rebranded my persona introject server into a general system server! if you want to find a chill place, and maybe even meet sourcemates, ohhh boy ive got the server for you. its my server. also it’s miku themed!!!
information: > singlets are not allowed, but those questioning about being plural are more than welcome! if you turn out to be a singlet, you’re allowed to stay with absolutely no hard feelings <3 > doubles are allowed and not shunned, so try to be chill about it. > absolutely no talk of syscourse is allowed (and discourse in general). > standing blacklist. > sourcecall channels to find sourcemates. > littles are allowed to speak, but there is no designated category or channel, so please be responsible. > nsfw content is not allowed.
we try our hardest to create a safe and comfortable environment, and generally it’s just a place to chill and hang out with similar people! nothing too serious, so don’t be intimidated. we just wanna have fun and talk to new people :)
Had to unfollow this one person on here cause they just would not stop making posts about how transfems on e getting periods is just made up symptoms and like, I don’t have definitive proof I only have my and others experience but like how do you, as someone who is not on e, who has access to the same amount of studies looking into this with decent sample sizes as I do (none), feel so confident to say it’s all just placebo and made up ? What makes you so confident ? Cause I gotta say after almost two years of nearly right on the dot once a month suddenly feeling nausea all week, taking the most unbelievable shits, feeling all my organs cramp, and having mood swings out the ass which always just so happens to line up with when the two people with uteruses in my house also get their periods, I feel like I have more data to work off of than you do
LOSING IT
image: reply from soup-mother reading “getting told you’re exaggerating and making it up is actually what makes it a period 👍” end ID
we should globally ban the introduction of more powerful computer hardware for 10-20 years, not as an AI safety thing (though we could frame it as that), but to force programmers to optimize their shit better
I reblogged this like 9 times kinda jokingly, but software should be able to run on older and less powerful hardware, and consume less power on newer hardware. Like, this is a real problem imo
I completely agree with this but I do need you to understand that the image above is 32 times the size of the lunar mission’s memory
So. I have no business telling people not to collect wild plants/materials.
I do it all the time.
However.
The words “wildcrafted,” and “foraged,” even “sustainably harvested,” are terrifying to see in an ad on Etsy or Instagram
There is a such thing as the honorable harvestwhere you ASK the plant if it is okay to take, with the intention of listening if the answer is NO. Robin Wall Kimmerer talked about this, She did not make it up, it is an ancient and basic guideline of treating the plants with respect.
Basically it is not wrong to use plants and other living things, even if this means taking their life. But you are not the main character. You have to reflect on your knowledge of the organism’s life cycle and its role in the ecosystem, so you can know you are not damaging the ecosystem. You have to only take what you need and avoid depleting the population.
Mary Siisip Geniusz also talked about it in an enlightening way in her book Plants Have So Much to Give Us, All We Have To Do is Ask. She gave an example of a woman who was on an island and needed to use a medicinal herb to heal her injured leg or she would not survive the winter. In that situation she had to use up all of the plant that was on the island. This was permissible, even though it eliminated the local population, because she had to do it to save her life. But in return the woman had the responsibility to later return to the island and plant seeds of that plant.
And what makes me absolutely furious, is that there are a bunch of people online who have vaguely copied this philosophy of sustainability in a false and insulting way, saying “wildcrafted” or “foraged” materials to be all trendy and cool and in touch with nature, when it is actually just poaching.
If you are from a capitalistic culture the honorable harvest is very hard and unintuitive to learn to practice. I am not very good at it still. This is why it is suspicious if someone is confident that they can ethically and respectfully harvest wild materials with money involved.
So there’s this lichen that is often called “reindeer moss.” It looks like this:
It grows only a few millimeters a year.
This is “preserved” reindeer moss.
It is from Etsy, similar is also sold in many other online shops, many of which have the audacity to describe it as a “plant” for decorations and terrariums that needs no maintenance.
It is not maintenance-free, it is dead. It has been spray-painted a horrible shade of green. The people buying it clearly don’t even know what it is. It is a popular crafting material for “fairy houses,” whatever the hell those are. So is moss, also dead, spray-painted, and wild-harvested. Supposedly reindeer moss is harvested sustainably in Finland, where it is abundant, for the craft industry. However poaching of lichens and mosses is absolutely rampant.
