gattsuru
1yr ago
I think the whole discourse has been poisoned by Zionists who regard criticism of Israel as a state as criticism of Jews as a people, which is an absurd notion.
There's a !!fun!! space of discussion around people merging the two, but I don't think it's particularly relevant for these cases. It's not like these schools would have accepted a protest at a Hispanic Student's Union over Mexican gang violence/drug trafficking hitting Americans, even if the textual criticism was clearly about separate groups from the students.
gattsuru
1yr ago
... is it supposed to be an inverse log scale or something? That's painful to read.
In California, specifically, the law did (and still does) have a strict age of consent at 18, with the close-in-age exception only reducing the offense to a misdemeanor, dating back to the 1913. It was even gender-neutral, by text! But in practice, police and prosecutors overlooked the typical teenagers boinking; prosecutors focused on late-20s or 30-year-olds knocking up 14-year-olds, particularly severe embarassments of the upper class, and places where other sexual offenses would be complicated to demonstrate or taboo to discuss. Some of the limited tolerance for diddler-adjacent arguments in the 60s and 70s reflected the ability to deflect onto those less-controversial matters -- two sixteen year-olds giving handies may or may not be moral, but it was nowhere near the same class of bad behavior as the Breendoggle.
And a lot of the early US LGBT movement was from or downstream of California, so it had an outsized impact.
((There's a small remnant of this disagreement when people bring up underaged sexting, same-age relationships, and sometimes the libertarian ephibophilia paradox. But for wildly obvious reasons all but the dumbest of these groups now very clearly demarcate their positions.))
That said, the bigger cause was just that a lot of the modern understanding of child sexual abuse as damaging in itself, not 'just' gross or immoral or something done along with conventional physical harm, is a result of surprisingly recent research. Abuse before the 1970s could sometimes be further demonstrated by physical harm, usually in around a stereotype of a violent stranger kidnapping and dumping a victim, but especially outside of such extreme (and extremely rare) versions most of the focus remained on reputational harm or moral standards, because that was enough. Even in those cases, the victims were expected to not understand or even remember what was done to them. Corruption of a minor was at most understood as making these immoral acts tempting to the victims(!).
(This wasn't helped by the most visible groups for academic being the then-newly contacted non-Western cultures with ‘ritual’ abuse, which charitably investigators weren't always familiar enough with the language and close enough to the victims to hear about dislike, and less charitably associated a lot of less-immediate harm with other cultural practices/race.)
It wasn't until the 1960s that gathering serious information about the prevalence of child abuse really happened at an academic level (yes, arguably, Kinsey did it in the late-1950s, but he wasn't very believed and his methods and reporting were garbage), and the 1970s for a national standard to be set. This made studies of sexual abuse victims possible: rather than searching for extremely rare survivors of stranger rape, psychologists could argue that one-in-four women were subject to such abuse, and they could use standard study recruitment methodology.
When they did, they discovered what Reason euphemistically quotes a once-NAMBLA-supporter as calling "developmental issues" in tremendous quantities. This seems obvious in retrospect -- they were being attacked in some of the worst possible ways by trusted figures, early in their emotional and social development, often for lengthy periods of time! -- but it absolutely flipped the board. This is why you see even opponents of Breen during the Breendoggle focusing on character or mental health of the perpetrator with occasional mentions of physical risks, in a sense that is absolutely alien and repulsive to look at today.
From a more... cynical perspective, the growth of divorce in the 1970s also presented a very large number of extremely uncontroversial targets: perpetrators (almost all men) whose ex-spouses could now report crimes after having legally separated and achieved a level of independence, while those perpetrators could have potentially been awarded some level of custody during divorce hearings.
gattsuru
1yr ago
Sorry, I mean 'unavoidable' in the sense that whatever level of bonding triggers pops as soon as one or more people involved penetrate or orgasm, rather than in the strength of that bonding.
Both modern gay culture and some classical periods among hets had a lot of both casual sex (in the conventional form and prostitution, respectively) without a lot of the romantic love, sexual jealousy, and long-term attachment, and separately have relationships with the romantic love, sexual jealousy, and long-term attachment. It might still not be controllable, or universally available -- enough people do trigger this bonding based, as evidenced by the people who 'bond' with particular sex toys, some 'johns' developed fixations on particular prostitutes.
