#exploiting the vulnerable

[sohannabarberaesque]

Meanwhile, just imagine how many suspicious and disreputable fortune-smelling operations the several "meddling-kids-and-dog" elements have disrupted.

(As a matter of fact, in Great Britain, spiritualists, fortune tellers, astrologers and suchlike are not permitted to advertise in any way out of concern over the appeal such might have to vulnerable persons who could stand to lose what little savings they may have.)

[yippee-optimistically]

rarepair post ive been mentioning. surprise its PETALPRAWN 😟😟

these next 2 i am a little obsessed w i think theyre soooo funny

very last doodle is lowk inspired by this post ,, go follow bird theyre awesome

the petalprawn fandom is dying !!!! reblog to make it die faster !!!!!

[infinitelystrangemachinex]

massages forehead So Ambessa hid Mel away because she was a weapon in the literal sense, a mage. But Ambessa came to Piltover for Hextech? And Ambessa had nothing to say to Mel about her powers having visibly awakened? Even when Mel offered to go with Ambessa, giving her the ultimate opportunity to make Mel a weapon for real? And Ambessa made no attempt to find or retrieve Mel - not just her daughter and the remnants of the family Ambessa professes to love, but also her ultimate weapon - when she disappeared? And Ambessa trusted Singed and Viktor on their home turf - neither of them hiding how insane and self-serving they are with every reason to take over Ambessa's soldiers or just blatantly turn on her as soon as it benefits them - more than she trusted Mel? While Caitlyn (and by extension Piltover) was visibly and clearly falling away from Ambessa's teachings before Ambessa's eyes? (as if getting rid of certain people allows piltover to get rid of fascism but we won't get into All That)

Not only do I struggle to be hyped for Mel's powers beyond how amazing and beautiful she looks, but I can't help but feel like Mel is somehow less powerful in season 2 than she was in season 1, and not in an interesting way. As if Mel's ability to bend all of Piltover politics and economics to her will in season 1 now means nothing in season 2? You can argue that Jinx's attack led directly to Mel losing ground in Piltover - because I expected Mel to have to claw back that power without being able to rely on people who are too easily seduced by Ambessa and authoritarianism, and she would have to get creative to go toe to toe with her mother. I expected pushback to her mage identity that she would have to navigate. But instead this went either unwritten, or was ignored or discarded. Instead Mel is removed from the main plot, cutting her off from what made her the most interesting - only for all of Mel's very real talents, her very real powers and abilities, to be not only translated but REPLACED with magical powers she doesn't know how to control, and by the finale, those magic powers are the only powers that are considered real. Mel takes a backseat to Piltover's governing and decisions, a backseat to Jayce of all people who was not only new to politics mere months ago but made poor governing, strategic, and diplomatic decisions when he had that power. In season 1 Mel stayed off the "throne" but she did pull its strings one way or the other, and she makes no attempt at this in season 2

In my least generous suspicions, Mel was gentled and quieted to capitulate to an agenda for other characters who had to be correct and heroic - or wrong and villainous - no matter what the leadup narrative said, given her powers to help sell the game and set up future shows, and was effectively ejected from the Arcane story with faceless soldiers and a role she doesn't want because she was inconvenient there

[indeliblemarking]

so annoying how people ignore that adora’s “protectiveness” is not just a sweet quality and that she has like, a martyr complex because of abuse. like that is literally part of her character arc, learning to let herself be taken care of and to stop throwing herself on the chopping block.

same with people seeing catra as someone adora protects through a solely shipping dynamic lense or this damsel in distress almost and portraying it as this romantic thing (usually to make them fall into an opposites masculine and feminine dichotomy (not that masc and fem couples are bad but this misses the point) when catra actively hates it. the climax in their relationship is catra as the protector, adora’s knight in shining armor (paralleling utena) for a reason.

[the-girl-with-too-many-ideas]

Shen Yuan's life would have actually been far more difficult if he was the only transmigrator. Instead of airplane, he would have been dealing with an active and malicious spy who would not have hesitated to take advantage of him and his situation.

Either he believes the entire amnesia story or picks up that SY is an imposter. Maybe even both. He believes the amnesia first but then realizes something more is going on when he tries to take advantage of the so-called "amnesia."

Whatever the case, Shen Yuan's life would have gone from easy mode to medium or even outright hard.

[rexxdjarin]

we were innumerable possibilities in infinite timelines.

and I loved you in all of them.

we were never supposed to live apart,

so I died to be beside you.

neither of us could survive all realities alone,

so I accepted death to save you.

because in all timelines, in all possibilities,

without limits or hesitation,

it was only you.

it was always you.

