diagraphers-brother

[diagraphers-brother]

hey so I actually don't think you should be breathing that much, like don't you already breathe enough? it isn't a good look to be inhaling and exhaling that much. idkk I'm just worried about your health, you know how many toxic chemicals are in the air :/ if you want I can surgically take out one of your lungs so that you won't breathe as much! you'll feel much better :) omg do you see that guy over there trying to catch his breath that's so funny haha he's breathing so much hold on I'm gonna film him real quick so my friends and I can all laugh at him later! hey so I heard about this new thing called "suffocation" and it's supposed to help you not breathe as much isn't that great? I mean yeah people die from that but at least we found a cure for the breathing epidemic! btw all of this is so normal

[diagraphers-brother]

I’ve recently been plating Age of Mythology, and have been having some thoughts on the choice of pantheons in the core game:

The core game pantheons in Age of Mythology (Greek, Egyptian, Norse) are the same as the real-world pantheons included in the Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition splatbook Deities and Demigods. They’re also the first three pantheons listed in Scion: Hero 1st Edition, and the only pantheons featured in both Scion: Hero and the Dungeons and Dragons 5E list of fantasy-historical pantheons. There seems to be some sort of cultural consensus that when media features multiple pantheons drawn from mythology these three are always the first three to be included. And I don’t understand why this is.

[diagraphers-brother]

That’s how Azadian sex works in The Player of Games.

I learned a little while back that apparently A/B/O fiction as it is actually written tends to be WAY less interesting than I'd always kind of assumed. Like ok yes it's a way to fictionalize existing gender/sex stuff so it can be explored from a safe distance, that's valuable, whatever-- but what I THOUGHT it was about, was brand NEW weird gender roles, and humans having an extremely alien method of reproduction that requires the participation of three distinct individuals. People are always acting like a/b/o is soooo weird and strange and deviant, I just assumed it had to at least have, like, ovipositors or something!

[diagraphers-brother]

The wapo this morning asking the tough questions:

How can there be justice for the families of victims in a shooting a quarter of a century ago if they can’t forestall any possibility the 14yo mentally disturbed child responsible will ever again be allowed to set foot outside his designated collective torture facility?

[diagraphers-brother]

[diagraphers-brother]

a lot of pro-high-density-city polemic has this kind of "caring about quality of life makes you a classist, if you stopped caring about quality of life / blamed all problems on Teh Landlordz you would feel better" mentality.

[diagraphers-brother]

[diagraphers-brother]

The Espionage Act has been used as a sledgehammer against every single journalist and whistleblower who's tried to uncover government abuses and war crimes in modern history, if Democrats start rallying around it because they're using it to investigate Trump I'm going to scream

[diagraphers-brother]

Actually I'm curious and want to run a non-scientific experiment, so reblog and in the tags put roughly the area you grew up in and what you call these little guys:

[diagraphers-brother]

The cops knew and protected this guy while throwing her in jail.

[diagraphers-brother]

Egypt straddles Africa and Asia, Arabic is spoken through most of both Northern Africa and Western Asia, and I definitely get the impression that Northern Africa and Western Asia are more culturally and politically connected to eachother than either is to the rest of their continent. So far as I can see all your arguments for grouping North and South America apply every bit as well to Africa and Eurasia.

Ok I'm. I mean this respectfully but. I'm so confused... How does Europe and Asia make more sense as two continents than North and South America? At least the latter are only connected by an isthmus, and are otherwise separate land masses. Eurasia is basically just one massive land mass. Of course I guess this is approaching the question from an emphasis on physical geography 😅

Dividing Eurasia doesn't make any sense at all from a physical perspective, it's definitely a purely political thing. If I implied that dividing Eurasia made sense I misspoke. But dividing America doesn't make sense either, and it doesn't even work politically because you're cutting Latin America in two??? Why? It doesn't work physically or politically, I don't get it.

The border is between Panama and Colombia as far as I can tell, let me know if I'm wrong. Panama and Colombia used to be one single country until 1903, and they might still be if the US hadn't decided it wanted a canal and that they should back the separatists.

The political subdivision of the American continent is North America, Central America and South America, and Central America is more culturally and politically connected to South America (making Latin America) than North America in my opinion. There's no physical discontinuity and no political reason to lump Central America with North America. Are Nicaraguans North Americans?

Honestly, I was taught the 6 continents model, but the 5 continents model makes the most sense. So Eurasia, Africa, America, Oceania and Antarctica.

Again, I'm not implying that dividing Eurasia makes sense either, Russia is in this liminar situation for example (although I think historically and culturally it might also be a bit in this liminar place between Asia and Europe, even if it makes zero sense physically).

I'm not great at geography and all these classifications are necessarily artificial and somewhat arbitrary (some models consider Eurafrasia to be one huge continent).

I'm just saying what makes sense to me based on what I was taught, and the absurdity of dividing Latin America is more apparent to me, since I'm not Eurasian and because it's new to me. I don't get why a bunch of contiguous countries that fought the same independence wars, speak the same languages, and a few were even part of the same country, should be in different continents.

I don't know if any of that made sense lol

[diagraphers-brother]

Something that helped me is realizing that if, in reality, someone sets up their boundaries as an invisible minefield that they refuse to explain, and then blames you when you do something they don’t like, they are actually just being a jerk

Thanks, and I'm trying to get there but it's very hard if you're around a lot of normie left-wing pop feminism stuff because, like, okay, here's some things I heard a lot:

Attractive women are subjected to constant unwanted attention and the inability to escape it is profoundly frustrating;

Women are socialized to placate men because bad things happen to them when they don't;

Men are afraid women will laugh at them; women are afraid men will rape them;

You, Morlock Holmes, have autism and you have strange ideas about how to act and socialize with people.