It might not even be good to the extent it is possible: people talk a lot about parasocial relationships in general, but I think there's gonna be a rude awakening when the stuff driving that gets redirected to one-on-one encounters on massive scales. But it does happen, today.
gattsuru
1yr ago
I'll caveat that the Russian Fox domestication is somewhat controversial when it comes to exact numbers -- there's a plausible argument that the source stock had been partially domestically, if under weaker and unintentional pressures, since they were previously used for furs, and some of the traits showed up before the official domestication project -- though my gut check's that it's probably closer to real than not.
I think the historical (and... Certain Current Subculture) case for an unavoidable 'natural law' pair-bonding behavior is less clear than people would expect, though my personal and closely observed experience tends to be more in the M/M spaces such that I'm a little hesitant to generalize. But even for the hets, that (for almost the last hundred years) almost all of your visible population will also spend an unrivaled amount of time with their sexual partners is a big confounder.
You just (re)quoted FCfromSSC and yourself providing a long list of how conservatives are being persecuted and deprived of their rights. If all you're claiming is #1, then what are we disagreeing about?
I am not claiming #2 or #1, and I just spelled out that's my point. A good deal of my frustration is because of this division where the only settings are either "woke censorship is bad" or "literally herding us into concentration camps".
You did catch that there were a couple shootings that never went to trial in there, right? The ATF and EPA are not typically considered as censorship issues,. The executive branch repeatedly ignoring court orders are not "laws I don't like sometimes get passed".
And more broadly:
You may not literally have invoked concentration camps, but the whole point of FCfromSSC's accelerationism has been, as I understand it, that he sees peaceful coexistence becoming impossible in the near future. Actual concentration camps? Maybe not, but if we can't even share a country and accord each other civil rights, that seems pretty damn concentration camp-adjacent to me. And the The_Nybbler's entire schtick is whining that the Left has won, laws and democracy are fake and gay, and the boot is already stomping on his face forever and ever.
"[L]iterally herding us into concentration camps", "can't even share a country and accord each other civil rights", "peaceful coexistence becoming impossible in the near future", and "whining that the Left has won, laws and democracy are fake and gay, and the boot is already stomping on his face forever and ever" are all drastically different things (as are "invoking Orwell" or "disenfranchisement"), and they're not even the full scope of positions you've brought this set of claims against! Some of them aren't even the same tense!
I don't agree with FCfromSSC or TheNybbler — I’d rather their position be false, though the Litany of Tarski still reigns — so I'm not going to debate whether this is a particularly good interpretations of their posts. I'm not going to argue that you could or should try to steelman either's position.
What specific ground points do you think I am retreating from?
In this thread, we have "being deprived of civil rights" or "the level of a fringe political or religious minority in previous eras in US history"], before you jump to "literally herding us into concentration camps". That entire giant list of examples is here because you set it as predictive ground points, even if you were targeting twenty years rather than three.
Do you want (and am I allowed to) point to past examples from old threads, now? There's a smorgasbord of options, but I don't want to bloat the post if it's not your point or if it's going to come across as a gish gallop.
What do you want? (Besides to goad me, so, mission accomplished I guess.)
To be as explicit as possible (and borrow formatting from Wittgenstein):
Which of the following are you actually claiming :
A. Things I'm citing are "specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies"? either that:
-
Dolloff really faced a trial, Garner wasn't hounded to suicide by a prosecutor who celebrated his death, few if any violent acts by leftists escaped trial or received laughable punishments, conservative public speech never encounters legal threats or state-mandated discrimination or tolerated physical violence, people don't get fired (from a government job!) for donating to legal defense funds of innocent men, the federal government does not defy court orders, there haven't been prolonged and successful efforts to restrict some conservative meetings while tolerating or even permitting progressive protestriots, so on. I'm not gonna ask you to name every false claim, but I'd like more than one.
-
or They happened, but they aren't common enough to 'count', and there's no reason for Red Tribers to worry about or plan around an increase in rate.
-
or They happened, but they aren't novel enough to count, compared to past cultural loggerheads that Americans resolved calmly.
-
or They happened, but they aren't novel enough to count, compared to past cultural loggerheads that included the Literal Civil War.
B. The things I'm citing real and meaningful, but not justification for retaliation:
-
past some threshold of behavior, or
-
even where those retaliations are non-violent? (or at least as non-violent as any state power can be)
C. These things real, and meaningful, and justification for retaliation, but not cause for escalation? either
-
as a matter of slope, eg, where it's better for someone to get beaten to hell by an angry mob than shoot his attackers or
-
as matter of thresholds, eg, until people get thrown in gulags/concentration camps?
