༽ Omnihilo ༼

bitch just because you’re a insecure little cow does not mean that I’m not allowed to show that I’m comfortable in my own skin

DO YOU FUCKING GET THAT

JUST BECUUS YOU ARE A UGLY LIL COW doesn’t mean I can’t be comfortable in my own skin

yea i gotta nice body i got nice behinds i got nice nipples yeah and I LIKE THAT

i saw this image and immediately thought of the wammy boys like the image was so CLEAR

I never have done shrooms myself (never had the chance lol) so I don’t personally know how they can affect but I do think Luigi is autistic and quite a few times people misunderstand autistic traits as something else. For example there is a trend of people being diagnosed as bipolar when in reality they are autistic.

Personally I think some people like to jump to the easiest explanation i.e. it was drugs and/or mental illness but I think this case it’s all around complex and we actually know nothing, just like me saying he’s autistic when could very well not be.

Something that I find interesting it’s how society views people that go against the tidal and sometimes the explanation they come up with it’s they are not ok but are they the ones off or are we the ones off for keeping the status quo?

This reminds me of a quote he'd liked and posted of J Krishnamurti on Twitter.

I absolutely love love the last question you ask.

I will obviously stand behind whichever strategy his defense chooses to go with. Like, I just want him out of there as soon as possible, and it’s not fair that he alone should bear the legal burden of being some kind of revolutionary just because his supporters wish he were one.

I've been trying to be nice and concede to points that--if he did it--it was due to mental illness, drugs, etc. And I'm not closed off to the idea that any of/a combination of those things could be the case or played a part.

Intention: Consciously or not, your readers can tell when you're bullshitting them. They can usually discern between an intentionally crafted metaphor and when you're just throwing a sequence of words at them.

Your readers are using their probably vanishingly slim free time to read your work. Don't insult them like this. If you have nothing real or sincere to say, don't say it.

Frequency: Beginner writers abuse adverbs but they may overuse metaphors as well. Your writing probably shouldn't read as the equivalent of (extreme example for the sake of demonstration) "he spoke and his voice reminded her of this other thing (a bug crawling through brush), she reached out and touched him and the pressure of that touch evoked the idea of another thing (a feather landing on a silk handkerchief), she whispered back in a voice that was soothing like another thing (calm waves lapping at a shoreline)". One well-placed, thoughtful metaphor is better than five half-baked ones.

Weakness: "In a way that unsettled" demonstrates lack of confidence in the metaphor. The metaphor itself should be conjuring the "unsettled" feeling without being named. If it doesn't, rewrite. Don't instruct your reader how to feel about things you write.

Construction: I'm hung up on the "many-legged" descriptor. The author seems to have used it because it makes a good cadence for the sentence and, well, draws attention to the "many legs" of an insect and all the associated, near-universal feelings about that… but it's extremely clumsy. Is there such a thing as a "few-legged" beetle? Why does the Tweet author say "centipede" a sentence later? I'm an extreme defender (and lover!) of obscure metaphors, but can a person really speak in a way that suggests a crawling insect?

And having this discussion in a world where a significant number of people can't read at all and get upset and bewildered by any non-literal descriptor (e.g. "eyes darkening" (a person's expression changing subtly in a way that seems displeased/upset), "he barked" (shouted in a clipped tone) ) makes me feel like I'm losing my mind.

In my childhood and early teens your entertainment media was constrained to discrete pieces you either owned or borrowed (game cartridges, tapes, CDs, DVDs, books etc). You had ten games for your Nintendo 64 instead of an online library of a thousand games. You had a pile of albums (that you probably only bought for a handful of songs) instead of a streaming platform with every song ever recorded. Your books were whatever you had on your shelf or borrowed from the library.

This forced you to engage with those things more wholly and intentionally. People would have films down to memory and get really familiar with each and every nuance in a game. They'd listen to a whole album and learn to enjoy things about the non-radio album cuts (in fact, in the vinyl/tape/CD eras, sometimes you'd hear "hidden songs" which weren't listed on the slip/cover and could only be discovered listening all the way through). You would re-read the same books multiple times and notice different things each time, instead of treating them as one-and-done.

Unfortunately, having VIRTUALLY EVERY PIECE OF MEDIA EVER CREATED at your fingertips right now as you're reading this isn't very conducive to developing a deep bond with particular pieces of art. Why force yourself to sit through the other songs on the album instead of just plucking out the three you like? Why re-read the book if you already know what happens? Why re-play the game when there are 50 others you need to get around to?

As you said, I wouldn't wanna go back to the way things were. But damn, are we in trouble

(and holy shit is it enraging trying to have the most trivial conversation about any piece of media when it seems the majority of people interact with said media on a literal infantile level)

(2:47)