Here fools and pompous scholars come to fight

Golp: a roundel purpure.

Roundels are circles in heraldry. They are named according to their color, which also has its own lingo. Let’s meet them!

Bezant: roundel or (gold) 🟡

Plate: roundel argent (silver) ⚪️

Torteau: roundel gules (red) 🔴

Pomme: roundel vert (green) 🟢

Hurt: roundel azure (blue) 🔵

Golp: roundel purpure (purple) 🟣

Pellet: roundel sable (black) ⚫️

the narrator is operating under the constraint that they can only use words "god" has already spoken, "god" is aware of this and says the 'Time flies' sentence on purpose in order to give the narrator the pieces they need to voice their complaint; "god" has constant access to the narrator's thoughts, and answers them as though they're having a conversation between equals, but clearly absolutely dictates the terms under which the narrator can speak. it becomes obvious as the scene continues that the narrator is silently screaming and that the request being denied may be a request for death, but is at minimum a request for some acute suffering to be stopped

they just don’t care.

The response I got was "then why does it matter so much what word you use? Its still terrible and evil."

hii i saw this and immediately my bullshit alarm started ringing, could you say if this website and chant are real/official? (i know hardcore football fans are like the bottom dregs of any society i fucking them in my country too so i dont think they represent all israelis unlike the OP of this post)

"Up to our knees in Fenian* blood", anyone?

You had someone you were looking for English weirdness for a few years back I think, hopefully if the need is still there this helps

Yes! I was! Just about a year ago my sister was going to start her first teaching job in an English class. So, I wanted a lot of memes and funny things to share with her to get her ready and maybe share those with her future class.

That they call all israelis colonizers.

[Image ID: A traditional pen and watercolor drawing of a mermaid on a teal background. She has a tail and barbels like those of a flathead catfish. She wears a purple hoodie and excitedly drops a rock into one of the pockets. /.End ID]

Anyway, the next night we watched a thing about some pig man who is supposed to live in Vermont. People said it had claws and a pig nose but walked upright like a man. Now, I happen to know that sideshows used to shave bears and present them as pig men. So every piece of evidence they gave of this monster sounds to me like a bear with mange.

So now the running joke in our house is that everything is bears. Aliens? Bears. Loch Ness monster? Bear. Every cryptozoological mystery is just a very crafty bear.

The note count as of 3:12 PM EDT was 742.4K.

We’re almost 258,000 notes short of the Committment To The Bit Tumblr Curse goal, or what I am choosing to call:

The Bear Nessiecity

64 or lower

65-67

68-69

70-72

73 or higher

No preference

I'm sorry to be dismissive, since I'm not unsympathetic to what it means to have a lifestyle that's taboo throughout most of society and is completely unrecognized by law, but this is one of the most ridiculous-on-its-face asks I've ever received in my inbox.

So, one way of doing marriage (monogamy) is very much the default, and somehow it follows that a non-monogamous person or someone otherwise opposed to its default status is totally justified in claiming that the "average" people who participate in it forbid their partners from ever speaking to someone else of the opposite sex for the rest of their lives. Because this is obviously what "monogamy" "upholds" (like the concept itself, which refers to a relationship style rather than an ideology, can believe in anything), "even if they don't believe it" -- I guess you're saying that even if straight people in monogamous relationships don't think they're issuing a lifelong ban against their partners ever speaking to another member of the opposite sex for the rest of their lives, they want to in spirit or something.

IMO no fault divorce being a very recent thing, but sexual cheating has always been a reason for divorce [after divorce was invented], and historically if you never sexually consummated a marriage then you could always get it annulled, means the legal definition of monogamy does have "outrageous" rules which are treated as something you'd expect any civilized person to abide by.

Tangentially:

>#but not legally recognizing something as marriage#isn't the same as decreeing that such relationships are not allowed

I'm not sure if you're making a different point, but by that logic gay people could always have their gay relationships even though they were socially demonized and legally criminalized. That's a different philosophical statement though, in that "do these people have the same rights as others" vs "can you feel gay love/have gay sex" are very different conversations. Could gay people do things like have sex and own a house and live together? Sure could. Could gay people do things like be the legally recognized and equal parents of a child, did they have hospital visitation rights for each other, upon death can the survivor easily and automatically inherit the estate? No.

Like, you sure can murder people even though it's illegal. Technically the murderer will only have trouble if they're caught, so logically, they can live just as freely as anyone else. Philosophically, yes that's true and legal status of murderer-rights doesn't matter. In all other ways, murder being illegal very much does matter if you murder somebody.

I think that's the same difference anon is talking about. Polyamory is not legally recognized, and they do not have those same rights that gay people fight for. So, can poly people live together and adopt kids? Probably; there's lots of housing regulations that designate buildings as single family homes, so you can't have other people on the deed plus other restrictions. But the legal nonrecognition means they don't automatically get custody of a child they're not the biological parent for when one of their partners dies. Ditto inheriting an estate and hospital rights, the ability to make decisions for a child whom you are not on the birth certificate for, etc.

