For anyone who might be interested, I now have a sideblog for my writing. For now it's all fanfiction, but who knows what the future may hold?
Follow @griseldabanks for updates, discussion, and more!
Stranger Things
Game of Thrones Daily


祝日 / Permanent Vacation
hello vonnie
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
h

Love Begins
occasionally subtle

Discoholic 🪩
$LAYYYTER

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Keni
Cosimo Galluzzi
Claire Keane
Sweet Seals For You, Always
tumblr dot com
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
we're not kids anymore.

seen from Türkiye

seen from Malaysia

seen from T1

seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from Ecuador
seen from South Korea

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Lithuania
seen from Ireland
seen from United States

seen from Brunei

seen from Maldives

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Cuba
@novelmonger
For anyone who might be interested, I now have a sideblog for my writing. For now it's all fanfiction, but who knows what the future may hold?
Follow @griseldabanks for updates, discussion, and more!

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
it is a truth universally acknowledged that having fun isn't hard when you've got a library card
Twice, Ryland Grace is faced with the same pivotal decision: to save himself, or to save an entire planet.
The first time:
He is surrounded by white (bravery) and is wearing yellow (cowardice)
The world is telling him to be brave, but he can’t, not yet, because he is a coward.
He has lost his identity and autonomy
The decision is already made (he must die)
He is all alone (he doesn’t have the bravery gene)
The second time:
He is surrounded by yellow (cowardice) and is wearing white (bravery)
He is in the middle of his namesake: a field of rye. The field is the yellow of cowardice; that is who he was, but he can’t be that, not anymore, because he is brave.
You know who you are. You’ll do great.
The decision is already made (Rocky must live)
Rocky’s ball is beside him (he has found someone to be brave for)
Bless my seminary for disabling all the ai features in the school's email system. Makes me happy every time I log into the email and see "Microsoft Copilot has been disabled by your admin".
I hope I'm not taking up too much of your time, but I do have one follow up question. You say "Purposefully ending one’s own life is morally impermissible" - and I assume the absence of that stance in my moral framework is why your thought process doesn't quite click for me, since forbidding people from ending their own life in any circumstance (be it by law or taboo) is itself reprehensible to me, as it limits one of the last personal freedom some people have, for a variety of reasons. Hence my question: where does that stance come from? Is it "just" religion, or are there other factors as well?
No worries! If I run out of time you’ll just stop hearing from me haha
original post for reference
It’s true that I’m religious and that that’s in the background of my beliefs about this, but the argument I gave is not strictly religious. The religious argument is “your life does not belong to you, it belongs to God and you are the steward of it”. (It’s not my favorite argument, in fact, because it treats life as a possession.) My argument is more like:
The worth of a human life is intrinsic [because it is given by God].
Suffering is an evil but it does not reduce the person to less than a person [and by the mercy of God can mysteriously be the means of grace].
Dependence is not an evil, [as all living creatures are by nature dependent on God].
With these three premises, taking one’s own life is morally impermissible simply because it is the taking of a life. Your life does not have less value if it’s yours, and the loss of your life would be no less tragic if you’re the one who ended it. Suicide is wrong for the same reason murder is. Even if you disagree with the religious background, to make assisted suicide permissible I think you would still have to disagree with the main body of at least one of those three bullet points. You would have to say “the worth of a human life is dependent on a person’s abilities and when those abilities are absent or reduced their life is worth less”, or “suffering does make a person to be less than a person, a person in great pain is reduced to the level of an animal”, or “dependence is undignified and evil and we are justified in taking extreme steps to avoid becoming dependent and avoid wasting resources on those who are”, or some other version of one of those.
You have to reject one of the three bullet points because what you mentioned about suicide being a “freedom” is not enough to make a judgment about whether it should be considered permissible or not. Thought experiment: a person is kidnapped by a Batman villain and injected with a paralytic and a slow-acting poison, so that they cannot escape and they know they are going to die. They’re in horrible pain and they’re afraid. And the villain comes up and puts a button in their hand and says “The last freedom you have is this choice: if you press the button you can poison Gotham’s water supply!” Poisoning the water supply doesn’t save them. It’s not a trolley problem, a choice between poisoning the water supply and killing Batman. It’s just press the button or do nothing. The button IS their last freedom. But that doesn’t mean the choice to poison the water supply would somehow be more legitimate, let alone laudatory, than if they made that choice in other circumstances. All choices are free. That’s what make them choices. It doesn’t mean they are by virtue of that good or moral choices. Sometimes it’s better to make no choice, rather than a bad choice.