[omegalerc]

https://www.tumblr.com/souvenir116/771042600504508416/mama-slayy?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/souvenir116/771043118896267264/omega-presenting-okay?source=share

Ricky, it seems that Charles is in heat

CHARLES LECLERC PROFESSIONAL LEG-SPREADER!!!

[angelsdean]

I NEED YOU.

[sketchysubstance]

I think a lot of yall wanna have serious conversations about a characters morality until it comes time to analyse immoral things that the in-universe characters just glaze over.

[24hrsoda]

i am taking ghost-maker away from people who do not understand what an unreliable narrator is.

if anybody tries go tell me he is “just in it for the art of it” i am going to take you out back and shoot you 4837383 times.

[boof-chamber]

[soundleer]

Is Raddy... ticklish? 🥺

raddy may not make himself seen as someone who might be ticklish in the eyes of any sprunki but in secret, his soft spots—especially the sides, belly, and base of the tail—are extremely sensitive to touch so in fact, he's such a big ticklish dino

though in order to achieve that, someone's gonna playfully wrestle him and put him into a vulnerable position to tickle him into oblivion teehee

[x-other-souled-x]

No. Nope.

Using language that systems may also use in a medical setting to describe their expereinces and go through treatment is not appropriation. Full stop.

There is no culture being exploited, unless you want to argue that the medical-industrial complex is a closed culture somehow.

Which I have definitely seen posts saying something dangerously close to this, and I urge you to not base your entire sense of self on the guys making money off of you. Even if they're helping, there's intentional siphoning of money from poor patients.

Secondly, language is a tool used to communicate. Words exist as "bodies" to a concept, and sometimes this concept is interpreted a little differently from person to person. There are a lot of words that mean several different things depending on the context. The most important thing is the setting which they're used in. A good ammount of medical terms are also words that are used by laymen in other contexts, meaning something different.

A system is a group of interrelated parts working together as a whole.

An Operating System (OS) is a system of code and software that tells the hardware what to do in order to make your computer run. There's agricultural systems, government systems, the solar system itself. Are these things appropriating the medical-industrial complex by existing as parts that make one whole thing work?

And before anyone splits hairs about this, I am not equating human life to computers or the government. These are examples of things that are literally defined AS SYSTEMS. The main takeaway you should be having here is that system is a broad term with many many applications outside of the medical-industrial complex. That one institution does not own the word nor the concept of being multiple parts (headmates/alters/whatever) working together.

The concept still exists and system still is a word outside of a medical context.

In other words, people would have eventually came to the conclusion of calling themselves systems regardless of if it was used in a medical context or not. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together, to see parallels in concepts and expereinces and decide those words work just fine. Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk.

This is a post online, made by a trauma-formed system. I'm not going to have the time and foresight to cover every little nuance, and I don't care to be pedantic and pick apart small case instances. At the end of the day, this does not actually matter to how I live my life, how I get therapy, how we as a system have to work together. Endos using terms that are also used in a medical setting (but also used outside of medical settings) is not harmful to me in any way. And quite frankly, I think anti-endo witchunting has done more damage to us as a system trying to figure out how to navigate life than any endo friendly post has. I'm not arguing semantics, I'm going to go live my life and go outside and do my job and pay my bills like everyone else.

All this discourse around stealing terms and what you can and can't call yourself is so seriously unimportant in the grand scheme of things. You all sound so comfy and privileged to be worried about something so trivial as a word or three that is used in multiple contexts accross human language.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Social Consequences of Marketing

Marketing, while essential for businesses and economies, has also been criticized for causing harm to society in various ways. Here are some significant ways in which marketing has negatively impacted society:

1. Promotion of Consumerism

Excessive consumption: Marketing often encourages the idea that happiness and success are linked to material goods, promoting a culture of consumerism. This has led to excessive consumption, debt, and environmental damage, as people are driven to buy more than they need.

Planned obsolescence: Companies sometimes design products with limited lifespans, encouraging consumers to buy new versions frequently. This practice contributes to waste, depletion of resources, and increased consumer spending.

2. Exploitation of Insecurities

Body image and self-esteem: Advertising in industries like fashion, beauty, and fitness often exploits people's insecurities by promoting unrealistic beauty standards. This can lead to mental health issues such as low self-esteem, anxiety, body dysmorphia, and even eating disorders.

Fear-based marketing: Some marketing strategies use fear to sell products, such as insurance, security systems, or health products, by making consumers feel unsafe or inadequate without them.

3. Targeting Vulnerable Populations

Children: Marketing often targets children, who are particularly susceptible to persuasive messages. This leads to the commercialization of childhood, with kids exposed to unhealthy food, consumerist values, and a materialistic mindset from an early age.