D. These things are real, and meaningful, and people can retaliation and escalate in response where necessary to stop an attack/whatever, but such behaviors will not keep escalating.
Any of these are potentially interesting discussions (although, uh, I've not found discussions on the normative side of self-defense particularly illustrative in the past with other people), but I've been hammering pretty hard on A1 so we've at least got some factual foundation in agreement, and it’s very far from clear we have that.
gattsuru
1yr ago
I'm not sure Polgreen should be taken any more seriously than David Brooks or other op-ed authors, even in the limited sense of being a finger on the pulse off the LGBT movements/taxi drivers. I realize that there's a tendency for that sorta claim to be a No True Scotsman, but I'll point to this, not just that it's a weird focus (though it is) or that it's badly written (ditto), but just that it's more about Polgreen's psychology that anyone else's, even and I'd argue especially when those broader focuses would be more persuasive. People on her side aren't going to particularly dunk on those asides just because a) soccons already did, and b) the original subhead was so much more dunkable, but very much framed in the sort of way she could choose to retreat to vagueries about nonbinaries and bisexuals if/when challenged.
The flip side to 'she said her movement was lying for political power then' is that this only tells us that she was lying at least once. There's a hard question about how much movements in general are or even can be guided by principles rather than will-to-power, but there are at least some individuals where they're pretty clearly just-in-time rationalization.
That said, the deeper underlying questions are significant and important. The broader question of what, if anything, it is reasonable to prohibit, is actually a hard question in libertarian thought! It's easy for matters like third-party harm or the knowledge problem to turn on rationalization rather than impact, or for clearly coercive behaviors to be kept carefully out-of-frame for discussions. And while it can be tempting to exclude such temptations when discussing matters at positions of theory, the resulting policy combinations near-universally come out philosophically incoherent and politically impossible.
((That said, you can go even further that direction. There's an even-more-cynical position than Wertheimer's, where before considering the theoretical question of free choice, or even before the empirical question of harm, you just look at the pragmatic question of physical requirements. Mainstream liberalism isn't going to result in a lot of children having unsupervised time and privacy.))
gattsuru
1yr ago
The funny thing is that I've done no small amount of pushback on those three particular topics before, both here and elsewhere. But interest in reason can't be an interest in one side's reason.
If you want me to change my mind, name what I've said that's wrong, and show me how it's wrong. If you want me to debunk something different, point to something different I've missed.
gattsuru
1yr ago
I don't endorse this, but the theory goes:
American condom sizes are established by the FDA, as a rule, partly for standardization reasons, and partly to simplify testing. Condoms must have a fully-unrolled length of at least 170mm, and has a narrow band of widths. Technically, the standard uses a 'flat width', as one-half the unstretched circumference. While this has somewhat expanded in recent years, from 50-54mm 'flat width' (100-108mm circumference) before 2008 to 50-57mm 'flat width' (100-114mm circumference) in 2008, and in 2022 with limited acceptance of more broad sizes for ONE-brand condoms, in practice if you go to a big-box store, chances are pretty good you're going to get something in the 52-54mm 'flat width' range (104-108mm circumference), and if your store doesn't sell ONE-brand, most of the sizing guidance is worse-than-useless or actively misleading.
And that works for the average guy, even if it's technically a little long.
Go much away from those bounds, and it doesn't work as well, and they're narrow bounds. For obvious reasons, this is a more popular cause celebre among the well-endowed. You can fist a latex condom if you want, but it gives a bit of a pinch, not even in the useful way that a cock ring would, and most dicks are more sensitive than forearms. There's people who can kink on pinched there, but there's a reason chastity cages don't work like that. Too-short condoms are prone to rolling off or breaking, and this can turn sex into the unfun sort of wrestling match.
But the problems are, if anything, worse on the shorter or slimmer sides: having a much-too-long condom leaves a bunch of cruft at the base, and having a too-wide one augments the whole 'fucking a plastic glove' problem. And for people who are nervous or don't have the hardest erections, there's a worse feedback loop, where a condom that's just a little loose when fully erect is a constant (and boner-killing) struggle to keep on and tight enough to get significant sensation from if not at full mast.
The UK/EU standards aren't much wider, but they're still at least better.
gattsuru
1yr ago
Demonstratably, you are permitted. I don't think it's particularly effective, especially when you can't even be bothered to provide evidence or specific faults, but I don't think you're intending to be particularly effective, either.