It’s even more upsetting because there’s hardly any articles drawing attention to the problem. This one is from 1999. And the poaching is still going on.
There is a “moss” section on Etsy, and it is so upsetting
These mosses and lichens were collected from the wild. Most of the shops are in the Pacific Northwest or Appalachia, which are the major locations of moss and lichen poaching. There are some shops based in Appalachia selling “foraged” reindeer moss.
Reindeer moss may be abundant in Finland, but in Appalachia it should NOT be harvested to be sold on Etsy as craft supplies! Moss doesn’t grow quickly. Big, healthy colonies like this took years to grow. Some of these shops have thousands of sales, all of bags and bags of moss and lichen, and thinking of how much moss and lichen that must be, I am filled with horror.
Clubmosses do not transplant well, and these ones have no roots. The buyers do not realize they have bought a dead plant because clubmoss stays green and pliable after it is dead.
This is especially awful because in Mary Siisip Geniusz’s book she talked about clubmosses being poached so much for Christmas wreaths that they had almost disappeared from a lot of forests.
I don’t even know if this is illegal if it’s not a formally endangered species so I don’t know if I can report them I’m just. really sad and angry
The abundance of lichen in Finland is… debatable. According to economic standards, there’s enough for commercial harvesting (which is done by harvesting 20-30% in a given location, then harvesting is banned from that specific location for the next 5 years. At least this is how things go in theory…). However, there’s a constant issue of reindeer not having enough lichen to feed on, since reindeer are always herded in the wild. This leads to reindeer herders having to give them species-incompatible supplementary feed.
Personally, if the native species don’t have enough food to feed on in the wild, to me that would be a better standard to measure the economic viability of harvesting lichen for other purposes with.
Also there’s a constant issue of poaching lichen from the wild for which culprits are almost never found. Part of it can be simple issue of ignorance or thoughtlessness. But undoubtedly there are people doing it for commercial purposes, knowing it’s not part of the “jokamiehenoikeus” (“everyman’s rights”, which gives Finns moving in nature the right to pick berries and mushrooms or whatever pinecones they find on the ground in the woods for their own use).
Thats terrible, but I’m not surprised, I suspected it might not truly be sustainable.
Yeah. Harvesting this stuff on industrial scale to be sold for arts and crafts is not acceptable.
I will be honest guys, the Red portrait of king Charles is gorgeous asdfghjkl
it’s a bad portrait. Like. Objectively. It does the opposite of what’s intended. It looks like the painter is insulting him. If it was in a contemporary gallery with no context you would see it immediately as the ambivalent criticism of Charles’s reign, how he fades into the overwhelming red background as a tiny little figure, small and insignificant, insufficient for the clothes he’s wearing. It reminds my of Goya’s portraits, how they were so ‘realistic’ that they ended up making these great figures look pathetic to the viewer. So these are our rulers?
the sheer novelty. the surprise and shock, the kinda cunt it’s serving for no reason. I. I love it. It’s an incredible portrait by Jonathan Yeo. By the sheer fact that Charles, the man, is impossible to portray as greater than man because he’s just such a nothingburger of a dude. So a portrait made to make him look huge and interesting made him be swallowed in red brushstrokes. The butterfly, that reminded me immediately of “ we will all laugh at guilded butterflies”, draws more attention than him. It looks like an omen. It looks like a warning in all this red. Something is not right here.
This is the best royal portrait ever 10/10
This is a painting of a monarch whose individual personality and even bodily presence are a mere footnote within the legacy of bloodshed that built the throne he occupies. This is the only way it’s possible to depict him. It’s a photograph of his soul
And I think all of that is entirely deliberate!
I think Jonathan Yeo meant this portrait to be absolutely all of those things, he just can’t be very vocal about the paintings true meaning. Yet.
I’ve done this on another post, but let’s compare that portrait up there to some other portraits Yeo’s done.
