Okay, this might be an unpopular opinion, but if you want to combat the spread of misinformation then you have to let go of any belief that people not talking about an issue means that they don’t care. The only way to reduce the spread of misinformation and disinformation is to research claims before you spread them, and there is so much information constantly being thrown at people through social media and the 24 hour news cycle that it’s impossible to fact check every claim. The same can be said about AI generated images, if you look closely then you can notice certain tells that something is AI generated but no one really has the time to analyze every single image that crosses their path.
If we expect people to talk about and spread information on every social/political/economic issue that occurs then the result will be that people will spread misinformation/disinformation because they will not have the time or mental capacity to research every single thing that happens on Earth just to make sure that they aren’t being fed incorrect information.
Only researching claims that set off a red flag or seem incorrect doesn’t actually do much to prevent misinformation, because there are plenty of claims that will seem correct on the surface or that will align with your view of the world that you won’t think to research. You have to research every claim if you want to avoid misinformation, and you can’t research every claim made by someone online.
The only solution is to accept that some people aren’t going to talk about certain issues, not because they don’t care, but because they have chosen to focus on other issues for the time being and don’t want to talk about an issue that they don’t know much about. And we really need to stop treating that like a bad thing. If you spread yourself too thin then you’re not going to accomplish anything. It’s actually good to have people devoting themselves to learning about and fighting a specific issue, that’s how progress is made.
Ah, they’re probably coming up next! I don’t recognise the performance off the top of my head, but doing ballet is HELLISHLY INTENSE and doing it without your muscles througly warmed up is just asking for injured tendrons. In between scenes the dancers literally can’t sit still for too long or their muscles will cool down, or worse, cramp up, and if they’re not changing costumes they’re usually stretching, vigorously massaging their legs and, like here, bouncing around to the tune.
So this is a perfectly natural ballerina behavior. They’re just keeping warm and bonding. 👍
I love how the last line has the exact cadence of a “is the ballerina video cute” blog
these ballerinas are not distressed and this in fact good enrichment for ballerinas when confined outside their natural habitat (the stage)
actually you know what that’s exactly it i would rather someone add 5 parantheticals after every sentence than use tone indicators it’s 1. accomplishing SO much more in terms of clarity 2. extremely funny to look at depending on how they’re used
observe:
“is this real? /gen” — i thought /gen meant “general” for ages. i would not be able to understand this on first sight a few years ago and is thus ineffective
“is this real? (genuine question)” — i fully understand this without issue
“is this real? (genuine question) (can’t tell) (very realistic) (looks real) (scary) (photoshop?)” — is not only incredibly clear it’s also very funny to read all of these thoughts stapled together while also in their own parentheses. it’s also the most useful because now i can actually address all parts of what they are asking me with as much specificity as BOTH of us need
parentheses my beloved (they are for bonus thoughts) (and questions) ( and sidetracks) (like a 2nd conversation on top of the first)
I’m watching The Sword in the Stone for the first time in decades and I’ve gotten to the part where Merlin is trying to get Arthur to lose his virginity to a squirrel.
Y’know, if Merlin turned that squirrel into a human it would save Camelot a significant amount of problems down the road.
“Squirrels mate for life Arthur, so the chances of her fucking your best friend and inadvertently causing a schism that leads to the downfall of an entire utopian kingdom are completely nil!”
Ok hopefully this is the last time I add onto this but Arthur marrying the squirrel would stop both of the events that destroyed Camelot - namely the aforementioned falling out with Lancelot AND the birth of Mordred. Being with him since youth, Squirrel would keep Arthur from being seduced by his half-sister Morgause (or Morgan Le Fay in the versions of the myth that cut Morgause out) when he was young and foolish, as he’d already be in a committed relationship and thus wouldn’t be able to be tricked into starting one with said half-sister. No incest means no Mordred. Then, as mentioned above, Squirrel would be a faithful wife, which means Guenevere would be single, which means Lancelot and Guenevere could pork each other without causing a huge row that ends with Lancelot killing dozens of his fellow knights of the round and inspiring several others to turn against Arthur out of loyalty to him.
Camelot would have been saved if Arthur just. Fucked. That. Squirrel.
You say all that but all I hear is “here is how Merlin trying to convince Arthur to become a furry could have saved the world”
Look this was a journey for me ok?
It started as “I can’t believe Disney made a movie where Merlin tries to get a squirrel to take Arthur’s virginity” and slowly became “I can’t believe Disney’s weird bestiality subplot actually solves the two biggest problems that cause Camelot’s downfall.”
Because as baffling as the squirrel fucking plotline is just on its own, the fact that it’d actually be solution to the eventual problems Arthur faces - whether anyone at Disney was actually thinking about that or not (and I’m guessing not) - is even more so. It is bizarre and unsettling to me that squirrel fucking could have saved Camelot, and that’s, uh, the point of this I guess.
So, pointless fun fact. Around 2008, someone on 4chan actually made a ‘humanized’ version of the squirrel called ‘Hazel’ (i.e. one who had been changed to a human to be with Arthur). For a little while, there were a number of artists making pieces about her, and stories written suggesting alternate histories.
I know it’s a minor point, but I still love the notion that people are still finding ways to rewrite the story so Arthur can f*@# the squirrel.
To an ever widening group of people, I am “that guy who ranted about Arthur fucking a squirrel.”
Of all my legacies, this is certainly one of them.
I think I’ve posted about this before buuuuuuut fuck it? This makes me deliriously happy and sad. The resolution of Arthur becoming human and having to try to explain himself to a sobbing squirrel is one of my strongest childhood memories about having to deal with heartbreak and I’m literally fucking tearing up right now GOD DAMN YOU TYRANTIS.
Does this mean there’s an alternate version of history where Camelot never fell and Britain just always carried on its legacy.
Are you trying to tell me that in the fixed up version of the Arthur mythos the entire royal family is part squirrel?
Yes
Hell, I’ll take it over part fae/witch.
how aggressively affectionate that squirrel was probably ruined my expectations in courtship for life
source: El Goonish Shive
The squirrel in The Sword in the Stone is a red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris). Red squirrels definitely do not mate for life and are not monogamous.
From Wikipedia:
“During mating, males detect females that are in oestrus by an odour that they produce, and although there is no courtship, the male will chase the female for up to an hour prior to mating. Usually, several males will chase a single female until the dominant male, usually the largest in the group, mates with the female. Males and females will mate several times with many partners.”
The young are looked after by the mother alone.
This does not necessarily mean that transforming the squirrel into a human wouldn’t have prevented the fall of Camelot, but not in the manner speculated above, and could potentially have led to other, more interesting problems.
Wrong, the movie literally has the wise wizard Merlin say that squirrels mate for life, which means that regardless of how squirrels act in reality, squirrels in the fiction of The Sword in the Stone mate for life. The context of the movie makes my theory very sound.
I like to think Aziraphale goes to visit Madame Tracy every once in a while for tea as a thank you for the lift during the apocalypse. Crowley begrudgingly tags along (because of course he does)
Hob works in a grocery store, mainly at the register. Dream regularly shops there and tries his hardest to time it that he gets Hob as his cashier. Everybody else is friendly, but Hob is just super nice and kind with the warmest smile, and if Dream is really honest with himself, he finds Hob attractive and might even have a crush on him. Just a little one. Really.
When Dream gets lost in his imagination, he even dares to think that Hob is flirting with him, but Dream sucks really bad with social cues and what people’s behavior means, and he got burned a few times before when he drew the wrong conclusions. Besides, somebody as charming as Hob could never like somebody as “neurospicy” as Dream, so Dream convinces himself that Hob is just friendly with him, as he would be with any customer.