To me, that makes it seem like I won't be able to know if a woman is actually interested; and that, morally speaking, I have no right to expect the women around me to risk themselves by telling me if I make them uncomfortable; and further that, given the excess of attention women get anyway, and given that my attention is probably awkward and strange, I have no right to impose it on others just to satisfy my own desires.

People who aren't left wing can just say, "Yeah, that's not how it works" but like, most of my friends accept the premises I just laid out, but somehow not the conclusion for reasons that none of them can articulate that well.

It always comes off as, "Just think of dating as one of those low-pressure fun activities where some of the participants think that they are going to be raped or murdered... By you."

[diagraphers-brother]

@argumate

"it’s been years, right? that style of discourse isn’t even in vogue any more"

It's easier to avoid, yeah, and I've done some good deprogramming work but talking to a lot of people about it the conclusion I've come to is,

Maybe 85% -99% of people knew that stuff was just a fad, like mullets or bell bottoms, and they boosted it on Twitter and used the jokes about men being trash in real life conversation and just kind of understood it as a vibe.

You kinda get the vague sense that what's being complained about is real and you have some kinda vague responsibility to be a good man but pretty much you can just do whatever you were already doing.

#yesallmen is very important to know but, I mean, like, we all know that some men are more all than others.

And then there's a tiny minority of people who didn't get the memo that we were supposed to treat all this raw emotional political rhetoric as the pet rock of the 2010s, and attempted to really take it seriously as, you know, the fucking moral and political philosophy people kept saying it was.

And none of the people spreading it even really realized that we were trying so hard or taking it seriously.

And if you spend a lot of time living with this as a moral belief it's not so easy to deprogram yourself in a flash.

It's like you take, I dunno, Catholicism really seriously and confess every week and feel the weight of mankind's guilt and one day you come to church and everyone including the Bishop is like, "Yeah that Catholicism stuff is so five years ago, we're all Buddhists now. Seriously that guilt stuff is weird, you need to get laid.'

[diagraphers-brother]

i understand—and, indeed, sympathise with!—treating "ecosystems" as valuable in their own right, but it is strange to me when i see ppl act as though any obligations we have to animals (or plants, etc) must be entirely derivative from their contribution to the biosphere. to the point that ppl will assume anyone who treats obligations to individual animals as taking precedence over the ecosystem in which they are embedded is simply speaking out of confusion about the relevant ecology. or take it that noting some way of killing animals is not "ecologically disruptive" should be sufficient to dispel any possible qualms. an individual beetle's value seems so much more obvious to me than the ephemeral value of their biological environment, and yet to others this seems to be reversed. how peculiar!

[diagraphers-brother]

i understand—and, indeed, sympathise with!—treating "ecosystems" as valuable in their own right, but it is strange to me when i see ppl act as though any obligations we have to animals (or plants, etc) must be entirely derivative from their contribution to the biosphere. to the point that ppl will assume anyone who treats obligations to individual animals as taking precedence over the ecosystem in which they are embedded is simply speaking out of confusion about the relevant ecology. or take it that noting some way of killing animals is not "ecologically disruptive" should be sufficient to dispel any possible qualms. an individual beetle's value seems so much more obvious to me than the ephemeral value of their biological environment, and yet to others this seems to be reversed. how peculiar!

[diagraphers-brother]

Maybe you’re hanging out in better parts of Tumblr than me, but this strikes me as worse than Tumblr more in a “whoops you said the quiet part out loud” way than a “thank god there aren’t people like that here” way. Admittedly more so when I first joined Tumblr than now, but I’ve definitely encountered people on Tumblr who seemed to me to have these exact attitudes and just be too tactful to outright admit it.

Tumblr is like a monastery compared to the chaos of Twitter. Progressive liberals are coming out of the woodwork to defend some popular user working for 15 years at Lockheed Martin and exposing themselves as morally bankrupt as well in the process.

This website could never, nobody here has a job.

[diagraphers-brother]

This is just scratching the surface of the parallels:

- Both pairs of younger brothers are implausibly good at high-tech handicrafts.

- Both villains have more successful supervillain rivals who feature as such all though the show but who only act as episode villains in the finals season.

- Both goth ladies come across as perpetually somewhat sick of the villains’ constant stupid plans.

- Each series has a movie where we see a version of reality where a recurring villain has won, turned the world into a dystopia, required everyone to dress like them and turned a character much of the fandom ships them with into their mind-controlled elite guard, and where the main characters’ friends and families are leading the resistance and have become much grimmer and more macho as a result.

- Each has a movie where the evil scientist nearly succeeds in taking over the world with an army of flying robots.

- Each has a movie where aliens lead by a giant green woman kidnap the teenage redhead and one of the evil scientist-goth lady pair, leading the two’s associates to team up to rescue them, and said teamup then return to earth and continue fighting together to save the world from the aliens, who are now invading it; in each of these movies the aliens are eventually defeated by a plant monster that also fights the heroes, and the day is eventually saved by one of the evil scientist’s inventions which was introduced when he used it in a comically unsuccessful attempt at villainy.

here’s a question for you:

do you remember that cartoon about a teenage redhead who had a blonde boyfriend, an ethnically ambiguous best friend, and two younger brothers who can’t stay out of trouble?

you know, the show with the nonverbal animal mascot that helps fight evil? and the villain named Dr. D that hangs around with a dramatic goth lady, and builds robots for crime reasons?

it’s the one where the blonde boyfriend has a cute baby sister that he cares for and dotes on all the time. oh! and there’s a tech nerd who, for a large part of the series, you only see on a screen!

yeah? you remember it? great!

which one