So when you say “it’s their last freedom”, behind that is the assumption that it’s their last freedom to make a good choice, one that isn’t like poisoning Gotham. And so one of my premises would have to be false. And you are welcome to believe one of my premises is false! But I think when you wipe out those unconditional premises, limiting whose life has worth and what kind of life is worth living, you start down that treacherous slippery slope which is so deadly for vulnerable communities. I’m going to mention again the idea that certain options exert pressure as soon as they exist: society doesn’t have to work too hard to actually help people when it could funnel them towards suicide instead. And so once assisted suicide is thinkable, life for disabled, mentally ill, elderly, and poor people gets worse. (The United Nations agrees with me: article 10 paragraph 19b)
And if you make freedom itself the condition for life’s value, i.e. “a person’s life has value if they freely confer that value on it”, the danger doesn’t disappear. How do we know the difference between a person who has with full freedom decided to stop valuing their life and a person who is so mentally unwell that they should be considered unable to freely consent? If you’re going through a rough patch and you start to have trouble seeing the value in yourself, does your value immediately disappear? How quickly can a medical professional sign off on your death? That same day? The next? And are we saying, then, that people only have value when they’re able to exercise freedom? What about mentally disabled people who need a lot of support and whose autonomy is limited? There is an extremely thin line between the principle of a person going to the doctor and saying “I have freely decided my life has no value” and the doctor assessing them and agreeing that they have the mental fitness to make that free choice, and the principle of a doctor looking at a person (with advanced dementia, intellectual disability, etc) and assessing that they don’t have the mental fitness to choose to give their life value.
As modern people we are obsessed with autonomy, and terrified of not having control, but in reality, most people have quite limited control. Obviously it’s an admirable goal to restructure society so that the poor and marginalized are less trapped by their circumstances, but we should also be really, really careful about making being-in-control the ultimate value—because it confers more value upon the powerful and leeches it away from the poor and marginalized. Bad enough that they don’t have a ton of choices! Now their humanity is somehow less because of that? Their lack of autonomy shouldn’t make them disposable.
Even if you would want to say assisted suicide is morally permissible in very, very particular cases, I think there is an argument for keeping it wholly illegal because of the danger it poses to vulnerable communities. There is no assisted suicide without letting insurance and government have a say in whose life is worth living, because the whole point is that by legalizing it, it is able to be performed by doctors to be as painless as possible. That means the parameters would be written by politicians and enforced by doctors and insurance companies. We complain now (rightfully) about doctors who think the answer to everything is to lose weight and insurance companies which won’t pay for necessary interventions because something smaller should be sufficient. Imagine a world where your doctor hasn’t been able to diagnose you or fix your symptoms and they hit you with “Have you considered maybe your life isn’t worth living and your pain could be treated by killing yourself?” Or insurance plans which will only cover so many years of care for chronic illness before your time is up and they’ll only cover assisted suicide? Or government-sponsored free insurance for illegal immigrants which is touted as generosity but which predominately covers assisted suicide? And you can say that you’d have to consent, you could just say no, but that I think is an overly optimistic view of people’s strength. If you’re aging and your doctor and your insurance are pushing suicide, your government is praising the courage of people who end their own lives and their selflessness in not becoming a drain on society, your kids are hinting that they don’t want to go on paying for your nursing home, and you’ve seen several of your friends consent to assisted suicide, you’re under too much pressure to actually make a free choice. You mentioned the idea of a taboo. The purpose and force of cultural taboos is to help people make brave choices, when the alternative is an easy but bad choice or when forces are amassed against them. If, in the hopes of helping a few extremely sick people whose death was inevitable, we do away with the taboo and then we enshrine the goodness of suicide in law, we create an entire society which is hostile to life.

