noise dept.
Game of Thrones Daily
Andulka
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
Peter Solarz
taylor price
JVL
@theartofmadeline
$LAYYYTER
JBB: An Artblog!
One Nice Bug Per Day
Janaina Medeiros
h
Discoholic 🪩
cherry valley forever
blake kathryn
Misplaced Lens Cap
pixel skylines
seen from Belgium
seen from TĂĽrkiye
seen from Poland
seen from Switzerland
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Iraq
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Italy
@isaacsapphire
I think it would be nice if just once some of you guys would meet up in real life and then come back talking about how much you hate each other and doing cutesy vagueposts about how you're plotting to kill each other
Yeah that has absolutely happened. It was not nice actually.
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.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
well if the ai generated banana seal from the tumblr ad says i have to eat 40 pounds of carbs a day then i guess i have no choice
#I stg tumblr ads are on a different level#the most batshit things I see on a daily basis
Per the reblogs of your post: this just in, people from Spain aren't white anymore.
This one time I was reading the TV Tropes page of the animated movie Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas, and one characters - evidently simply known as "Rat" - was described as "ambiguously brown" (yes, seriously), with the explanation that he "looks hispanic, but actually speaks italian". Like m8 italians just look like this. Mostly more put-together and dressed more nicely, but I have seen plenty of Italian people straight from Italy who are exactly this colouring.
Americans who are 1/16th ancestry from a nationality they vaguely know migrated there in the 1800s have extremely weird ideas of what people from different segments of Europe look like.
As a child in a part of the United States with a large Italian population, I was really confused by the Black vs White race thing, because the Italian “Whites” were darker than many of the “Blacks”.
modernism and poly
Have I ever mentioned that it's polyamory that is the gray, bureaucratic paste of romance in the future? It's a baseline assumption for me, but I may not have described it.
We've all read James Scott at this point, or are aware of Seeing Like a State, and the ubiquitious theme that forward progress smooths out injustices and deprivations of the past, but structures a world in a way that is less impassioned, and harder to put in words or numbers, but is much more conveniently legible for others. Think about finance moving from deals on the golf courses and steak restaurants, to just spreadsheets and quants from MIT.
And this is not an unmitigated good. Almost always the modernist progress is better in many ways, in all the ways you can measure, but something IS lost. Talk about NYC 30 or 40 years ago compared to now.
Anyway.
Because of the current cultural groups, monogamy comes across as "the normal, boring thing to do, done by conformists" and polyamory comes across as the "young, exciting, make-poor-decisions-by-the-seat-of-your-hormones option." But what matters is actually the other way around.
Monogamous marriage is the idealistic belief that one person can be your everything, and when you meet them in your twenties you're ready to be attached to them for the rest of your life. (And earlier on, that it's only possible between one man and one woman.) These things, practically speaking, are foolish absolutes that fence our lives in.
It is much more *reasonable* that you have multiple partners, each one of which satisfies different needs, and none of you are stuck if your feelings change, and that anyone is a possible romantic option, not just one gender or culture. It's the romance that would be designed by any good city planner.
Monogamy, in comparison, sounds more like an essentially fantasy story. Cue Zizek on monogamy, and any polycule on how "sensible" their lifestyle is. Monogamy is just the thing that feels more "magical" in the good and bad connotations of the word.
Not that individuals can't make their own magic, just the "one partner, other gender, rest of your life" is the one that brings Culturally Supported Magic without you having to look for it.
Magical: you cheated on me and now I will kms
Non-magical: you slept with her but I have a boyfriend too so why should I mind.
This is the same divide as "I hunted down this animal in the forest and ripped blood from its veins with my own bare hands" vs "we plant the wheat here once a year and harvest it once a year and we don't have to move constantly." It's kings vs legislatures. And that's why royalty is such a common theme of romances - not because of class aspirations, but because royalty and monogamous marriage are running on the same metaphysics.
It's the arrow of modernism, and on paper it's obvious which one is more rational. And going forward I think that is where more of the divide will come from, rather than social conformism vs not.
