today-tastes-like-honey

[today-tastes-like-honey]

It's always rather fun for me, reading your takes on these topics, because I approach them from an entirely different - or so I think - perspective than you do, but we still arrive at the same posittion, condemning human exceptionalism.

I read part of a fantasy story where the villain is an entity that “tells stories,” controlling monsters to make them evil and controlling human heroes to slay them. If a monster manages to break its control and not be evil, either it arranges for the monster to die tragically, or it declares the monster to be retroactively half-human and makes it fill the role of a human hero. No monster can be allowed to survive to the happy ending unless it can be humanized.

So no, I’m not really sold on KPop Demon Hunters.

[today-tastes-like-honey]

I read part of a fantasy story where the villain is an entity that “tells stories,” controlling monsters to make them evil and controlling human heroes to slay them. If a monster manages to break its control and not be evil, either it arranges for the monster to die tragically, or it declares the monster to be retroactively half-human and makes it fill the role of a human hero. No monster can be allowed to survive to the happy ending unless it can be humanized.

So no, I’m not really sold on KPop Demon Hunters.

[today-tastes-like-honey]

Nothing in the world feels as unjust as the fate of the Disco Elysium developers.

Imagine you build this in-depth fictional setting over the course of decades with your friends, and then decide to turn it into a game for fun. You end up creating one of the most celebrated and well-written RPGs of all time and become celebrated for reviving a dying genre.

A few months later, you're fired from the company you founded for criticizing the new direction its taking. The company has the copyright not only to the game you made, but literally everything in the world of the game, which spans decades of lore you built for no profit with your group of friends.

Like, this is a nightmare that I didn't even know existed before I ran into it. To have, what is essentially a passion project that branched off from a TTRPG campaign, be pulled from your hands by a corporate entity that only yearns to abuse your creation for maximum profit. I couldn't imagine myself going on creating anything after that.

[today-tastes-like-honey]

The EU (still) wants to scan your private messages and photos

🚨 You WILL Be Impacted 🚨

Every photo, every message, every file you send will be automatically scanned—without your consent or suspicion.

If you live in the EU*, contact your MEPs NOW and tell them to vote NO! Go here to learn more & FIGHT BACK!

https://fightchatcontrol.eu/

*especially if you live in Germany - they have not yet decided, and their opposition is crucial!

Please reblog! If the EU passes this, it weakens online privacy worldwide.

[today-tastes-like-honey]

As always when I make posts about these shows: I largely enjoy dropout's stuff, at least the ones that I watch. Still: I'm a little bit Dimension 20 critical bc I think they kind of treat "not American or British" as a joke much of the time. Not when it's about anyone who's on the cast, mind you, but otherwise.

Like what was the joke with Evan Kelmp. Why did the whole cast laugh whenever Brennan said his character's name. Oh it ends in three consonants? Do you laugh at Rosa Parks' name when it comes up? Or is it just "hee hee this is a foreign name"?

Mice and Murder introduces Ally's character with them doing their worst stereotypical German accent and grinning into the camera. What's the joke here? "Look, guys! I'm speaking like someone whose first language isn't English, as imagined and popularized by people who hate them!"

Even when ostensibly making fun of the fake-English people with the high elves in Fantasy High, they still make fun of other languages by mocking the pronunciations of names. Y'all. Tolkien did not make up Elvish out of nowhere. He based that pronunciation on, yes, also Old English, but also other Eurasian languages. "Fathrethriel" needs to be understood as a mockery of names like Flaithrí, Fakhraddin, Fathallah, Qudratullah, etc. There are thousands of languages on earth, there is no good way to do "haha, these names sound so silly." Every name you can come up with bears similarity to a name that exists. If you have to make fun of names, how about you make fun of your own, or ones like your own? But Brennan never comes up with a character called Buenyan, Lú, Arribeesleigh, or Aawiaa to be an annoying side-character, nor will he ever talk about a name as "oh you just know all those vowels are double-vowels" the way the group makes fun of Elvish names (TO REITERATE. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE FEELINGS OF ELVES, WHICH I KNOW DO NOT EXIST, BUT OF REAL PEOPLE WITH NAMES SIMILARLY DIFFERENT TO WHAT THE CAST CONSIDERS NORMAL) or Evan Kelmp. It's like when people talk about fantasy languages that use diacritics or apostrophes and claim that it's to make it look "exotic", and not because, yknow, real languages use diacritics and apostrophes. French, for example.