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
Do you like this Video Game Song? #3168
I like it and I've definitely heard it before
I like it and it sounds familiar
I like it and this is my first time hearing it
I don't feel strongly about it or have a complex opinion
I don't like it and I've definitely heard it before
I don't like it and it sounds familiar
I don't like it and this is my first time hearing it
Do you like this Video Game Song? #3169
I like it and I've definitely heard it before
I like it and it sounds familiar
I like it and this is my first time hearing it
I don't feel strongly about it or have a complex opinion
I don't like it and I've definitely heard it before
I don't like it and it sounds familiar
I don't like it and this is my first time hearing it
Do you like this Video Game Song? #3170
I like it and I've definitely heard it before
I like it and it sounds familiar
I like it and this is my first time hearing it
I don't feel strongly about it or have a complex opinion
I don't like it and I've definitely heard it before
I don't like it and it sounds familiar
I don't like it and this is my first time hearing it
Do you like this Video Game Song? #3166
I like it and I've definitely heard it before
I like it and it sounds familiar
I like it and this is my first time hearing it
I don't feel strongly about it or have a complex opinion
I don't like it and I've definitely heard it before
I don't like it and it sounds familiar
I don't like it and this is my first time hearing it
Do you like this Video Game Song? #3167
I like it and I've definitely heard it before
I like it and it sounds familiar
I like it and this is my first time hearing it
I don't feel strongly about it or have a complex opinion
I don't like it and I've definitely heard it before
I don't like it and it sounds familiar
I don't like it and this is my first time hearing it