Mmm, I think you missed your own obvious conclusion; in Ye Olde Days, men fucked prostitutes and enthusiastic amateurs while traveling, and often had longer term relationships with mistresses and camp followers and so on, while wives less often but never-less had boyfriends and “Jody” and so on. And of course, both husbands and wives might have close same gender relationships that were actually sexual. But all these relationships were supposed to be kept under wraps, at least it was considered gauche to be too public about any of them. Plenty of Olde Tyme marriages were “open relationships” or actually triads by modern standards, but it was supposed to be kept private.
The 1997 publication of The Ethical Slut was a call for the end of this kafabe. It is extremely important to understand that “polyamory/ethical non monogamy” was born in the BDSM community; the authors of The Ethical Slut had previously authored seminal BDSM books, The Topping Book and The Bottoming Book. Not to downplay the impact of the 2002 Jack McGeorge incident in public alternative heterosexual sexualities/relationship formats) Now the only law was honesty… and tbh, both the economic realities of the Recession and the ongoing social repercussions of the AIDS crisis and the “outing” of homosexuality in general, because now adventurous horny mostly straight people were seeing what types of relationships had been proven to be possible by gay and lesbian and bisexual couples.
It's absolutely true that this generation did not invent open relationships, and people have been fucking around since fucking was around. But the formalities around it do matter, in particular I think many of the examples you are discussing did not at all have the same attitudes towards men vs women doing this.
An ethic of free-divorce or even "why bother with legal recognition" and also "every person in your community is a potential legitimate partner" and disdaining any hierarchy in partners is, relatively more rarer.
But also like, modernism is not one linear slope. A lot of cultures have modernized (ie, city-fied) and then reversed. The city is conquered, there's a new wave of religion, libraries burn. A better word would be legiblized, but people don't recognize that as much as modernization. So yeah, there have been times in the past where sexual partners were more approaching this more, but that doesn't mean it's not modernism.
Oh I have no disagreement about it being modernism/city-ism/legiblism. It’s middle class-ification of the thing.
An interesting counterpoint to oh so trendy and enlightened upper middle class White polyamory is the “side ho” system of urban Black relationships, (gender ratio imbalances due to increased male mortality and incarceration and welfare systems punishing marriages are material factors there, as is independent income and trust funds for polyamory).
modernism and poly
Have I ever mentioned that it's polyamory that is the gray, bureaucratic paste of romance in the future? It's a baseline assumption for me, but I may not have described it.
We've all read James Scott at this point, or are aware of Seeing Like a State, and the ubiquitious theme that forward progress smooths out injustices and deprivations of the past, but structures a world in a way that is less impassioned, and harder to put in words or numbers, but is much more conveniently legible for others. Think about finance moving from deals on the golf courses and steak restaurants, to just spreadsheets and quants from MIT.
And this is not an unmitigated good. Almost always the modernist progress is better in many ways, in all the ways you can measure, but something IS lost. Talk about NYC 30 or 40 years ago compared to now.
Anyway.
Because of the current cultural groups, monogamy comes across as "the normal, boring thing to do, done by conformists" and polyamory comes across as the "young, exciting, make-poor-decisions-by-the-seat-of-your-hormones option." But what matters is actually the other way around.
Monogamous marriage is the idealistic belief that one person can be your everything, and when you meet them in your twenties you're ready to be attached to them for the rest of your life. (And earlier on, that it's only possible between one man and one woman.) These things, practically speaking, are foolish absolutes that fence our lives in.
It is much more *reasonable* that you have multiple partners, each one of which satisfies different needs, and none of you are stuck if your feelings change, and that anyone is a possible romantic option, not just one gender or culture. It's the romance that would be designed by any good city planner.
Monogamy, in comparison, sounds more like an essentially fantasy story. Cue Zizek on monogamy, and any polycule on how "sensible" their lifestyle is. Monogamy is just the thing that feels more "magical" in the good and bad connotations of the word.
Not that individuals can't make their own magic, just the "one partner, other gender, rest of your life" is the one that brings Culturally Supported Magic without you having to look for it.