But when it's What You Do Here, it's hard to believe you don't intend to through zingers around, instead.
gattsuru
1yr ago
There are some men who genuinely do like them, though not in the sense of "can barely tell it's on at all". Condom kink as revolving around either the sensation of pressured latex (compare bodysuit latex fetishism, or pooltoy fetishism) or as a psychological thing isn't the most common kink, but neither is it especially rare.
gattsuru
1yr ago
It's high-variance, but there are a subset of men (both straight and gay) who can't get very far with a condom on during penetration, sometimes up to the point of losing the ability to maintain a decent (or rarely, any) erection entirely. The exact causes cover wide ground, such as low-level skin sensitivity, mental overhead, performance anxiety, mumblemumbles-it's-not-just-soccons-afraid-of-jerking-it, or for... not entirely understood reasons (one fun hypothesis: American condom sizes are moronic).
This class of problem is less 'well, I guess I just have slightly reduced sensation and might just be edging with my partner today', 'it's time for a long oral session!' or even 'I'd rather bottom', and more 'this is going to be actively frustrating for everyone involved, and not even in a fun chastity cage sorta way'.
Contra some of the other posters, I don't think this is universal, or even disliking condoms is universal -- there are a surprisingly large number of people with condom-related kinks, for entirely unsurprising reasons. Some of these frustrations might even be solvable with practice and familiarity. But a lot of the mainstream model of the complaints is dismissive in unhealthy ways.
I was always very clear that I was arguing against #2, while you seem to be accusing me of arguing against #1.
No, my point is that you've consistently and commonly argued #2, against people who clearly aren't bringing that position. I can provide past examples, either ones I've already linked to here and more generally, but if you want me to focus on current threads :
I have not, at any point, compared what conservatives today are encountering with concentration camps, even in the figurative sense. At no point in this thread have I gotten anywhere near that. Neither has the_nybbler nor fcfromssc since the move. Nor did anyone in that three-year-old subthread. Maybe TopHattington on a COVID rant? But that's somewhat complicated by Lyman Stone et all advocating the Korematsu solution to COVID (and not discriminating politically in doing so). Like, I won't swear no one ever did, because there are some amazingly dim-witted weakmen out there. There was probably some on the motte subreddit, and maybe even one that wasn't a SneerClub troll.
And I'm absolutely sure I haven't 'screamed' at someone for refusing to agree with that hyperbole.
(Nor have I been comparing anyone to "Zombie Hitler Returning From Hell".)
You do realize that anyone watching can notice that you're endlessly retreating from specific ground points presented by the people you're talking with, to this? Which is probably why you consistently mix "defection and civil war" in response to defection, or to come back to 'current threads', you follow up the earlier quote in this post with :
(And no, I do not think it would have to reach herding-into-concentration-camps levels for me to come around to right wingers being institutionally oppressed.)
Nevermind the awkward question of what those levels are, or why your word games should matter to anyone else, and whether those new levels will stay set or be permissible to reference for another three years. Whatever that point is, it's something vastly different from the excluded third claim that:
But nothing happening today looks to me wildly different from previous eras in US history; the factions change, the dominant groups in the culture war and those being "oppressed" have different labels, and there have been people deprived of their livelihoods, jailed, even killed, before.
Nevermind that each of those times, we built entire new rules under the express pretense of making sure it 'never happened again', with the best you can say is that some cases didn't involve that much gunpowder or blood. The objection today is not that Bad Things Happen To Conservative Good People. The objection is that specific things are happening, and the response is this
I mean, I can show people opposed to FCFromSSC's position swinging back to how "the ability to push for this kind of visible social conformity" is novel and only been available for anyone to exploit for such a short time we can't tell how the Red Tribe might have done so. I can point to the OP of this very subthread claiming that conservatives no longer exist as a group in federal administrative infrastructure, in a way that will prevent them from achieving their goals (or, implicitly, seriously slowing the goals of their opponents), in a way that lacks parallels since the end of the South as a racial institution (coincidentally, a time where this meant far less). I can provide a dozen significant tactical or strategic differences, some wildly different, in powers that the progressive movement is actively using today, if they matter.