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
I like to think that rocky is the only one who recreationally visits grace's biodome in a xenonite suit. of course there's scientists and engineers who inevitably have to occassionally go in for work on the dome probably, but I think rocky's the only one who goes into the crazy murder air for fun. and don't get me wrong- I think the other eridians adore grace and would do almost anything for him. however as much as they like him and as much as they may trust xenonite, they're still not comfortable the same way not every person would willingly put on an EVA suit and go for a spacewalk where the smallest issue could absolutely kill you possibly instantly; certainly not for funsies.
especially if you consider the book detail that prior to meeting grace, no eridian ever had to make a suit to survive in a hostile atmosphere; rocky was literally the first when he created the ball. it's completely new tech. it's not that eridians don't think it's a safe construction, if they had to they would put it on and trust they're safe, but rocky is the only one who does it every day, for fun and without fear because he loves grace more than he fears anything. and it's quite bewildering to the other eridians that he doesn't mind at all.
okay so @writerxwren ‘s farawyn/anti booktok post made me come back to this line of thought I’ve had for a while so it’s not wholly my idea BUT
I think one of the reasons wildehopps as a ship is so beloved amongst fans of these films (and just in general on the internet) is because they are the quintessential booktok romance done right. they are the best version of what everyone goes to booktok looking for. In fact, I’d go as far as to say they’re the most Jane Austen-coded couple I’ve seen in a long time. Hear me out okay I’m going somewhere with this
I don’t personally frequent booktok (I don’t have the TikTok app, I get all my info from YouTube or Tumblr), but as a writer who knows sometimes ya gotta dig into bad stories in order to figure out what makes them bad, I know enough about what that side of the internet enjoys in the way of tropes. Normally, I’m not someone who would suggest writing a story based on tropes alone, but even I can agree that having one in mind can be helpful in figuring out your characters’ dynamics and arcs. The most widely talked about romantic tropes on the clock app to my knowledge are enemies-to-lovers and banter and grumpy/sunshine and slow burn and an MMC who would ruin the world for his love, to name a few. The problem I’ve found with most booktok promoted books, however, is that these tropes are taken and written without an understanding of what makes them work. Enemies become lovers in 50 pages, the banter is spiteful and mean or just downright not clever (the ‘should I call you Prince, or pathetic?’ ‘You could’ve just called me yours’ audio I hear on YouTube drives. Me. Insane.), the sunshine is almost always a ditz or a show-off who falls head-over-heels for the grump, a controlling manchild who just wants someone to sleep with, and the “burning of the world to protect her” becomes so unhealthily close to obsession that it’s frightening for the girl in question.
all of these ideas are used without digging any deeper into why they originally clicked with readers, before they were so overdone that everyone sort of rolls their eyes at just hearing about them. they’re the frosting on a hollow cake: you might have something that tastes sweet at first, but there’s zero depth, and you’re left unsatisfied.
and here’s why I think wildehopps does it all right where many others get it wrong.
think about it for a second. Judy is the optimistic, bubbly girl boss who takes no bull from anybody. she’s witty and intelligent and would fight the sun if she were capable and angry enough. She’s what all the booktok FMCs want to be, but what makes her different is that she’s also kind. She can be gentle with those around her. She’s emotional, she allows herself to cry and embrace her loved ones. She likes to dress up (as seen in the z2 gala scene) and enjoy more feminine things, she’s a girl’s girl (“I love your hair!” as a seemingly innocuous moment that ends up saving hers and Nick’s life), she always sticks her neck out for someone in need, she is so very invested in doing the right thing no matter what. She is not a stoic soldier who only thinks of herself and how powerful she could be. And what else? It makes her flawed. She bore hurtful biases against Nick in z1, even if she didn’t realize it. She has a savior complex that gets her in trouble, a tiny thirst for glory she doesn’t truly recognize in herself. She’s prideful and pushes herself too hard because she’s scared that the world could perceive her as weak and unskillful. A dumb bunny. Despite being a rabbit, she feels incredibly human. Real.
And Nick! He is the textbook example of the snarky MMC with a dark past but a heart of gold buried beneath his tough exterior. He can be shifty, he behaves as though nothing anyone says can wound him, and he would do anything, even give up his own life, to make sure Judy is safe. He smirks nonstop, but his sincere smiles vastly outshine them. He even does the “lean against the doorframe” thing that’s so popular right now, but in more of an endearingly awkward, “I can’t let Judy see my shrine of her just inside my apartment” than seductive way. He is what everyone tries to write the Perfect Boyfriend as, yet like Judy, what makes him different is that his flaws are not treated like points of attraction, but like traits he must work on and learn to overcome. His inability to open up with Judy about his past and his fear of losing her isn’t expressed as though he were the dark and brooding bad boy, the tortured prince who was dealt a rotten hand in life (though never actually tries to fix it). His silence is a problem in his partnership with Judy. It’s something to sympathize with but it isn’t a characteristic of being attractive, it isn’t good that Nick bottles his feelings up and plans never to share them with the best thing that ever happened to him. The films correctly portray Nick as hurting himself because he’s choosing not to be honest with his partner. It doesn’t make him mysterious, it makes him relatable, someone you actively root for to improve.
Even better, when he does decide to take the leap, he ends up being incredibly vulnerable with Judy—“I make jokes about your ears and I tell you that you try too hard, when the truth is I just don’t want you to get hurt.”—which she reciprocates because she knows she can trust him with her emotions. Nick has endured hell and back and does not want to be alone any longer, but never once is this conveyed as “uwu soft morally gray Prince Charming” by the narrative. He is not a SJM type character, he’s just a decent guy who’s attempting to turn himself around by virtue of his altruistic partner’s faith in him.