Magical: you cheated on me and now I will kms
Non-magical: you slept with her but I have a boyfriend too so why should I mind.
This is the same divide as "I hunted down this animal in the forest and ripped blood from its veins with my own bare hands" vs "we plant the wheat here once a year and harvest it once a year and we don't have to move constantly." It's kings vs legislatures. And that's why royalty is such a common theme of romances - not because of class aspirations, but because royalty and monogamous marriage are running on the same metaphysics.
It's the arrow of modernism, and on paper it's obvious which one is more rational. And going forward I think that is where more of the divide will come from, rather than social conformism vs not.
Mmm, I think you missed your own obvious conclusion; in Ye Olde Days, men fucked prostitutes and enthusiastic amateurs while traveling, and often had longer term relationships with mistresses and camp followers and so on, while wives less often but never-less had boyfriends and “Jody” and so on. And of course, both husbands and wives might have close same gender relationships that were actually sexual. But all these relationships were supposed to be kept under wraps, at least it was considered gauche to be too public about any of them. Plenty of Olde Tyme marriages were “open relationships” or actually triads by modern standards, but it was supposed to be kept private.
The 1997 publication of The Ethical Slut was a call for the end of this kafabe. It is extremely important to understand that “polyamory/ethical non monogamy” was born in the BDSM community; the authors of The Ethical Slut had previously authored seminal BDSM books, The Topping Book and The Bottoming Book. Not to downplay the impact of the 2002 Jack McGeorge incident in public alternative heterosexual sexualities/relationship formats) Now the only law was honesty… and tbh, both the economic realities of the Recession and the ongoing social repercussions of the AIDS crisis and the “outing” of homosexuality in general, because now adventurous horny mostly straight people were seeing what types of relationships had been proven to be possible by gay and lesbian and bisexual couples.
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.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Buckle up, they're dropping new gender binaries
It occurs to me that most folks who have “socialist/communist/leftist/eat the rich” attitudes in the United States would immediately change their tune if they had 1950s style socioeconomic prosperity and hope.
Some want to own houses, get better jobs, have improved prospects for their children. Others want prestigious jobs at colleges and news outlets and publishing contracts. They’d all support The Way Things Are if they thought the socioeconomic system was going to give them the lifestyle the boomers had.
This is absolutely true, but in ways points to a deeper failure.
Capitalism depends on actually giving benefits to people, and if you just ignore it and let capitalism fuck up a generation (2008) so much they demand socialism, then the decision makers chose their greed over the preservation of the system.
And if they forgot that bargain, then getting worse is going to accelerate.
Time was Big Capital would actually say this out loud:
Yes! I almost included that one theory is that through the 90's the capitalist country had to offer a better standard of living in competing ideologically with communism. This put some discipline on capitalists to not let all the resources go to the top, and when the USSR collapsed is when we started seeing ultra-capitalism take off.
Yeah, I posted about that over a decade ago. The Great Recession and the “uneven recovery” (read: increased wealth inequality) rather soured a generation and more on “capitalism”.
I would say that rather than “capitalism depends on actually giving benefits to people” that “ongoing widespread support/tolerance of capitalism depends on actually giving benefits to the people.” But that would reduce Shareholder Value next quarter so obviously we can’t do that anymore.
It’s also FINE to have grown up with a relatively harmless cultural practice like shaving and just… prefer it. It’s not foot binding, ffs. Hairless legs look longer and sleeker, which is a pretty understandable thing for humans to prefer. Everyone who wants to pathologize me for liking this can fuck off. “It’s my culture!” or whatever bullshit you would buy from someone you didn’t feel entitled to shit on
“It’s my culture” isn’t an effective argument for anyone whom people do feel entitled to shit on.
Second wave feminism really had a hangup about shaving and it was so controversial to shave in my younger years among feminists that I feel a bit defensive. Oddly enough, they really didn’t valorize the lady’s mustache and chin hair ever.
It occurs to me that most folks who have “socialist/communist/leftist/eat the rich” attitudes in the United States would immediately change their tune if they had 1950s style socioeconomic prosperity and hope.