More recently, take Cloudward, Ho!. Of the characters, there's Maxwell (Fantasy American), Montgommery (fantasy american, very moderate African-French vibes), Olethra (fantasy american), Vanellope (fantasy English), Daisuke (fantasy Japanese), and Marya. Who of them has a fake and kinda racist accent they talk with the whole time? Marya, of course, the one whose fantasy-ethnicity has no member of an equivalent real-world-ethnicity among the cast. She's also the one living in Trash Land Where Everything Is Garbage And Everything Sucks. Come on now. Does Daisuke talk like a 1960s stereotype of a Japanese person? No? Great! Why does Marya talk like a stereotype of a Slavic person then?

I don't think this sort of stuff makes them evil or anything. It's pretty clearly unintentional, just something they haven't really thought about very hard. But I do think they could do with extending their perspective of what "diverse" and "respectful treatment of ethnic groups" means beyond their very America-centric, English-adjacent perspective. Like I don't wanna put on a new season of a show I like and be greeted with "heyyy here's a stereotype of your culture that Americans online and irl have used to communicate you are less of a person than they are! We made fun of a name that sounds like your mom's name for being silly and ridiculous, too!"

[today-tastes-like-honey]

I tend to favor proportional representation because, well, it's the most accurate representation of the population's views you can reasonably get, but it does come with problems.

How do you run a government in a proportionally elected parliament? You make coalitions. Are the people involved in the making of these coalitions? No, of course not. That would mean either warping the vote in the election to give the most popular coalition a majority even if the parties involved don't have one naturally, or letting e.g. conservative voters decide on whom the socialist party gets to make a coalition with, and vice versa. This kind of thing is not sensible, to me.

But then you do arrive at the problem that in a coalition, what happens is a) all laws the coalition partners agree upon are enacted, and b) no laws even one coalition partner disagrees with are enacted.

So if you have a coalition of a popular 35% party with a less popular 12% and an unpopular 5%, just barely getting a majority there, the representatives of 5% of the population can (and do) veto any legislation, even when everyone else is in favor of it. That's not reasonable, either. Mind you, I'm a voter for parties in the 5-15% range, usually, so that often benefits me, but that doesn't make it better.

"Well, don't do coalitions, then! Just let the parliament decide on each proposal freely!", I hear you say. This is not going to happen in a lot of cases, because a) the chief executive wants to know they'll keep their job for the whole term, and b) parliamentarians want to enshrine as much of their views into law as possible, generally. In order to do this they make alliances with people who have similar views, agree to suport them on votes they don't care about themselves in return for the other groups' support on things, etc, etc, and bam you have just reinvented coalitions because you cannot run a parliamentary system without them.

At the same time, coalitions have the unfortunate side-effect that every law is a compromise. So things generally change fairly slowly - the SPD and Green-led efforts in the years from 2021 to 2025 to improve Germany economically, environmentally, and socially were often hindered by the liberal democrats (who, for what it's worth, were the reason germany voted against the EU's chat control plans), and now all three parties suffered for it in the february election. The conservatives are ideologically sliding closer to the nationalists to siphon votes from them, but they will never be able to do that because they are allied with the SPD, which will stop, curtail, or weaken many or most of the racist, homophobic, and anti-social policies the conservatives want to enact.

[today-tastes-like-honey]

When I studied in America for a semester the members of the dnd club asked me to walk another member (freshman) to their dorm bc they were worried about campus rape and abductions and what not. It was a five minute walk in an area littered with cameras, past exactly one (1) other dorm (mine) which was mostly inhabitated by women. The fear of abduction was also given as a common reason, once the summer heat no longer served as an excuse for needing AC, why they had to take their cars for the entire, what, quarter mile (for the people furthest away mayby 2/5 of a mile) from the dorms to the dining hall.

And I was like y'all. When I go home I'll keep studying in a city, living in a random city apartment like 85% of the university students, and walking/taking public transport to university nothing has ever happened to me or any of my male, female, or non-binary friends. You study in a town that, without the college students, had like 2,000 people. I promise you you don't need to be worried about this. Didn't help.

also tbc they weren't afraid of anyone in particular. Like I was literally a stranger except for the fact that I had classes with one of them and played dnd with them. I was as likely to be a threat to this person as anyone else on campus. A spectre is haunting America - the spectre of rape.

it’s actually wild how terrified of the general public most usamericans are. like you don’t realize it if you’re someone who mostly walks and takes transit and spends a lot of time in populous public spaces but then you talk to one of the thousands of people that seemingly never set foot in any public space besides a parking garage or a starbucks and you suddenly understand why it’s so easy for fascist rhetoric about the dangerous alien to take root. this country’s median voter pretty much never interacts with strangers who aren’t their coworkers or people they met on dating apps

