@sav.brown

after you unmask…not everyone will vibe with you..but at least you are no longer betraying yourself

♬ original sound - sav

Cher - DJ Play a Christmas Song (Official Audio)

Jayne County live Scotland 1993

1983: Should you FIT IN or STAND OUT? | Scene | Vintage fashion clips | ...

""i just want non-queers to just see me as a normal person just like them" cool good for you. meanwhile I've been a weird little freak since i was a kid and the world is gonna have to learn to accept me like i am or ill start burning shit

you can be down for simple assimilation for yourself but many of us just want to be respected as is because there's nothing wrong with being different. especially those of us who are also neurodivergent on top of queer or many other things people often ostracize in society.

if you want other queers to water themselves down or just completely close off parts of their identity and self expression so that you won't be associated with those ~freaks~ and can be more easily accepted by The Normies, then you are not caring about your fellow queers at all.

we aren't doing any harm, and we should be pushing for people to accept others no matter how HARMLESSLY strange and unusual they may come across. challenging the norm is the only way to get more people accepted across all communities.
"

The Mirror | FULL MOVIE | Directed by Andrey Tarkovsky

The History of the Romans: Every Year

Songs from Liquid Days: No. 6, Forgetting

MY favorite Linda Ronstadt song, FYI.

EISMAYER - Trailer

Waiting impatiently for this film... (true story)

Leonard Bernstein "Candide" (English subtitles)

Sweet Charity - #Dance Scenes (The Aloof, The Heavyweight, The Big Finish)

Lana Del Rey - Salvatore

The Moment Waves Broke a Laguna Beach Lifeguard Tower: Largest Waves in...

My hometown area.

Playland – trailer | IFFR 2023

A heartbroken man meets another man for a night that connects them forev...

 

 

I am beyond pleased to see that the Supreme Court is strictly honoring the sacred legal analysis of constitutional authors like myself, Gouverneur Morris, an esteemed American statesman who died horribly in 1816 because I shoved a piece of whalebone in my dick.

It is clear from the view up here in Episcopal heaven (where all are welcome… as long as you are white) that the approach to consider only the written words of us Founding Fathers as the sole basis of legal legitimacy is flawless. After all, the Constitution is the product of the most respected intellectual minds who founded this country, minds that went on to lead government, become titans of business, and ultimately decide it was a pretty good idea to attempt surgery on themselves with a homemade whalebone catheter despite having no medical training.

Remember that the Constitution was forged by the fiery spirit of scholarly debate, its wording precisely chosen after months of mindful deliberation. That is why the Supreme Court is correct in analyzing modern laws only with the very rational thoughts of those who worked on this magnificent document before getting an itch in their penis from a urinary tract blockage and then were like, “I know a good solution for this, does anyone have any sharp pieces of whalebone?” Surely whatever my ingenious brain wrote down over two hundred years ago must be good enough for whatever is going on now.

It’s true that when the Constitution was written, the only arms to bear were flintlock pistols and muskets and the only climate that was changing was the scientific consensus around alchemy being real, and when I wrote, “We the people,” I envisioned a very… particular type of person (for instance those who could be in Episcopal heaven). But does this mean the text of the Constitution should only be interpreted literally, and anything that is not explicitly mentioned in it cannot be legally supported by the highest court of the land? The answer is yes. The living document died when we legal masterminds died, including those of us who died bleeding out from self-induced dingus wounds.

In retrospect, I admit that my innovative medical procedure was not as successful as I hoped it would be. But that does not discredit what my fellow constitutional framers and I wrote in those hallowed pages. We believed in the freedom of some people, the sovereignty of a government ruled by some people, and the inalienable rights of some people to force the bones of Moby right into their dick. I mean, what more could you the people want?



https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/laws-should-be-based-solely-on-the-words-of-constitutional-authors-like-me-the-guy-who-died-after-shoving-a-piece-of-whalebone-in-his-dick

Thanks, giving

Is there anything more innocuous than gratitude? It’s one of the few values endorsed by solemn religious leaders and vapid lifestyle gurus alike. Unlike other virtues, which require going against instinct (e.g., you feel afraid, but decide to act with courage anyway), with gratitude, you simply lean into it; something good happens, you feel good, and you need only recognize that warm and fuzzy sensation.