Furthermore, Nick isn’t controlling or manipulative of Judy. He’s sly and sneaky in the first film, but he never does anything that could hurt her, even before they were friends. He never throws her into danger and expects her to find her own way out of it, he never coerces her into situations she would be uncomfortable with (apart from the Naturalist Club, though he gives Judy an out before they even go in and she doesn’t take it), he never uses her for his own means. His love isn’t based on what she can do for him. It isn’t self-centered. She is not his plaything, she is his person.
Speaking of that, unlike several, confusingly popular booktok couples (Rhysand and Feyre, Paedyn and Kai, Violet and Xaden, etc.), we actually comprehend as an audience why Judy and Nick love each other. While yes, it is a family-friendly series so you can’t go too deeply into it regardless, and physical attraction is necessary to an extent, Nick doesn’t love Judy because she’s “hot” or “sexy”. There’s no ogling of her physique, no fixation on outer beauty. He dislikes her a great deal in the beginning, but what wins him over is her compassion, her resilience, her idealism, and her belief in who he could be. She’s passionate and she’s brave, smart and relentless. And she gave him a chance, showed him there was more to life than just surviving. And when it comes to protecting her, yes he does it because he doesn’t want to lose her, but he also cannot stomach her being in pain. He stands up for her when her career is threatened, he is always looking for a way to comfort her through gentle touches. Instead of “burning the world down for her”, he shields her from the fiery darts by taking them for himself. He doesn’t take away her agency by stopping her from doing her job just because it’s dangerous, rather he walks through the mayhem with her, even whilst being afraid. He is ride or die for his bunny without a doubt, and I know we as a fandom like to joke about them being codependent, but Nick isn’t snarling at anyone who so much as looks at her (in z2, he only began to show his jealousy when Pawbert was actively flirting with her). He isn’t romanticizing being feral or insane about her. He loves her for who she is, and she for him. They would do anything for each other. Selflessness.
Same with Judy. She loves him because he’s intelligent and cunning, he believes in her when no one else does, he brings her back down to earth when her head is in the clouds, and he’s a profoundly considerate person as well as fairly emotionally intelligent when he’s encouraged to be. He’s good, and she wants to see him be good, she wants him to excel to his fullest potential. Like Nick, she would give up the rest of her days in a heartbeat if it meant he would be safe from harm; in Zootopia 2’s climax, she throws herself off a wall to reach him without having any idea Gary was behind her to catch her. She was willing to die with him if she couldn’t rescue him. She wants what’s best for her fox without asking for anything in return.
Then there’s the age gap. From what I’ve seen, people on booktok love age gap romances. Specifically if it’s between a 19 yr old human girl and a 500+ yr old faerie man. Good stuff, for sure (I say in complete sarcasm). Not only is it incredibly creepy that an eldritch god would be dating a teenager just because she’s “the chosen one”, it also adds a power imbalance that makes it so he is always in control over her, and she must go along with whatever he decides is best for her. He labels it as being protective, but it’s nothing more than abuse given the girl literally cannot fight back, or she’ll be punished in some magical, Lovecraftian way. Because these MMCs are never emotionally stable.
Nick and Judy, though? Boom, baby, 8 yr age gap. Far more reasonable than hundreds of years in between. As of z2, Judy is 25 and Nick is 33. Both are well into adulthood, thus nothing creepy can be construed, and there is no power imbalance because they are equal partners. They work together, they share the weight of the world together. She may be leading the team but she does not boss him around or force him to do whatever she says because she’s saying it, and he most certainly doesn’t follow like a subservient puppy…he goes where she goes so that he can keep her safe. In the second movie, when Nick proposes running away together to Outback Island about a dozen times during the mystery, to Judy’s consistent refusal, at any moment he is free to walk away. She wants him with her, but she isn’t keeping him there against his will. Still, Nick doesn’t leave her. The age gap is wonderful too because it allows Nick to have some knowledge of life and the way the world works that Judy doesn’t without it seeming as though he has an advantage over her. Her view of the city needing someone to help make it better is her hopeful mindset not having been crushed by the cruelties of reality yet, and Nick insisting the world is what it is, Carrots, is his reality rearing its ugly head. She gives him hope to dream, he reminds her not to let her imagination run away with her. Time and past trauma has cultivated who they are, but together, they’re learning they can be more than that.
Oh, and the banter. “It’s called a hustle, sweetheart.” “I think you’d actually make a pretty good cop.” “Ugh, how dare you.” “I was small and emotionally unbalanced like you, once.” “Har har.” “Darling, I think you’re giving me white hairs.” “Oh, I’m sorry, is my fear hilarious to you?” “No, of course not. We’re partners, and whenever I’m uncomfortable, you’re always very considerate of my feelings—LOOK OUT SNAKE SKIN!” “What is your problem? Does seeing me fail somehow make you feel better about your own sad, miserable life?” “It does, 100%.” “Love ya, partner. But I am still me, so you’re only getting that once a decade.” “Hopps and Wilde?” “Wilde and Hopps!” Listen, I could go on forever, okay?
And unlike dozens of booktok stories that claim to be “slow burns” yet get the main two characters together 3/4 of the way into the first book, Nick and Judy are a genuine slow burn. The way it’s looking, they won’t officially be together until around the end of the final movie in their trilogy! Unless Disney decides to make more than three installments in the franchise, it’s going to take almost the entirety of their story to come together. That’s a freaking snail’s pace and I love it, it’s torturous.
wildehopps is the enemies-to-lovers, grumpy/sunshine, slow burn, girlboss/chill guy ship booktok goes nuts over, but they’re characterized with depth. they’re fleshed out, they behave like actual people, they aren’t obsessed with physical appearances (again, family movies, but even still), and their love for each other is based on self-sacrifice. Judy is not a power-wielding boss babe who demands praise and worship from absolutely everybody, Nick is not a violent or possessive dark lord who hurts his partner but calls it love. They didn’t like each other upon first meeting, but mutual understanding and fondness shaped them into friends, and unwavering loyalty through hardship further shaped them into what we can safely assume will one day be romantic partners. They look after each other. They are best friends that are also in love. As Jared Bush himself has said, they are soulmates.
