Tuulen vaara on olemassa, nukun

I think it's hilarious that hands down the worst way to learn magic is the actual rulebook. Please do not read that. It's just there for reference when something weird happens

posts that i know are about magic the gathering but i have to check to make sure op isn't just living in a way doper world than me

i hate ppl with canon urls like fuck you what did you do to deserve that

Madoka Magica Heritage Post

happy Thursday the 20th

I’d have to wait months or even years for another chance to reblog this, so why the fuck not?

next days you can reblog this on a Thursday the 20th

August 2015

October 2016

April 2017

July 2017

September 2018

December 2018

June 2019

February 2020

August 2020

You know, just in case you wanted to set your queue for the next 6 years

May 2021

January 2022

October 2022

April 2023

July 2023

June 2024

February 2025

March 2025

November 2025

August 2026

May 2027

Januaru 2028

April 2028

July 2028

September 2029

December 2029

Just in case anyone wanted to queue this for another 10 years

lady of the lake

Witch Homura by ogo00

Concept: tabletop RPG set in one of those allegorical brainfuck high school settings where the educational system is a metaphor for patriarchy or fascism or whatever the fuck, except the players take on the roles of regular background students who are just there to learn math. The protagonist of the notional cartoon series they inhabit is a rarely glimpsed background character whose journey of personal revelation is inscrutable and often absurd to the player characters, whose own goal is simply to survive to the end of the semester. Each scenario is obliquely based on the premise of the current "episode", which is not explained, like everybody wakes up as bears one day, then next week they're back to normal and never find out why.

(It is of course possible for the player characters to figure out what's going on, and even to identify the notional protagonist, but any attempt to actually interact with them will be frustrated by a series of seemingly coincidental obstructions, because "canonically" the player characters are unnamed extras who never say or do anything on camera. Figuring out how to interfere with a canon scene is one possible campaign-ending trigger.)

Ironically (or possibly intentionally), this is a great use of the educational system as a metaphor for class immobility and the failure of meritocracy in the face of rigid, aholistic social support structures.

I mean, I didn't think I was being subtle!

A lack of empathy is not a moral failing.

Some neurodivergent people feel low or no empathy towards other people. This is not an indication of moral bankruptcy or a sign someone is a bad person. You need to stop saying things like "Conservatives are evil because they just lack empathy.", or "The left is the party of empathy."

The word you are looking for is compassion.

The correct statement would be "Right-wing politics lack compassion." And the inverse "Leftist ideals are built on compassion."

We as leftists should not assume those incapable of feeling a certain emotion are incapable of acting with compassion, as that is deeply ableist.

The feeling of empathy can motivate compassion, but it is not required for a person to be compassionate. Those with low or no empathy can and do act with compassion. To care for others even in the absence of an instinctual pack-bonding drive to do so is truly revolutionary, and it should be recognized as such.

My own mother threw me out to die alone on the streets. She was high empathy, and believed she was doing good, and it hurt so much to do you see but it was for my own good. High empathy can be monsters too.

My best friend is a sociopath, and he'd fight God for those who are real and true to him. He has shown more compassion than anyone I'm tied to by blood, and he does it with what little empathy he can scrape from a bottle because he is disabled, not evil. He makes the choice every day to care. He isn't driven to it by instinct. He CHOOSES compassion.

Empathy is not morality. And it sure as fuck isn't compassion.

Mattresses, unbeknownst to many, are a lot like cars. Every year new ones roll out, they’re always tweaking and innovating and you’ll never find the same one you loved decades ago when buying a new one.

Where I sold mattresses had a three month return or exchange program for this reason. New beds take a while to break in, and they’re a big expense. Your body is used to the old one. So we made sure people were loving it. If a bed got returned we’d take it back, sanitize and clean it, then sell it again on clearance.