Gratitude is seemingly easy. Basic. Indeed, even parents who give their children little other character instruction still teach their kindergartener to say thank you.

Yet there’s more to gratitude than commonly countenanced — higher and harder shades of it to reach for, beyond its elementary-level start.

“Advanced” gratitude retains delight in someone’s admirable qualities and small acts of service . . . even after the novel and noticeable becomes the ordinary and expected.

Advanced gratitude remains thankful for the good that resulted from a relationship . . . even when the relationship went sour in the end.

Advanced gratitude continues to acknowledge the assists that got you to where you are today . . . even when the steps between that past help and the present day have multiplied, and the memory of the connection between a once-vital-boost and your current happiness has faded.

Advanced gratitude is evinced even when it doesn’t feel good; it is fought for even when its recognition makes you feel indebted, dependent, or less than.

If elementary gratitude is instinctual; advanced gratitude is effortful. Whereas one is merely felt, the other is expressed.

If, in the kindergarten class of gratitude, the warm fuzzies of thankfulness are for the heart-lightening benefit of the individual alone, in post-graduate gratitude, they are used as a spur towards being better, doing better, giving back. It joins one's rota of work-tasks, a tithe of worthiness.

Gratitude then becomes not only as morally strenuous as all the other virtues, but, as Cicero put it, the very parent which gives them life.

https://www.bustle.com/life/farmhouse-aesthetic-suburbs

https://blog.lostartpress.com/2021/11/05/imagine-theres-no-adhesion/

 

 

 

Re: The Alexandrian Ague

 

I always hear that jerk's voice from that stupid show yell "New rule! ..." in my head.

I'm always revising my long and complicated list of interconnected rules/standards, apparently requiring a voice-over.

It doesn't happen out loud, though, so no one else is aware. Random holes just appear in other's assumptive expectations, meanwhile I'm over here in my new universe.

Apocrypha

"I may have inadvertently started a revolution in the convenience store today. 

I stopped to grab a water, and on the way in I saw a homeless man I know sitting in the shade with his bike beside him. He was red-faced and shaky looking. I asked if he was ok, and he told me that he was just resting. This guy's got the mind of a child, and I'm afraid he doesn't know he needs to stay extra hydrated when it's super hot outside. 

There were a bunch of people in line in front of me and only one cashier, so I grabbed two waters and yelled to the cashier that I was taking one to the guy outside and I'd be right back (I'm a regular there). 

When I came back in, the lady in front of me turned around, hands on hips, and told me that I was just enabling that 'homeless person' (said with a sneer) and that I shouldn't be wasting my money on him.

It's hot as hell in Florida right now. Mid nineties with humidity around 80%. It's a good day for heat stroke, and I told her so. I said I'd rather give him a water than call an ambulance. 

I was gonna shrug it off. Let it go. Chalk it up to ignorance and the heat making everybody cranky.

And then she told me I should be ashamed of myself. That someone should call the police on him, and that it should be illegal to beg for money. That people who give the homeless money just encourage them to stay homeless and that should be illegal,  too.

Ashamed.  I should be ashamed for giving some poor old guy a water - it cost a whole dollar, BTW - and I should get in trouble for making sure he didn't stroke out in this heat. 

I guess I look nice. Approachable. Like I wouldn't rip your head off. I am nice, most of the time. 

But not always.

And I lost my temper. 

I told her to call a cop and report me for buying shit at a convenience store. 

I told her that I wasn't in the damn mood for crazy right now. That it's a hundred fucking degrees outside, and I'm hot and tired and sick to death of stupid people. That if she had an ounce of compassion in her whole body, she'd buy him a cold drink, too. That maybe she should figure out why she needs to accost complete strangers. And how's about after that, she back the fuck up outta my face and outta my business and turn back around and not say one more damn word to me. 

I'm just about deaf in one ear. I try to modulate my voice. Unless I get angry. 

It got pretty loud there at the end. There was dead silence in the store and then someone said loudly "For real!"

And the guy at the front of the line told the cashier to add a sandwich to his purchases for the guy outside. 

The guy behind him bought an extra ice cream. The girl behind HIM got change for a twenty 'cause that guy could probably use some cash.' 

