ihavemanychickens

[ihavemanychickens]

tired of the word boycott getting thrown around for things that very much are not going to be successful so here's some traits you should look for before choosing to participate in a boycott:

it should have a clearly stated demand, and that demand should be something that the boycotted party has control over and can actually change. "stop engaging in discriminatory hiring practices" is viable, "stop selling goods at a profit" is not

the boycott should only end when that goal is met. fixed end dates allow the boycotted party to just wait it out. one-day boycotts are especially comical

boycotts should expect an actual change in your behaviour. not doing something you can't afford the cost of or already weren't going to do isn't boycotting.

there should be some kind of clear organisational structure - somebody needs to relay demands to the boycotted party, be able to call off the boycott when their demands are met, and ensure everybody participating actually understands what the boycott is about

[ihavemanychickens]

i had to

[ihavemanychickens]

Paint practice feat. Echo

[ihavemanychickens]

In theory, maybe I get the “we’re all just playing with barbies, they’re fictional characters, no interpretation is incorrect because it’s an interpretation” argument. But actually no, not all takes are equally valid. Framing something as an interpretation doesn’t mean it inherently has merit. Some takes are completely incorrect and betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the source material. They just aren’t a reason to harass people or send death threats

[ihavemanychickens]

slow down for your disabled friends. thats like a bare minimum kindness that we shouldnt have to ask for. i love that youre so quirky and walking fast is a cool personality trait to you and all that but i bet you can count your physically disabled friends on less than one hand

[ihavemanychickens]

"reblog if __, who wouldn't?"

"if you don't reblog this unfollow me"

"reblog for__ ignore for --"

"who wouldn't reblog this?"

"you have to reblog this"

"no __ will reblog this"

No. Shut up. These statements are not safe for those with moral ocd. Reblogging something or not does not change opinions and actions. It does not define a person. It does not represent beliefs. You can share your beliefs without harming others.

[ihavemanychickens]

[ihavemanychickens]

one tells only truth the other also only truth they're really nice

[ihavemanychickens]

youre telling me a ham fisted this metaphor??

[ihavemanychickens]

If anyone wants me to say my opinion on a character with this bingo

[ihavemanychickens]

[ihavemanychickens]

Are you real?

Interesting question. I try to be. Obviously there's a limit to how much of my real self I can comfortably share with strangers online, but I try to be as real as I can be here.

To be honest it's not for the benefit of any audience, as much as it's a kind of self-preservation. Fame of any level is poison to the soul and you have to fight against its effects even when you're only niche-internet famous. People who think you're famous treat you as both more important and less of a person: they treat you like you're incredibly special, but also like you're public property, acting towards you in ways they'd never do to someone they consider "real".

I try not to moan about it too much, as we all do it - it's just part of how our culture conceptualises fame. I do it about people I think of as famous, treating them like they're unreal. But the danger is that if you're not careful you can internalise it and start thinking of yourself as a famous person. And when you start to see yourself as unreal in that way, it kind of drives you mad, and can turn you into a real asshole.

There's no minimum fame level for it to happen, either. I've seen previously lovely people get a hundred fans, decide they're a big deal, and turn into huge dickheads.

The only antidote to the poison I've found is to do your best to stay real, and it's one of the reasons I try to be offline more than I used to, and spend most of my leisure time watching things I don't post about or hanging out with friends whose names none of you will ever know.

So yeah, I think I'm pretty real. I guess I see 'keeping it real' as a sort of spiritual survival strategy, and try to do so as much as possible.

[ihavemanychickens]

I made a bad comic and now you have to look at it

[ihavemanychickens]

what about the reshaping of modern technology, by the human body?

[ihavemanychickens]

when you're a shapeshifter i bet letting yourself slowly fall off a rooftop only to turn into a bird and fly away feels soooo good

[ihavemanychickens]

Proship is the normal stance. Despite how people twist the term, it just means not being okay with people being harassed over fictional interests.

oh yeah no dont get me wrong im with you i just dont use the specific labels because i dont think either are particularly useful now that theyve been so sidelined into chronically online discourse

[ihavemanychickens]

To put it bluntly, the only way to end homelessness is to house people or kill them.

That's it. Those are your options. Homelessness doesn't go away based on "crime crackdowns." You will imprison the unhoused, and when they are free, they will be unhoused again. Or they will die in prison.

When you burn encampments or force people out without their stuff, they remain unhoused or freeze to death.

After working with the unhoused, it's become abundantly clear that those who don't want to support them instead want them dead.

There is blood on the hands of every government and organization that controls the homeless population with force instead of compassion.