareholder supremacy can only be evaluated with the aid of a crystal ball…or a time machine.
Which raises a question: what made this nonsensical shareholder supremacy standard so damned attractive to corporate leaders?
Well, what if the ambiguity of shareholder supremacy was a feature and not a bug? What if the function of shareholder supremacy was to absolve the cruelest people for indulging their most sociopathic instincts? What if this "bright line test" was actually a universal excuse, an all-purpose accountability sink that could be used to justify any cruelty or cowardice? "Why didn't I fire my college buddy when I found out that he was sexually abusing his colleagues? Well, he was the best salesman on the team, and I have an obligation to my shareholders. Sorry, my hands were tied."
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
jbbartram-illu
blakekathryn
ellievsbear
janainaart
jacobvanloon
gummygunk
yousharknotpass