Here’s actor and activist Idris Elba, whom colleagues have described as warm and friendly, open-hearted, with an emotional intelligence that makes him capable of being very honest and vulnerable with the character he’s playing:
Here’s Jony Ive - who founded Apple with Steve Jobs and was chief design officer responsible for some of the more popular artistic choices, who recently left the company because the culture had gotten so toxic and shitty. He now works more in private design, so he has more artistic freedom and he can be less in the public eye:
Yeo’s even previously painted British heads of state. Here’s the phenomenal Baroness Doreen Lawrence of the labour party, a Jamaican immigrant who turned the tragic murder of her son into a lifelong campaign of quietly and steadily dismantling systemic racism:
To me, all these portraits are deeply personal, conveying the sitter’s character with empathy and quiet dignity.
Elba is leaning forward in an intimate friendly gesture. He makes eye contact with the viewer but his face is turned slightly to the side, inviting but not confrontational, his brows slightly drawn together thoughtfully. His hands are natural and relaxed. He’s shirtless - not to be a beefcake thirst trap (okay maybe just a tiny little bit), but to convey how emotionally naked he’s willing to be.
Ives is literally putting a lens between himself and the viewer - we have to look closer to see his face, but when we do we see his eyes crinkled with a hint of good humor. The perspectives are all distorted, but the main thing we see is the hands that have physically built so much of the technology we use. And even outside the phone screen he’s still enased by a circular frame within a frame, indicating yet another layer of separation between the subject and the viewer.
Lawrence is radiant, proudly upright and implacable as a mountain, her head held high and her hands folded before her with a self-contained air of calm determination. And even though the background is a chaotic sea of looming shapes and quick brush strokes, her eyes keep us grounded, even pinned in place. We’re the viewer, but she is studying us.
And then, on the other end of the personality spectrum, here’s noted asshole Damien Hirst, who frequently makes the news for being racist and sexist and just generally a really slimy piece of shit. His most famous works are the animal carcasses suspended in resin-
-yeah, that. That guy. He’s made all the money in the goddamn world three times over for pieces like that, and he still seems like he’s on a personal mission to make everyone around him as miserable as possible.
Here’s Yeo’s portrait of him, seated on a leather throne, dick bulge at eye level, contained in one of his own tanks:
Here’s the droopy and melancholic portrait of the famously pompous and insufferable John Cooper Clarke, self-described “original punk poet”, who was recently booed off stage for making super transphobic remarks, and whose most famous quote is “I read Kerouac at 12 and decided I could do better”:
And, most notably for the argument I’m making here, here’s D-Day veteran Sgt Geoffrey Pattinson, and see if you can spot the extremely subtle use of color theory here:
My conclusion: Jonathan Yeo paints very good portraits, and sometimes his subjects are very bad people.
And I think he brings absolutely all of his artistic talent to the Charles portrait.
@chromegnomes is absolutely right; it is the only possible way to depict him. It is a photograph of his soul.
And that’s precisely why it’s so ugly and uncomfortable to look at.
People have said that Charles has a “complicated legacy”, which is what people say when someone has an objectively horrible legacy that they are still personally benefiting from. But the people who still tolerate his extravagant gilded existence to “honor historical tradition” will find absolutely nothing to like in this portrait. All the gold and brass and pomp of his uniform, all the military accolades for his colonial warmongering, all the fabulous ostentatious wealth he was born into and has spent every second of his life surrounded by - which would have been rendered with glittering precision and care in a traditional royal portrait - they’re all dingy and washed out and already fading. The medals aren’t even clearly marked enough to really know what they are; it’s all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The butterfly that was included as a nod to his honestly extensive conservation work (because let’s give the little bit of credit where credit is actually due) stands out as the one bright point of beauty and authenticity - but it’s dwarfed by the only other visible object, the sword, and it’s being swallowed up by that lurid, putrid background that seems to seep out of Charles’ uniform. The dark tips of its wings are the most high-contrast part of the painting except for Charles’ black hollow eyes that stare into nothing. And, most significantly in my opinion, the butterfly isn’t actually touching him, or connected to him in any way. It just exists alongside him, but it doesn’t need him.
