Dark Souls 2 is fucking amazing

When you reblog from me, you are DIRECTLY harming a US veteran.

The hilarious thing about being a tgirl on here is when you get harassed you'll get called the friend of another random tgirl getting harassed. I have never spoken to that woman in my life but I'm glad I got assigned a best friend by tumblr

I can count on my hands the amount of mutuals I've had an in-depth one on one conversation with and people out here be actin like our lips have touched before

friend who thinks about family annihilators too much: you know if that guy also had kids he would be a family annihilator

friend who thinks about family annihilators too much: you don't get it, this is important because of how we as a society react to the crime. a guy who kills his wife is not seen as on the level of evil as a family annihilator even with the exact same pathology and potential. a lot of mass shooters had records of domestic violence but they were not considered such a threat until they escalated. why is hurting women never a warning sign? there is more concern over the future of a man who hurts an animal than one who hurts a woman. if he hurts an animal, he's acting like a serial killer. if he hurts a woman, it's one mistake that shouldn't ruin his life. do you ever think about that

Is making a lot of incredibly shitty, possibly bad or outright horrifying mistakes actually a viable survival strategy in life? Maybe even a wise one?

One major factor that makes the nature of psychiatric treatment intrinsically violent is the fact that the boundaries of the patient is considered an obstacle to treatment. The lack of consent of the patient is considered an obstacle to treatment. These obstacles are abhorred by psychiatry and are considered things that must be broken down. If the patient has a disagreement with the treatment, or objects to it, this is considered a symptom and therefore is seen as something not to be validated or respected. Thoughts, behaviors, beliefs; these are all considered symptoms if they are in opposition to treatment and must be broken down. However, compliance with treatment is almost never seen as disordered or symptomatic, even if the patient is fawning or similarly complying to avoid more harm done to them. The fact that only extreme compliance is accepted by psychiatry is inherently violent and conditions people to accept abuse. Isolation and violence are not vectors of healing.

This might come as a surprise for those who use the internet as their primary outlet for queerness but some people are online to do their jobs and don't want to be out at work.

The more of an audience someone has, the more understandable it gets if they share absolutely nothing about their personal life, queer identity included. "You should experiment with new pronouns and see how you like it" is a sensible suggestion to make in a situation where you're surrounded by people who either don't care or can be trusted to be supportive, but if you've got a six-digit number of capricious strangers screenshotting everything you say in public, you quickly learn that vulnerability and openness has a cost to it.

it's so crazy too bc i'll be like "this phrase/practice is being touted as ancient knowledge with a secret unbroken lineage, but it was quite literally made up in the 20th century. like we can trace it back to its very inception in like 1961." and someone will be like "that can't be true because my grandmother taught it to me." and i'm like yes your grandmother was 20 in 1961.

this website is always on some stupid insular drama where some idiot blogger named poobster-498 has said something controversial and stupid and then the most mediocre critical thinkers of the website get together and decide that everybody in the world can be categorized into pro-poobster or anti-poobster camps. and they invent fake slurs for each other like the pro-poobsters are called poobshits and the anti-poobsters are called pooblerites. and people will send you asks demanding that you clarify where you stand on poobster and "I've never heard of this person and I don't care about this at all" is an unacceptable answer to either side of this inane drama and automatically fashions you into a member of whichever opposing camp. when in reality you just truly have no idea who the fuck poobster-498 even is.

there is a really disgusting habit that misogynistic trans men have on this site where they will bring up some awful thing that happened to them in the past in order to disprove what they see as the Oppression Olympics favoring women. and obviously, i don't want traumatic and transphobic things to happen to trans men. but the assumption they always seem to have is that this trauma is theirs alone, and the woman they're talking to couldn't possibly have ever experienced anything worse, so this is their trump card. this type of man always assumes that no one taking part in any of these conversations could EVER have suffered more than he has suffered. then, he's placed a burden on the woman he's talking to, who now has to perform compassion for him in spite of all of the ways he is attacking her rhetorically, and also placing pressure on her to either 1. disclose her trauma and humilate herself publicly, or 2. NOT disclose her trauma, and forfeit the Oppression Olympics to him by default, which is also a humiliation. this behavior is common and it is revolting. recognize this when it happens and don't let them get away with it.

okay but we can't know for sure that the loud noise and bright flash offstage—which occurred after the character who was holding the gun exited the stage with it—was a gunshot, because we didn't get to directly see it

the thing about copyright abolition is that. what makes theft bad is that something is taken away from its rightful owner. in this sense, copyright infringement is literally not theft, because making a copy of something doesn't tangibly cause the original owner to lose anything that they would otherwise have. copyright enforcement, on the other hand, does take away people's access to what should be theirs. anyone who makes art while employed by a corporation and is unable to sell their work because it does not belong to them, anyone who's been sued by a pop musician for making music that sounds vaguely similar if you don't allow the jury to listen to the actual songs, these people have far more in common with victims of theft than anyone whose copyright has been infringed

like the thing with the film rights to MLK's speeches being owned by spielberg / dreamworks, that's not actually an instance where copyright law failed to protect artists. that's the system working as intended. MLK's speeches were his intellectual property. when he died the rights to that intellectual property transfered to his family, and his family decided to sell those rights to dreamworks, thereby functionally preventing anyone else from legally using those speeches in a film for the next several decades. no crime was committed, nobody was tricked into anything, that's just how intellectual property rights work