Some want to own houses, get better jobs, have improved prospects for their children. Others want prestigious jobs at colleges and news outlets and publishing contracts. They’d all support The Way Things Are if they thought the socioeconomic system was going to give them the lifestyle the boomers had.
The person who posted this on Reddit is getting savaged for saying they love the United States.
The lack of takeaway from the “stolen land worst country ever” people is grating. Ok, the country is evil and shouldn’t exist, 98% of its population, including you personally, has no business even being on the continent. What do? Well, apparently, sit around whining rather than even trying to change anything at all.
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.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Just saw a reddit ad by communists advertising a general strike
There is no analogy nor comparison I could make that would be more humiliating than "Reddit communists buying ad for a general strike."
Every time I see a call for a general strike, I ask which unions have signed on. Then I tell them that since the Teamsters, teachers, nurses, etc aren’t signed on it’s not a real general strike, it’s just “shitty workers who skip work all the time skip work again day”.
wow i wonder what the video shows
... yeah i can see why the cops don't want that getting around, holy shit
there's no way she didn't see what happened, right?
Why the hell were there police and a guy already filming on the scene? Why the hell would you try to beat a guy up in front of police and on camera?
Is “the criminal is the White guy getting hit by brown guys” really is the default policy of the police across the pond or does it just look like that?
While I do find it gauche to talk about why you shave on posts about how people shouldn't be expected to shave, shaving for sensory comfort is a very real thing. Especially when you're very active. It is, in fact, uncomfortable to feel your leg sweat developing a whole entire watershed, or your pubic hair turning into steel wool from chlorine damage.
I would also be more sympathetic to the anti shaving side if they could manage to express their opinion without pathologization. Sorry I'll always be antipsych first and hairy feminist second.
Yeah, I am straight up allergic to spray deodorant and really didn’t like the whole “cream deodorant clumps caught in my armpit hair” thing. Also I wear boots so I wear tall socks and I don’t like the feeling of my leg hair being subtly pulled the wrong way so I shave my lower calves.
Also it’s really weird how anti shaving “feminists” don’t spare a thought for all those men brutally oppressed by the social requirement to shave, which is enforced at least as harshly. Like, I have never seen a workplace refuse to hire women who didn’t shave their legs or pits. I have worked at places that required men to be clean shaven (and ain’t that a loaded term) to work there.
One more monday exception: Bots are now doing fake Tumblr age verification.
At this point, anyone contacting me claiming to be from mods or the government is assumed to be a scammer until proven otherwise.
why was 91 a hopeful time aside from winning that time around? I can smell it now, see the paint on all the scenery begin to peel. the sick has reached the blood. the only question the world asks itself instead of sleep is whether empires with nukes will die quietly twice. [and no Russia doesn't count. it's a wretched little simulacrum, wearing its father's old clothes to pretend his body isn't rotting on the couch]
I’m not quite old enough to give a good answer; that was the year reading “clicked” for me but I was chewing through the Chronicles of Narnia, children’s encyclopedias, and Ranger Rick rather than newspapers and news magazines.
Anyone old enough for an answer plz reblog.
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.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Goomba Fallacy = meme against outgroup homogeneity bias
Not X, Not Y, But a Secret Third Thing = meme against false dichotomies
Our Blessed Homeland, Their Barbarous Wastes = meme against in-group bias
Spiders Georg = meme against naive averages
So You Hate Waffles? = meme against strawmen
Survivorship Bias Plane = meme against survivorship bias
The Worst Person You Know Made a Good Point = meme against ad hominem
...
If It Sucks Hit Da Bricks = meme against sunk cost fallacy
encouraging the supreme court to overturn birthright citizenship so hard that nobody qualifies for it and we all have to figure things out from scratch as a collective, I mean what could be more American than that
By "we" do you mean Australians, Americans, or owls?
citizenship is an illusion, anything goes! consider me a modern day Lafayette 🤓
A rather boring town in Indiana, known only for a university named after being lost in the middle of nowhere?
@argumate is a military advisor in a proxy war?