To sell these we always had to disclose what clearance meant to customers, and they had to sign that they knew what they were getting. (FYI, not every company is as… forthright about the used bed situation)

In clearance we had beds that were floor models, we had returns, and more rarely we had old models whose line had been discontinued. These clearance beds were always final sale, so a bed could only be sold twice.

Now, the manager at the store I was working at had realized a vital fact. Clearance beds in the warehouse didn’t sell, especially old models that salespeople weren’t familiar with. And even more especially in odd sizes, like twin extra longs. So he set up a split king on the showroom floor to exhibit clearance beds, pulling all those forgotten twin extra longs out onto the showroom.

Almost all of these were brand new discontinued models. Beds I’d never learned in training were exhumed to be displayed. The manufacturers had moved on to new lines and they’d been left behind. Why would he take such in interest in selling old stock, you might wonder? Because we made double commission on the sales margin of clearance beds, and if we’d had a bed long enough they dropped the cost in the system so it was a fucking cash cow to sell these. Even with huge discounts the commissions were wonderful so it was a win win.

When I got started I was jazzed about this program, I was so on board to sell weird old brand new beds and make a ton of money. I had a wonderful older couple come in, looking for a split king adjustable set. This was a white whale sale.

The current clearance models on the floor were a latex mattress that was brand new despite being of an age to start first grade, and a tempurpedic floor model. The couple laid down and it was like magic. They each loved the bed they’d laid down on. They wanted to buy the whole shebang.

I. Was. Thrilled. I told them about the clearance program and what that meant, and they weren’t bothered in the least. I wrote up the sale then dashed into the back, fizzing with excitement to tell my manager what I’d done.

“You sold the death bed?!” He asked in delight.

I pulled up short, my smile freezing in place. “What…?”

“Didn’t you check the notes?”

I hesitated for a long beat then slowly shook my head. You see, dear reader, all beds had a personal history. Every clearance bed had logs written up by the person who took the return, as well as warehouse crew after sanitizing. It helped us know what to expect when selling them. “Wasn’t it just a floor model? You said it was a floor model…”

He slowly shook his head. I checked the notes.

It turned out, it had been sold as a floor model. The first time. But the company had made an exception and taken it back as a return two months later. Why? Because it’s owner had passed away.

I stared at the computer in horror and my manager shrugged. “They signed the clearance form. Technically it was a floor model.”

“We know for a fact that a man died in that bed!”

“What they don’t know can’t haunt them,” he said philosophically.

The man came back a week later for more sheets, utterly delighted to tell me how well they were sleeping. I clamped my teeth down around the secret of the deathbed, choosing to let them love their new bed without the stigma. Only one person would be haunted by that deathbed, and it was me.

Like with that last post, what I'm saying is that if you think committing sufficiently evil crimes means you should lose access to human rights, then you do not think we should have unconditional universal human rights. That's what that means. That's the stance you're taking. And if you think that's a good idea there's nothing wrong with, then you can just openly commit to that. You can say "I don't think we should have basic human rights; it's possible to do something so bad that you no longer deserve rights".

Having to loophole it with "universal human rights! but some people aren't human" gives away that you think there is something wrong with your position that you don't want to acknowledge. You feel like you have to do some kind of clever little act of rules-lawyering to make it sound ethical and you know it. That is not trustworthy behavior. That makes it sound like you know, on some level, the position you believe in isn't morally sound. Grow a spine and commit if you genuinely think it's best.

theres a very common type of lgbt tumblr user who will seem chill enough with transness and gender and the idea of upending the whole of it until inevitably they say or do a few things that concretely demonstrate their earnest unadmitted belief in the implication that queerness in general is something that people who were camab can only be guests in. ask them if a cishet man or cishet woman feels closer to queerness and give them 5 seconds to respond with what comes off the top of their head and you’re gonna collect some interesting data

like once you start noticing that almost all dumbass lgbt gatekeeping and discourse around validity will always, always turn back to an imaginary cishet male target, you really have to start asking why this is and why so many implicitly offer hypothetical cishet women the potential for growth and community and gender exploration while denying this to the (again) hypothetical cishet man. because they’re both cishet and there’s no inherent difference between gender, right? and then you have to start thinking about what impacts this bias has on who feels welcome and able to explore their identity and who ends up constantly on the back foot having to make up for themselves…

Drowning this because a) really don't want to make a long post longer and, b) this isn't the type of person who'd respond well to constructive criticism of their worldview from someone familiar with the topic.