Do they?
gattsuru
1yr ago
Sex is a skill. [cw: spoilers are pretty tmi]
The extent this matters clearly can't have been static across the years. I want to think there's some biochemical reason. The secular collapse of testosterone is a popular target, but it would mostly cover men. Some sex studies suggest it's more common among people who haven't had partnered sex before their mid-twenties, but it's hard to separate cause and effect, and it's very hard to come up with explanations why this would be a new issue now rather than the many periods in the past where access to sexual partners was much more difficult. The soccon emphasis tends to go the availability of porn, but neither communities where people abstain entirely and programs like No Nut November don't turn people into rutting beasts by the third week.
gattsuru
1yr ago
At the risk of explaining a very morbid joke, a significant amount of cash, food aid, and other important parts of life came to the West Bank through Israeli infrastructure, hiring, or work permits.
Providing the destitute what they desperately need gives a certain power over them, if you'll excuse the realpolitick, but there's more than one way to respond to that.
(Revealing the name behind an anonymous account of public note is not “doxxing,” which is an often-gendered form of online harassment that reveals private information — like an address or phone number — about a person without consent and with malicious intent.)
gattsuru
1yr ago
This account has been posting here less than a week, and didn't make it that long before calling randos fascists.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
gattsuru
1yr ago
I'm not gonna say that never works, but just this October there was a country which found out the hard way exactly how bad it could go.
My objection has never been your tone. And while I'll object to individual factual claims, they're things that can be discussed. My objection has long been that your oppressed means nothing and everything. So let's be very explicit:
And from my perspective, all of you saying "Yes, we are oppressed because (hypothetical, hypothetical, vaguely related anecdote)" are redefining "oppression" to mean "Elections don't always go the way I want and laws I don't like sometimes get passed."
Do you think this is the claim? Do you think that is what motivates people like FCfromSSC, or what motivates my concerns?
Like, last time I tried this you accused me of gish-galloping, so this is more for everybody else, but just to be clear exactly what the scope we're talking about:
You will still be able to proclaim your right wing views in public.
No, I can't. Trivially, we're here because the last forum started shutting down random posters, and the place before that our presence was so severe that it got someone's name in the New York Times (to everyone's surprise as a smear piece) and they had a mental breakdown. Just as trivially, Damore predated your post. FCFromSSC has mentioned getting canceled by a friend over good faith disagreements, I've talked about how I've made significant sacrifices in my career and social and romantic life to reduce the threat and still am subject to it.
My go to example right now is the guy who built Modded Minecraft's very foundations in Forge getting canceled so hard that, when he resisted, his fellow project leads had their employers invoked as part of the ultimatum. Actually true statements of law get pulled from major social media, when offered by randos with tiny followings. Rittenhouse couldn't use GoFundMe, and when people did use a different vendor to donate, that company got hacked, and some of them got fired for <30 USD donations -- the organization that doxxed them is affiliated with Harvard and no one cares. VCDL has e-mail providers and YouTube dropping them without explanation or even reference to a broken rule, ARFCOM got blammed off GoDaddy without notice, so on.
But there's not snipers waiting to make my head Just Do That should I say the wrong words, nor am I required by law to strap on a voice-activated bomb collar before going outdoors; sometimes people even resist these attacks successfully (or at least the sort of 'success' that throws away their futures in exchange for symbolic victories and the grifter circuits). Hell, it's not even as bad as that other country declaring martial law emergency powers, confiscating property, which you were "not sure I agree it's "oppression" but it's fucked."
You will not be living in a leftist authoritarian state with "struggle sessions" forcing you to say you love Big Brother.
Those DEI sessions I mentioned last time in that post you didn't find impressive? They're back! Or more accurately never really went away. And state attempts to block them have been blocked in turn. "Diversity statements" are de jour in academia. Gallup considers it a failure than 'only' 41% of managers and 42% of employees have received DEI/racial justice training. While I'm too old for it to be a concern personally, schools have not only formalized official support for protesting ("no official repercussions" if the students don't play along, just an official assignment asking them to explain why they complied).
Do you need more examples? Because it's kinda awkward to dance around the ones I've experienced directly outside of these domains without doxing myself, but I can continue.
Right wing media and right wing politicians will still have power and influence. Trump will not be the last Republican president.
yyyyaaaaayyy.
There will still be religion and people who say homosexuality is a sin and trans people bad (and teach it to their children, who are not taken away from them).
The closest thing we've had to a slowdown here is Newsom vetoing a rule requiring judges to consider it for custody hearings; it's still policy. Demkovich was overturned, but the dissent pointed out that the 9th Circuit had case law going the other direction, and it's not like it's a one-off.
