Blog title? Who's she?

thanks to this workplace harassment training video my coworkers and I now say this to each other on a near-daily basis

one thing about me is that I will abuse the quick reblog function on mobile

i think we should remind musicians they can absolutely make up little stories for their songs btw. it doesn’t have to be about them at all. you can invent a guy and put him in situations to music. time honoured tradition in fact.

Please be coherent about this and recognise that what this headline means is:

Poor and marginalised people are being kicked out of the houses they worked decades to secure, just at the time in their lives when they are the most vulnerable

And the ones kicking them out aren't of a specific age either. Soulless assholes come in every generation, and the ones born with too much money are the worst of the lot. Right now, a guy your age is authorising an eviction against someone the age of your grandma. Pop culture generations cannot explain that.

This.

new shirt ideas

The thing that bothers me abt posts about quiet on set is that I see a lot of “let’s kill dan schneider” and idk how to put this but that’s not the point quiet on set was making. The point was that this was systemic. And that a lot of people while not outright evil were complacent in what was going on or victims themselves. Remove Dan Schneider great. But what happens when another tv asshole comes in? Where are the laws and regulations to make sure that never happens again? We need to not just be angry for the victims but be wary.

People need to understand that with the Quiet on Set documentary that it wasn't just Nickelodeon treating their child stars badly, it wasn't just Nickelodeon making hostile work environment in the writers room or on set. All the big kid networks did this. Disney has done it, Cartoon network has done it.

I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got payed to review people's books, and one of the rules of that review company is one that I think is just super useful to media analysis as a whole, and that is, we were told never to critique media for what it didn't do but only for what it did.

So, for instance, I couldn't say "this book didn't give its characters strong agency or goals". I instead had to say, "the characters in this book acted in ways that often felt misaligned with their characterization as if they were being pulled by the plot."

I think this is really important because a lot of "critiques" people give, if subverted to address what the book does instead of what it doesn't do, actually read pretty nonsensical. For instance, "none of the characters were unique" becomes "all of the characters read like other characters that exist in other media", which like... okay? That's not really a critique. It's just how fiction works. Or "none of the characters were likeable" becomes "all of the characters, at some point or another, did things that I found disagreeable or annoying" which is literally how every book works?

It also keeps you from holding a book to a standard it never sought to meet. "The world building in this book simply wasn't complex enough" becomes "The world building in this book was very simple", which, yes, good, that can actually be a good thing. Many books aspire to this. It's not actually a negative critique. Or "The stakes weren't very high and the climax didn't really offer any major plot twists or turns" becomes "The stakes were low and and the ending was quite predictable", which, if this is a cute romcom is exactly what I'm looking for.

Not to mention, I think this really helps to deconstruct a lot of the biases we carry into fiction. Characters not having strong agency isn't inherently bad. Characters who react to their surroundings can make a good story, so saying "the characters didn't have enough agency" is kind of weak, but when you flip it to say "the characters acted misaligned from their characterization" we can now see that the *real* problem here isn't that they lacked agency but that this lack of agency is inconsistent with the type of character that they are. a character this strong-willed *should* have more agency even if a weak-willed character might not.

So it's just a really simple way of framing the way I critique books that I think has really helped to show the difference between "this book is bad" and "this book didn't meet my personal preferences", but also, as someone talking about books, I think it helps give other people a clearer idea of what the book actually looks like so they can decide for themselves if it's worth their time.

idk if literally anyone has ever thought/cared about this like ever but i think i have an answer to a logistical reason why we've seen working cars previously but not in fallout 4 specifically.

first of all, cars don't do well when sitting in a protected garage for years at a time, and we're only talking that it takes a few years of not being run or driven to cause problems in the car's systems. but the cars you see out in the wasteland are already exposed to the elements, and by fallout 4 they've been exposed to boston seasons (winters and springs are especially hard on inorganic materials because of the cold temperatures and humidity and snow/ice/rain. it's why there's always a lot of construction in the northern united states, because ice destroys rocks and roads because water trickles in, freezes, thereby forming cracks, and when the ice thaws, there's more structural integrity loss, over many seasons without constant repairs, it just gets worse and worse) for 210 years.

on top of the fact that they had in some way made their cars nuclear powered, and no one has been filling them up with coolant, boston is a very densely packed old city that was built more similarly to a old old european city, meaning it was made more so for walking and horses than cars.

now granted, obviously the greater boston metropolitan area has been retrofitted for car traffic in the several hundred years since, but the roads are still relatively narrow, and a lot of people i knew would just drive to T stations and then take the T to wherever they had to go. that didn't mean there wasn't always traffic, the traffic was always bad in town. but the traffic always being bad means the traffic would have still been there the day the bombs fell. so on top of the terrain and roads being shit for driving a car, and all the bridges being in rough shape, it's just more practical to walk than try and get a car through there because boston's interior would look like the highway in the walking dead with all those abandoned vehicles.

Also. New England winters and salty air are a thing. 20 year old cars rot out quick enough already. 200 years? Those metal husks you see really don't have anything holding them together, save for hopes and dreams.

like people joke about all it takes is one hit and those cars go up in flames and explosions but like… they’ve been there over 200 years in boston weather with the ocean spray and humidity and the winters and all that, plus being nuclear powered and having no one looking after them. the real surprise is that it takes a hit at all. some of those cars should be disintegrating under a pointed glance lol.

y'all ever seen women nutcrackers? are you ready for this absolute tomfoolery?

just like real life, she cracks nuts with her tiddies

official boob post

I have a folder called Time is a Flat Circle in which I collect evidence of humanity. Here is most of them.

At first I was like, “Aw, he’s discovering icy crusty snow for the first time, cute!” and then I was like “Oh NO, he’s REALLY discovering icy crusty snow for the first time, RIP”

I can’t stop watching this, it so perfectly encapsulates the feeling of admiring how incredible and beautiful snow can be and then immediately being inconvenienced by it like “oh, yeah, that’s right, fuck this shit”