Like, straight people don't have to get married either, but if they don't, they lack all these same rights and have all these same problems. Marriage is functionally a legal power to act as a collective unit. Lacking marriage rights is functionally crippling.

Regarding the first part of your reblog: you're talking about all kinds of ridiculous laws concerning marriage which haven't been around since sometime before we (and the great majority of people on Tumblr viewing or participating in this discussion) were even born, so I don't see it as being of very strong relevance to mono vs. poly discussions happening today. (It's not like discussing racism today by bringing up slavery or Jim Crow, which of course did have severe multi-generational impact even if they haven't actually been around for more than half a century.)

And (less epistemic confidence here) the restrictions you bring up involving "marriage = sex" could be just as validly viewed within the framework of all the ways marriage itself has historically been treated in silly ways, rather than how monogamy (or the philosophy or the spirit behind monogamy) has been treated in silly ways. I mean, for instance, we could have had a society where it's possible to get multiple marriages at the same time (or for a man to have polygamous marriages) but any one of them could be annulled on the grounds of one's spouse refusing to have sex with you or one's spouse having sex with someone else outside of any of their marriages.

As for the part where I put in tags something to the effect of "not legally recognizing some type of relationship as marriage isn't the same as disallowing such relationships from happening", there's a reason I put it in brief phrases in the tags, and that's because I wasn't up for being any more than vague and sloppy about the idea. I'm not even sure I remember, now, weeks later, precisely what I was trying to get at. I think you engaged with it pretty well, and I agree that the legal benefits that come along with the right to marry someone are important and are part of what made same-sex marriage rights important. But I would point out that there is just a difference in degree between banning legal recognition of marriage between X people (and allowing the particular legal rights that go with it to be inaccessible to X people) and wanting to live in a world where all X-ish relationships are disallowed privately. Back in the day before gay marriage was legal outside of a couple of states, twenty years ago or more, I certainly knew people who were fine with letting people do what they wanted in their private lives (even if they had an "ugh gross" gut feeling about homosexuality) and might even respect their partner turning out to be gay and pursuing a same-sex relationship (of course breaking off their straight one), but were not okay with putting same-sex relationships on an equal society-recognized status as opposite-sex relationships by allowing them to ever be called "marriage". Therefore, I would very tentatively disagree with statements such as, for instance, "The average opponent of gay marriage wants to forbid their friends from ever being in any kind of same-sex relationship", with the "very tentatively" being because the stauncher opponents of gay marriage clearly really do oppose homosexuality in general and probably distance themselves from friends who begin to engage in it.

in the usa, no-fault divorce isn't a federal law, it's state by state. ny was the last to legalize it, in 2010. prior to that, every state but SD and NY had made it legal. that's just the usa; the uk didn't have it until 2022. four years ago. sans no-fault, people had to prove things like abandonment, cruelty, or sexual infidelity. wikipedia says that lots of couples would fake the husband's infidelity, where it would be planned that he would "hook up" with a stranger and a photographer would suddenly pop up to document it.

which doesn't change the original topic of whether "all" or even a majority or commonly would straight couples literally ban each other from talking to anyone of the opposite sex without a chaperone. it's just another point of "wtf" in the history of marriage.

>there is just a difference in degree between banning legal recognition of marriage between X people (and allowing the particular legal rights that go with it to be inaccessible to X people) and wanting to live in a world where all X-ish relationships are disallowed privately

The reasons for my assumptions about how long ago "no fault" divorce was legalized mainly stem from my impression that the very face and sheer prevalence of divorce is dramatically altered with "no fault" divorce. I assumed that divorce the way I've witnessed it all my life, not to mention the way it's been depicted in fictional media -- very common and coming about simply because the couple is fighting too much and/or just doesn't want to be married anymore and agrees to some legal contracts -- was quite dependent on "no fault" being the default way of bringing it about. I had never noticed any culture difference in the UK with respect to divorce's prevalence and the way it's effected in practice by the members of the couple. Given this context, the fact that almost all of my life there was no "no fault" divorce in the UK is astounding. I looked up divorce rates in the UK over the years and found that (like in many other places) it peaked around 1993 and has declined pretty much ever since; Google AI at least (dubious as always) says that the legalization of "no fault" divorce added to the decline somehow (I can't imagine how?). It appears that most data quoted refers to the absolute rates of divorce rather than "divorce per existing marriage" rates, which of course suggests that the decline in divorce probably comes mostly from the decline in marriage.

sure, but like, technically there's also just a difference in degree between a papercut and narrowly avoiding bleeding out from somebody stabbing you in the gut.

About that...