Ruthless Chastity

So damn true 😭😭

Scientists have captured footage of the “ugliest shark on the planet” alive in its natural habitat for the first time Goblin sharks have rarely been sighted due to their deep-sea habitat and experts say we know virtually nothing about them

"Okay, so there's a gladiator fight in honor of the, uhh, emperor's birthday. The emperor is so old he can't stay awake. You're thinking "what kind of nightmare is this?" Camera pulls back and you see the fight is on the White House lawn." Rod Serling, on his 87th cigarette: No

@Kicksbuttson The most likely answer (imho) is neurological, and it’s that we have huge amounts of neural hardware and software for recognizing faces and so are rendered uneasy when something triggers that hardware and software without falling well into the expected parameters.

🧵One discussion of evolutionary psychology I enjoy a lot is the debate over the uncanny valley predator theory... You may have heard of it before. It's the theory that our ability to spot and be repulsed by things pretending (yet failing) to appear human is an instinct we developed over millions of years. Which then begs the question, what thing in our ancient past was pretending to be like us? This debate gets a little lost in the supernatural weeds, which is fun. But for that same reason, it also seems really similar to a lot of other debates about the supernatural in science. Scientists are quick to point out that humans are no the only species with a repulsion to the uncanny valley effect. Dogs and cats are also extremely suspicious and aggressive towards copies of themselves. Ever seen a dog react to a stuffed animal that looks a little too dog-like? The rebuttal to this is that dogs actually do have closely-related kin in the animal kingdom who they might need to avoid, which explains why they (and so many other animals) have this instinct. But what about humans? I've heard this theory used to rationalize the belief in anything from vampires to elves, and even ancient alien encounters. The very obvious answer is that in the past we had to worry about other species of intelligent mostly hairless hominin, meaning Neanderthals and Denisovans. Not to mention other subgroups of homosapiens which would spring-forth over the next few thousand years. Yes, you're hardwired to spot things (or people) who look similar to you, yet distinctly different, and it's normal to feel an innate repulsion or suspicion of them. You can say that we practice higher reasoning skills when we overcome this instinct and interact with them on even terms, but when the rest of the world still sees things in a tribal "us versus them" perspective, how intelligent are you for being the only one letting their guard down?

@bryndensraven Can’t be because she’s the queen. Like how you can’t assassinate a guy if they’re nobody. Femicide doesn’t refer to queens being killed by their misogynistic brothers lol

you are correct. "cut her breast, to draw blood to entice Sunfyre" not arm, not face, not chest, not neck...her breast. the language in the text is deliberate.

This is from Paglia’s essay “The Return of Carrie Nation” which you should definitely read. It’s short and peak Paglia. She also gets mildly racist with it. Some other quotes: “Because I am a pornographer, I am at war with Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin” “Dworkin is Pee-wee Herman’s Large Marge” “[Andrea Dworkin’s] let-it-all-hang-out ethnicity was initially liberating.l “Dworkin publicly boasts of her bizarre multiple rapes, assaults, beatings, breakdowns and tacky traumas, as if her inability to cope with life were the patriarchy’s fault rather than her own” “Dworkin seized on feminism as a mask to conceal her bitterness at this tedious, banal family drama.”

People still do not understand. The state won't arrest you. They won't put you in jail. They won't be a court process to challenge. It will simply lock you out of your bank account. Stop you traveling. Limit your access to the internet. Stop you getting a loan or a credit card. Imagine there is another virus released from a lab by China and the US government working in lockstep. Imagine there is another lockdown and they have a new MRNA injection you have to take. And the next booster and the next...

I’m actually a child online safety expert and was one of the pioneers in this space with Club Penguin and so I feel uniquely positioned to critique this. The groomer problem is real but it’s also vastly overstated. The far larger issue we saw at Penguin was suicidality or reports of sexual abuse in the home. There is no solution for lazy/bad parenting. You can implement all the ID laws you want but if parents are going to just hand kids their phones unlocked, those kids will have access to all the same things the parents have unfettered. What I found is that these draconian safety laws actually make it harder to be an honest operator of kids apps because on one hand it’s so much legal risk and so much user friction that it simply becomes uninvestible as a business. Parents will just lie to let their kids use the unfettered internet. For example, I have a friend who works in mobile gaming who has two kids, one above and one below the age limit but separated by just 2 yrs, and the two wanted to play and chat together on Roblox - which is reasonable. To do this, he just verified that his younger kid is old enough for the chat feature when he’s not. This happens all the time and will happen with these laws to. How far do we want to go with this? Scan the face of the user in real-time to make sure it’s not a kid using the device? We could do that but it feels like a massive unwanted intrusion of privacy. That’s how you know this law isn’t about kids. COPPA and GDPR-K and so forth already make it illegal to allow chat and other grooming vectors to kids. What’s really being done here is trying to eliminate online anonymity. And this is a far bigger issue that goes to core speech rights because if you cannot criticize the govt anonymously and if wrong speech is a crime then it becomes easy to identify all the detractors of the govt in power, and ban, fine or jail them for speech crimes. Starmer has already been doing this and he wants to do it at a much bigger scale. Starmer won’t even acknowledge the problem of actual grooming gangs in Britain’s neighborhoods but he’s worried about online grooming? No he’s not, and this hypocrisy gives away the game. What he wants is to kill online anonymity so he can enforce censorship of his unpopular policies. No politician should have this power.

At some level I want to be indignant about this, but TBH I have a hard time imagining spending four years at a US university and *not* becoming radicalized against the country, one way or another.

Imagine going 116 mph and being pulled over by a Va State Trooper while you’re a member of the House of Delegates at 1am after a party, avoiding mandatory jail time, then turning in 500 hours of “community service” for your own political action committee before tweeting “nobody is above accountability.”

Arrested for screaming too loud while being raped. Genuinely sounds like something American right-wingers would come up with as a parody of Britain, grim.

@OfficialTresure Ozai was not 6’5 get the fuck out of my face

A 12yr old stopped a 100yr war... That is humanly impossible ... Just look at the hight difference between Aang and Ozai.

#AvatarTheLastAirbender #ATLA #zutoph

they got tired of people saying his tie looked like a little body

“American stadiums are horrible, they shouldn’t host” “Ok the stadiums are nice but they won’t fill” “The stadiums filled but the games will suck” “The games are exciting but American cities are terrible” “American cities are only fun because they’re rich”