Low-income groups: Companies sometimes market harmful products, such as payday loans or unhealthy foods, more aggressively to low-income populations, exacerbating financial hardship or health problems.

4. Perpetuation of Stereotypes and Social Divides

Gender roles: Marketing often reinforces gender stereotypes, portraying women as caregivers or men as breadwinners, thereby perpetuating outdated norms that limit gender equality and diversity.

Cultural appropriation and tokenism: Some brands use cultural symbols or minority groups in marketing campaigns without understanding their significance, which can lead to cultural appropriation and tokenism, alienating and misrepresenting marginalized communities.

5. Environmental Damage

Overemphasis on fast fashion and disposable goods: Marketing has contributed to the rise of fast fashion and a throwaway culture, promoting short-term use of cheap, disposable products. This has serious environmental consequences, including pollution, resource depletion, and the generation of vast amounts of waste.

Greenwashing: Some companies falsely market products as "environmentally friendly" or "sustainable" in an attempt to capitalize on consumers' eco-consciousness, misleading the public and delaying genuine action on environmental issues.

6. Manipulation and Misinformation

False advertising: Companies sometimes make exaggerated or false claims about their products, misleading consumers and creating false expectations. This can be particularly harmful when it comes to health products, pharmaceuticals, or weight-loss treatments.

Addictive design: Marketing techniques are increasingly used to promote addictive behaviors, particularly in the context of social media, video games, or gambling. Companies manipulate users through behavioral nudges and psychological triggers that keep them hooked.

7. Invasion of Privacy

Data mining and surveillance: With the rise of digital marketing, companies have gained unprecedented access to consumers’ personal data. Many firms engage in data mining and targeted advertising based on individuals' online behavior, often without full transparency or consent, leading to concerns about privacy and data security.

Personalization and manipulation: Highly personalized marketing can lead to manipulation, as companies can target individuals with ads tailored to their specific vulnerabilities, making it harder for consumers to make objective decisions.

8. Promotion of Unhealthy Lifestyles

Junk food advertising: Aggressive marketing of unhealthy foods, particularly to children, has been linked to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related diseases.

Alcohol and tobacco marketing: Despite restrictions in some countries, marketing of alcohol, tobacco, and vaping products continues to glamorize these potentially harmful substances, leading to addiction and public health crises.

9. Contributing to Financial Instability

Credit and debt marketing: Marketing of credit cards, loans, and other financial products often promotes spending beyond one's means, contributing to personal debt and financial instability. Predatory lending practices, such as payday loans, are frequently marketed to those already in financial difficulty.

10. Reduction of Authenticity and Creativity

Commercialization of art and culture: Marketing can sometimes reduce art, culture, and creativity to mere products to be sold, stripping them of their authenticity. This can lead to the commodification of creative expression and a focus on profit over substance.

Trend exploitation: By constantly pushing new trends, marketing fosters a culture of superficiality and short-term thinking, where value is placed on what is fashionable or trending rather than what is meaningful or lasting.

While marketing plays a critical role in the economy by connecting consumers with products, it also has significant social, psychological, and environmental consequences. From promoting overconsumption and exploiting insecurities to targeting vulnerable groups and contributing to environmental degradation, marketing practices have often prioritized profit over societal well-being. Reforming marketing to be more ethical and socially responsible is essential for creating a healthier, more sustainable society.

[wolfiso]

Lawyers of Tumblr a pair of questions:

When natural disasters hit (especially the slow moving or erratic ones like Hurricanes and Wildfires) I have regularly seen and heard stories of people whose employers force a choice between evacuating as ordered and remaining employed. The usual scenario is something like: Evacuation Orders begin being issued. Hourly wage worker in a nonessential industry is informed they are expected to report to work as normal. Hourly wage worker cannot evacuate until hours or even days after being told to evacuate, despite having dependents or other complications making evacuation difficult.

What I want to know is, at what point might the employer become liable? Either for wrongful termination or injury to the employee or dependents as a consequence of delaying evacuation?

So either the employee calls in their absence to work citing Evacuation Orders, and as a consequence loses their job. Why is this not wrongful termination? The employee was complying with instructions from a government entity (Evacuation orders are issued by the government, right? How does that not come before employer directives?)

OR

The employee completes their work shifts as ordered and either themselves or a dependent is injured or killed in the course of the disaster. If the employee had been free to evacuate without risk to their job they would have. Why then is the employer not liable for negligence? or are they and the employer is just playing 'you don't have the resources to take me to court' gamble?