It's not room temperature, fair.
The left will not be murdering political enemies with impunity...
Modulo Matthew Dolloff, sure. And there's some rough spots for people who tried and failed: we still don't even know what happened to Grosskruetz's concealed carry permit, and obviously he's never been and never going to be tried for either the unlawful carry nor threatening a teenager, in contrast to Dominick Black. And then there's the places where the shooters or the shot are a little more complicated to discuss.
But it's not that many people getting shot! Sometimes they have to post bail! Hell, Finicum wouldn't even be that sympathetic, were it not for the hilariously bad behavior of federal law enforcement and the long toleration of many occupations efforts. So it's not Oppression.
There will probably still be problems with race and crime.
... this one didn't even make sense contemporaneously. Yes, and? That the progressive tribe neither can fix these problems, and benefits from motioning around them, is one of FCFromSSC's positions.
And for bonus points:
A combination of the teacher's union and local collaborators called in the FBI over school board meetings. Individual people have called in the EEOC over a hat. The DoJ's OCR is investigating a college for using gendered bathrooms and abolishing a diversity program, feds and fed courts for mask mandates, so on. One group of teachers alleged did not report bullies to local administrators, nor punish them themselves, so that they could use the 'ignored' bad actions as part of a DoE complaint to bring the feds down harder on violations of leftist norms.
The ATF is in the middle of an aggressive crackdown on FFLs and home gunsmithing, the EPA fights over drainage ditches, the ADA has brought a small army of 'testers' that will happily demand the rebuild of services they never intend to buy, people are regularly asking the feds to treat GOP governors offering bus or plane rides to undocumented immigrants like kidnapping. And these are just the serious ones, where there's investigations and publicity and lawsuits and media coverage. It's worse in Blue Tribe areas, but you couldn't run from this stuff a decade ago (literally, in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop).
Which, hey, these are just policy disagreements! Sometimes ones that the Blue Tribe doesn't even immediately win! No one's getting shot in the face, it's not jazzhands oppression, at least by the pre-Civil War slavery one, if less so by the modern Harvard one.
But are these things happening? Can you imagine why people might think of them as something more than just "laws I don't like sometimes get passed"? Can you imagine why, when you say:
I assert, essentially, that your Doomer "We have lost and Red Tribe will no longer have rights" is absolutely, 100% wrong and will continue to be proven wrong.
it's an absolute non sequitor from the post you were responding to, and absolutely nonsensical as a position that everyone must wait for before they are allowed to respond or complain or recognize a pattern?
... how did that post start again?
Here's a wager. Obviously if I'm wrong, you'll never be able to collect, but anyway.
Emphasis added.
You could meaningfully argue if some of these things aren't true. I'd love to hear it! As I frequently point out at the end of these rants, I'm not an accelerationist, I'd love to hear how they're wrong, and part of my frustration here is that FCFromSSC (or Hradzka on twitter) have given far better version of that than you have. You can point out that it's not as bad as prebellum era slavery or the 1940s South (correctly!), or the treatment of gay men in the 1900s, or (much more arguably) of communists in the McCarthy era.
You can not correctly argue, short of disproving them, that these are "(hypothetical, hypothetical, vaguely related anecdote)".
gattsuru
1yr ago
That set of annoyances are typically called Quicktime Events, and while they're more common in survival horror, they're (thankfully) not universal there, nor are they specific to it (the FFXIV MMORPG calls them Active Time Maneuvers, for example). While they can be done moderately well, they're famously unpopular, and my impression's that the Resident Evil series tends to be on the jankier side even for survival horror (Silent Hill, by contrast, only uses them as a way to reduce damage when you've already been hit by an attack, or as part of the killing blow for a boss).
gattsuru
1yr ago
[cw: gross, and not especially useful to know]
I've never seen the original, and it's since been taken down, but it has taken an outsized awareness as a particularly unpleasant thing to people in the furry fandom, probably in no small part because people avoided the original (and could let their imagination fill in the blanks with the worst possibilities).
gattsuru
1yr ago
I am nothing if not petty, but you invited me.
If you want me to stop, tell me to stop, and I'll stop.
The long-term homeless are unsympathetic to you. The progressive movement considers them far more acceptable than Hobby Lobby or Chick-Fil-A, so long as they're far enough away that they don't get robbed personally, and sometimes not even then (insert bike comic here).
The behavior is more common at an individual level... that then spreads to groups.
More options
Context Copy link