[today-tastes-like-honey]

surely the best alternative would be to not violate the UDHR, but if you're going to pick, wouldn't you rather a country let someone leave and not return rather than force them to stay? if the gunman offers you a choice between "cigarette and shovel" or a one way ticket to Moldova, would you really say "well excuse ME sire the United Nations thinks what's you're up to right now is downright vile" or would you say "as a matter of fact i would rather keep living than keep being ukrainian, have a nice war without me"

Look. Yes, in either situation, I will take the option that allows me to live. But you do see that you have to make the government a homicidal maniac in the analogy, right? The gunman/government making people choose between these options are unambiguously and inexcusably evil. They should, in fact, not be doing that. If you do not have the right to save your own life and not be punished for it, you have no rights at all. At that point, you are not a person before the law, you are a thing. No one would make the argument "if there's a housefire, you should be compelled by law to run in there and save whomever you can no matter the risk of injuries or death." That's because that would be an insanely evil thing to make someone do, and it's immediately obvious to everyone. I'd say that the draft is no different, but that's not true; forced military service is considerably worse. We would not punish a father or mother for not running into the flames to save their child, or anyone for failing to save their loved ones; the "nation" is a concept far less personal or important than that.

[today-tastes-like-honey]

According to the CDC, in 10 percent of those drownings, the adult will actually watch the child do it, having no idea it is happening. Drowning does not look like drowning—Dr. Pia, in an article in the Coast Guard’s On Scene magazine, described the Instinctive Drowning Response like this:

“Except in rare circumstances, drowning people are physiologically unable to call out for help. The respiratory system was designed for breathing. Speech is the secondary or overlaid function. Breathing must be fulfilled before speech occurs.

Drowning people’s mouths alternately sink below and reappear above the surface of the water. The mouths of drowning people are not above the surface of the water long enough for them to exhale, inhale, and call out for help. When the drowning people’s mouths are above the surface, they exhale and inhale quickly as their mouths start to sink below the surface of the water.

Drowning people cannot wave for help. Nature instinctively forces them to extend their arms laterally and press down on the water’s surface. Pressing down on the surface of the water permits drowning people to leverage their bodies so they can lift their mouths out of the water to breathe.

Throughout the Instinctive Drowning Response, drowning people cannot voluntarily control their arm movements. Physiologically, drowning people who are struggling on the surface of the water cannot stop drowning and perform voluntary movements such as waving for help, moving toward a rescuer, or reaching out for a piece of rescue equipment.

From beginning to end of the Instinctive Drowning Response people’s bodies remain upright in the water, with no evidence of a supporting kick. Unless rescued by a trained lifeguard, these drowning people can only struggle on the surface of the water from 20 to 60 seconds before submersion occurs.”

This doesn’t mean that a person that is yelling for help and thrashing isn’t in real trouble—they are experiencing aquatic distress. Not always present before the Instinctive Drowning Response, aquatic distress doesn’t last long—but unlike true drowning, these victims can still assist in their own rescue. They can grab lifelines, throw rings, etc.

Look for these other signs of drowning when persons are in the water:

Head low in the water, mouth at water level

Head tilted back with mouth open

Eyes glassy and empty, unable to focus

Eyes closed

Hair over forehead or eyes

Not using legs—vertical

Hyperventilating or gasping

Trying to swim in a particular direction but not making headway

Trying to roll over on the back

Appear to be climbing an invisible ladder

So if a crew member falls overboard and everything looks OK—don’t be too sure. Sometimes the most common indication that someone is drowning is that they don’t look like they’re drowning. They may just look like they are treading water and looking up at the deck. One way to be sure? Ask them, “Are you all right?” If they can answer at all—they probably are. If they return a blank stare, you may have less than 30 seconds to get to them. And parents—children playing in the water make noise. When they get quiet, you get to them and find out why.

Source/article: [x]

Follow Ultrafacts for more facts!

[today-tastes-like-honey]

I mean I don't disagree but nevertheless, if I have a right on paper, I will use it for my argument in discussions about what I or anyone else may or may not be subjected to. It's not about whether the right itself is good enough, nor whether they are commonly enforced, it's the fact that drafting people violates their human rights, as does not allowing refugees to return to their countries for any reason.

re: ukraine drafting people into the army during an invasion, i feel like an equitable solution would be to allow people to flee the country who don't want to die defending it, but make them reapply to be citizens if they want to return after the war is over, presumably with a fair amount of prejudice if Ukraine ends up with significant loss of territory as a result of the war.