Since I'm not looking for an argument, I thought I'd use it as a learning exercise for everyone else. Also under a cut because it got very long and I started quoting papyri because I was annoyed.

I love history and archeology but I was scandalized when in a museum in Firenze, they displayed the funerals clothes of a couple of Medici. They dig out those people and strip them of their funeral clothes to « preserve » it.

I get that clothes are important and all but for me, this was a step too far.

Right, so, this didn't seem right to me so I looked it up. Turns out the tombs of Cosimo I de' Medici and his wife Eleanora of Toldeo were discovered in 1857 not by archaeologists but by the state. They had already been plundered and all that was left were their bones and these clothes. The idea that they 'stripped the bodies' of these clothes is sort of a misunderstanding. In order to remove the bones and rebury them, they had to move them, and in order to move bones that are no longer connected, they had to remove the clothes. That's not particularly difficult on a 300 year old set of bones. They slip right out. It was decided at the time, to rebury them without the clothes. This is likely because the people who reinterred them placed no value on the clothing rather than thought 'hey we must preserve them in perpetuity'. You can't put clothes back on bones anyway. We wouldn't necessarily rebury clothes with bones now either, mostly for reasons related to beetles and potential infestations under a Basillica that no one wants. (You want rats in your crypt? that's how you get rats in your crypt). Anyway, no one looked at the clothes themselves until they were conserved in the 1980s (at that point they were shapeless rags that were almost destroyed) and they were brought back to life as you see them today.

This post is about Modern Archaeologists and why we do what we do, so comparing the exhumation of the Medici's and the taking of their clothes in 1857 to what modern Archaeologists do and then saying it's bad is exactly what this post was reinforcing as a 'not great thing to do'. What you're attributing to archaeologists here, which is what this post is about, is actually the work of a) the state and b) Antiquarians. Antiquarians are the predecessors of Archaeologists in that they often made surveys of sites for the preservation of history, but they had no formal training and often did damage to sites. The work of these people is often ascribed to Archaeologists because formal Archaeology with rules and ways of going about things developed in roughly the 1820s but still existed alongside Antiquarians. Early archaeologists are not great, that's long been established, but, not to beat a point to death, people can't keep tarring modern Archaeologists with the same brush as Antiquarians or even early Archaeologists. We're not the same people. We don't do the same work. We cannot change what's already happened.

I'm glad we have those clothes on display because uhh..the crypt (after reinterrnment) was opened in 1944 (I think everyone knows what was going on in the 1940s so I won't mention that) and then flooded in 1966. We're lucky Cosimo and Eleanora's bones still exist, let alone their clothes.

No one deliberately dug them up to strip them of their clothes for the 'preservation'. Their place of rest had already been largely destroyed. What happened was they were moved, reburied, and the clothes they were in (rotted as they were) were deemed worthless and kept in a box until 1983, when they were then conserved.

Can we please stop attributing grave robbery to Archaeologists as if this is what we do 'for the knowledge'? That'd be great.

/hj is the funniest earnest tonetag in the world even without the handjob joke because it's ostensibly meant to clarify tone for autistic people, but the tone it's clarifying is "unreadable level of ambiguous seriousness that requires social context beyond what text can convey /glhffgt"

I'm half joking, which either means that I'm presenting sincere beliefs flippantly to avoid backlash, that I'm completely lying about what someone like me would say, that I'm presenting a mix of true and false statements, or that I'm loaning out a socially acceptable opinion to nudge you back in line /hj