Every single person in line got him something. Every one, except the now very embarrassed lady in front of me, who slunk out without saying another word. 

When I got to the cashier, she didn't charge me for either of the waters, because she was going to take him one anyway. And mine was free because of the entertainment. 

When I went outside, he was eating his ice cream and drinking his water with a pile of stuff all around him, a big old grin on his face. He didn't look shaky anymore. 

And there, people, is the story of why I hate people. And why I love people. All in the same damned minute. 

I sat in the car and drank my water and laughed with tears in my eyes, same as I'm doing now."

 

 Being healthy is valuable, but it is not what makes people and the lives they live, have value. 

But even as I say that, I realize that if I make the claim that people are valuable in and of themselves just by virtue of being alive, we can count down the minutes to the counter responses to that. This will likely include value statements about moral character (some people are not as valuable because they’ve done terrible or ghoulish things) or commodification arguments (if you can’t work and provide value or provide enough for yourself, you’re a burden.)

This is why there is a frightening undercurrent to placing value on the health of an individual.

That first one comes with a slew of terrible things. The main one is that moral assertions about one’s lot in life being a direct reflection of one’s character, leads to the conclusion that anyone suffering from misfortune is suffering that misfortune because they deserve it. That would be the “bad things only happen because you’ve been bad or are bad” crowd. This leads to things like:

“Why should I pay for the healthcare of someone who makes bad decisions?”

Then of course there’s the commodification argument and it’s sinister underpinnings. If people are too sick to care for themselves, or too sick to produce as much as the other person, they’re a “burden on society.” 

“Why should I pay for someone who doesn’t contribute to society?”

*(Perhaps it’s dishonest to use that statement in this context. I am using it for a specific purpose, to lead to a particular point, but I do recognize that it is not usually used in the context of “inability”, which health would be included under. Surely it’s aimed at people who are ‘capable’ of contributing but just don’t want to, while still expecting to have access to all of their basic necessities, and to the services their society has to offer. Which I don’t generally have a problem with because I don’t think that that mindset is prevalent enough to cause a substantial lean on a society’s resources given our current production abilities. If all lives have value as I argued before, then so to do the lives of those who are capable of contributing to society, but who refuse to put back into society, if those people do exist. But I wanted to address the difference in case someone brings it up)

The “why should we support those who don’t contribute to society” mindset is the direct result of the “human beings have a monetary value” outlook, which tends to lead very quickly to conclusions that people whose healthcare is “too expensive” are producing a deficit in resources that they don’t make up for. The “cost” to “benefit” ratio is more cost than benefit, when looking at things from a purely profit based value perspective.

This actually once led to a certain group of people referring to anyone too sick to care for themselves as “useless eaters.” They had a very particular approach they used to handle this “problem”. 

They only valued people if they could contribute back, “pay back,” the cost of taking care of them, with interest (profit). If they couldn’t pay back, they were deemed “too expensive.” 

When we place health as a given that people “just need to work hard enough for and they’ll achieve it,” we are ignoring the very real limitations that the world puts onto us in regards to controlling our health. Which is blaming an individual for things outside their own control, an action that I would argue is unjust. 

But arguing that makes it easier for a system of commodification to keep that argument in place, without people feeling horrible for thinking it. If people could just “work harder and be healthy” that means anyone can work hard and be “valuable enough to contribute” and thus no longer be “a burden for the rest of us.” If they don’t, they are doing so because they’re “lazy.” And we don’t have to care about lazy people.

It’s a cynical perspective I’m selling here, and perhaps I’m coming across as dramatic in my commentary. And you’re probably right. I am pretty partial to theatrics. 

But if you disagree with the idea that we place too much emphasis on the health of individuals, in that we tie the value of an individual to their health and thus ability to produce and contribute, and that that process is directly tied to a dehumanizing commodification of our lives by a system that demands of us that we produce something, even if it is unnecessary for anyone’s survival and is only to make people whose lives are already taken care of even more wealthy, think for a moment on this:

If you became too sick to work tomorrow, and it lasted the rest of your life…

Who would pay for your survival?

And…

How terrifying would it be to worry that others might think of you as a burden for being that way?