That way, people who don't care about dying for "their" country get to keep living, and the army doesn't need to care about whether or not the soldiers are people who even care about what they're fighting for.

It's admittedly a bad option but so are pretty much all the others.

an even better idea might be to let people go where they want and not use citizenship as a way to create two classes of humanity

[today-tastes-like-honey]

The point was not "you, argumate, are wrong, bc this already exists", it was "drafting people and stopping them from leaving is a violation of their human rights and so is anon's proposal"

re: ukraine drafting people into the army during an invasion, i feel like an equitable solution would be to allow people to flee the country who don't want to die defending it, but make them reapply to be citizens if they want to return after the war is over, presumably with a fair amount of prejudice if Ukraine ends up with significant loss of territory as a result of the war.

That way, people who don't care about dying for "their" country get to keep living, and the army doesn't need to care about whether or not the soldiers are people who even care about what they're fighting for.

It's admittedly a bad option but so are pretty much all the others.

an even better idea might be to let people go where they want and not use citizenship as a way to create two classes of humanity

[today-tastes-like-honey]

being allowed to go wherever you want is literally a human right. Like it's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 13 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. 2. Anyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

re: ukraine drafting people into the army during an invasion, i feel like an equitable solution would be to allow people to flee the country who don't want to die defending it, but make them reapply to be citizens if they want to return after the war is over, presumably with a fair amount of prejudice if Ukraine ends up with significant loss of territory as a result of the war.

That way, people who don't care about dying for "their" country get to keep living, and the army doesn't need to care about whether or not the soldiers are people who even care about what they're fighting for.

It's admittedly a bad option but so are pretty much all the others.

an even better idea might be to let people go where they want and not use citizenship as a way to create two classes of humanity

[today-tastes-like-honey]

it's funnier bc it wouldn't work. Vulcans aren't inherently or naturally logical, they are extremely passionate and aggressive people who cultivate self-restraint and logic based on Surak's teachings that are de facto a state religion at this point. This kid isn't gonna grow up to be a logic machine for business purposes but a tall Ferengi with small ears, super strength, and a really short fuse.

a ridiculous concept i cant get out of my head is the ferengi having an attitude toward vulcans thats basically "these guys would be SO COOL if they didnt SUCK" bc they could be making absolute bank with their ruthless logic and intellect and they have the second sexiest ears in the galaxy, but noooo, they're too busy deepthroating the federation's boot. BUT if you took a vulcan baby and raised it right, with good ferengi values...

cut to quark showing up one day wearing a baby bjorn and sisko or whoever asking him "why do you have a vulcan baby 🤨?" "i acquired it." "you mean adopted?" "yeah yeah whatever. lets go, t'axevasion, time to launder money with daddy"

[today-tastes-like-honey]

There are gonna be people who won't like hearing this but if you want to live in a world where mixed marriages, families, and adoptions (particularly POC adopting outside their "race") aren't maligned and discriminated against, then you have got to get more chill about seeing someone partaking in something cultural that you don't think fits the "race" you perceive them as.

[today-tastes-like-honey]

Thanks to the muppets, you just can't call your daughter Miss Piggy anymore

True

[today-tastes-like-honey]

im gonna be honest gang i really don't care if a 16 year old sees porn. i think the circumstances & context around your first interaction with sexuality is a lot more important in whether or not it will be traumatizing in some way than the sex itself. like i think the first time i ever looked up porn i was 12? which is a very normal age as well. and i was also on tumblr where i saw a lot of people saying "hey porn isn't realistic" so when i watched porn i was like hmm interesting, maybe hot, but i's not good advice. and that was that. watching porn didn't lead me to engage with any adults, it didn't make me upset, all it did was help me visualize things and later explore my own sexuality. and im not saying there's no rules i couldn't get behind regarding minors and sexual content because we do have these concepts for good reasons. but i keep seeing people be like well OBVIOUSLY we should keep minors from watching porn! and im just like idk! do we really need to be majorly concerned with preventing teens from accessing porn as much as we need to make sure there is bountiful, educated and compassionate sex ed, workers rights for sex workers, and awareness around abuse? maybe the solution is better positive than negative

[today-tastes-like-honey]

The ARD?? Showing The Bibi Files?? Of all channels?? The state-sponsored primary German broadcasting channel??