His face is painted in such a way to detail absolutely every wrinkle without ever being able to completely cover up the blood red background, and below the sunken shark-like eyes, the artist has included that vapidly pleasant plastered-on smile with nothing behind it that is practically the royal uniform by now. I think the angle is also deliberately chosen to be unsettling: many portraits are traditionally done either head-on, ¾ profile, or full profile. Charles is none of these - his head is tilted juuust a few degrees off kilter. It’s not quite right. And he’s looking off to the side very slightly; his thousand-yard-stare is kind of drifting over the viewers shoulder. He can’t look us in the eye.
And there is no way, there is absolutely no possible way that an artist who is smart enough and skilled enough to imbue all his other portraits with so much meaning and symbolism and indicators of the subject’s character - there’s no way that’s not intentional.
But… Yeo lives in London. He’s still working on other royal and aristocratic portraits. He still has to live in that society, and he still has to get paid.
So of course he has to toe the line, at least until Charles dies, and say that the vivid blood-soaked red is to symbolize the “”“vibrancy”“” of this terminally ill octogenarian, to bring a “”“modern contemporary feel”“” to this 19th century colonizer.
The king saw the painting when it was about halfway done. Yeo tells BBC News’ Katie Razzall that Charles was “mildly surprised by the strong color, but otherwise he seemed to be smiling approvingly.” He adds that when Camilla saw the portrait, she said, “Yes, you’ve got him.”
Listen, I work in memory care and end-of-life care, and we only say someone “seems to be smiling approvingly” to comfort the family when someone is so far gone they clearly don’t know where they are anymore. His ex-wife Camilla, who probably has more good reasons to hate him than any other single human being alive, looked at this haunting vision of hell and was like YES PERFECT.
This is all completely intentional. We are all picking up on exactly the message the artist was trying to convey. Yeo is trying to tell us, loud and clear, that something is not right here. It is absolutely an omen.
Op is right; it is insulting him. And it is supposed to make us look at this pathetic villain, who is currently toddling through the final days of his unfairly long and lavishly useless life, and think “these are our rulers?”
What’s that bro? You began interacting with a media from a different country than yours and/or was made in time period different than the recent present day? Haha that’s sick bro! Keep expanding your horizons bro! You’re remembering to take into account that sociocultural norms, gender roles and genre expectations are different from what you are used to and meeting the story halfway, instead of forcibly superimposing your ideals into the story, right bro? Right? Right?
And, like, you’re aware that being asked to understand that the story was written in a time and place with different values isn’t the same as being ordered to embrace or worship those values, right? You get that you can simultaneously comprehend why those values exist within this media and think critically about how it contrasts with your own view of the world? You can hold both “I understand why this culture at this time would have acted like this was okay” and “I understand now that this isn’t okay” in your mind at the same time?
honestly advertising is so fukcing wasteful not even just in the convincing you to buy shit you never actually wanted but like
how much electricity is wasted displaying ads that could’ve gone to keeping houses warm. How much paper is produced just to be turned into pamphlets and ads that will just be thrown away. how much internet bandwith is wasted just on the amount of ads that are on the internet nowadays. How many hours worth of labor went into producing ads that are going directly into my adblocker or my waste bin that could’ve been time spent doing literally ANYTHING useful?
oh boy, one of the websites i used to download old nintendo games has started taking down some of their games at the request of nintendo of america. DON’T PASS AROUND ILLEGAL DOWNLOAD SITES SO PUBLICALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if you want to spread a download websites, do it in private chats and dms and whatever. do not go onto a public square, yelling HEY EVERYBODY! HERE’S A PLACE YOU CAN GET EXPENSIVE STUFF FOR FREE! MAKE SURE THE AUTHORITIES DON’T KNOW ABOUT IT! IT WOULD BE REALLY BAD IF THE COPS FOUND OUT, BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISTRIBUTE THIS STUFF! DON’T TELL THE COPS!
you wouldn’t put up posters advertising where to find your illegal drugs guy because you love his drugs so much, you shouldn’t go around spreading the website where one guy dedicates his time do illegally distributing video games.
He did bro so bad homie made another video just to apologize.
Honestly this is a great example of why you need to be careful when you try to censor info in pictures. You never know what someone will be able to piece together so you gotta be through.