yes, I’m very aware it’s a disney movie, made to primarily be enjoyed by kids with families around. you have different guidelines when you work with animated films, I get it. nevertheless, what makes these two so compelling is the fact that they are what so many look for in fictional relationships done healthily (minus the smut but tbh, is that really necessary?). so, uh. writers on booktok, do better. Read more Jane Austen. A fox and a bunny are outpacing y’all. anyway thank you for coming to my ted talk
guess what I’m watching
Would you mind explaining your opposition to assisted suicide? Or did I miss a nuisance here, like is your opposition limited to a specific law or something?
Hi anon! Here’s the gist:
The goodness or worthiness of a human life is not dependent on the abilities of the person. It is also not dependent on how easy or pleasant their life is. It is inherent.
Suffering is an evil, but it does not reduce the person to less than a person. A person in pain is still a person.
Neediness and vulnerability is not an evil. To be dependent on others for help and care is not undignified. We are all of us dependent on one another.
Death “on one’s own terms” is not a desirable or admirable category, and is merely dressing up the ordinary category of suicide. Taking one’s own life is not better than having death “happen” to you. We wouldn’t feel comfortable with a happy, loved, young person suddenly freely deciding that it was time for them to die; we only invent this category for lives that we feel are unworthy.
Assisted suicide assumes that when a person a) no longer has all the abilities they used to (including mental capacity), b) is in pain, and/or c) finds themselves in need of a lot of help, either in the sense of nursing care or in the sense of “becoming a burden” on their family, that it is more compassionate and dignified to help this person end their life. This is an affront to the inherent worth of human life, and it also makes a mockery of compassion. Compassion literally means “to suffer with”. Rather than doing away with a person so we no longer have to face their suffering, compassion accompanies them, does its best to alleviate their hurt, and mourns with them the hurt that remains. Hospice or palliative care is infinitely more compassionate than assisted suicide.
That’s more or less the inherent argument against assisted suicide. There are also slippery slope-type dangers which are reasons to oppose it. Once assisted suicide is legalized for those in a state of physical pain and dependence at the end of their lives, it becomes ever more difficult to explain why suicide isn’t also the answer for mentally ill people who are suffering mental anguish, or disabled people who are in physical pain and/or dependent on others, and then assisted suicide expands and becomes ever more and more predatory. Our culture worships autonomy and usefulness, which has always had the effect of making the lives of mentally ill/disabled/elderly people seem to be worth less. Assisted suicide is the ultimate reinforcement of that attitude, finally claiming that it is actually true that these people would be better off dead and society would be better off without them.
This should horrify us. What is the difference between a mentally ill person who has made the choice that their suffering is too great and their quality of life so poor they would like to exercise their right to die, and a mentally ill person who succumbs to their suicidal ideation and steps into traffic? Only a doctor’s note. And who are doctors to decide when life is no longer worth living?? How are they to know that circumstances will never improve? How are they to know what impact a person’s life has on all those around them? And how naive would we have to be to imagine that these decisions would be made from a position of neutrality? Medical facilities and insurance companies would be less and less incentivized to actually care for vulnerable groups, when they can much more easily and cheaply funnel them towards self-destruction.
The possibility of assisted suicide, once it is introduced, is not just going to be picked by individuals with a lot of options exercising their autonomy with perfect understanding and consent. It’s an option which as soon as it’s on the table exercises a kind of pressure: aren’t you afraid of pain? You don’t want to be a financial burden on your family, do you? What good is your life if all you can do is lie in a bed? Won’t your loved ones come to resent all the help you need? If insurance doesn’t cover care and it does covered assisted suicide isn’t it selfish for you to go on living? Its very possibility is corrosive of civilized society, breaking down the connections we have to one another and leaving us all alone and afraid. It holds our worst fears over our heads—what if I’m only really worthwhile because of what I can do, what if helping me is a burden, what if my pain is too big for people to love me in it. I think these fears are wrong about human nature and human friendship. But a culture which has legal assisted suicide is a culture which does its best to make those fears into a reality.
Now, there still is nuance. Purposefully ending one’s own life is morally impermissible, but that does not mean that we are obliged to prolong life infinitely using any means necessary. If there is a surgery which will slightly prolong your life but drastically decrease your quality of life, you do not have to have the surgery. If you’ve been on dialysis for years and the toll it’s taking on your body is starting to pile up, you can cease dialysis. You can have a DNR. You can receive morphine in the days leading up to your death, even in quantities which would hasten (but not cause) your death, if that is what is required to keep you comfortable. If death is on its way to you, it’s okay to stand and face it and allow it to come.
Basically, like Poirot, I do not approve of murder.
reblog and put in the tags some of your favorite albums with an overarching narrative

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
It appears that boredom lies behind the most creative ideas. That's why quarantine has produced some of the most entertaining activities. One of them is the Getty Museum challenge, that so many of you have already seen in our previous article here.
Narcissus taking a selfie is the ACTUAL best.
These are REALLY cool
These are art in themselves, in a some of them point out what lockdown was like for us, they’re expressed themselves in a really cool way. But I think these are going to be talked about in the future.