A: amazing, B!
A: were you just frying chicken in the bathroom?
B, visibly uncomfortable:
A: i'm just joking!
A: just be careful about your sound levels when you next piss.
1 note
·
View note
No because, Art is a mediocre tennis player with 6 grand slams who knows that at some level he has only got them because Tashi has pushed him and coached him to that level of excellence. At the same time he feels responsible for living a career for both of them while knowing that if Patrick hadn't fucked things up he wouldn't have ever achieved what he did.Patrick has oodles of talent but has to deal with the fact that despite winning Tashi fairly he lost her due to his pride. You know he's thinking that 'if she was my coach I would have double the number of grand slams that Art does'. But if Tashi hadn't had that injury that day would either of them even have had the chance to have her as their coach? No. Both he and Art would have faded into mediocrity but probably remained friends despite it all. And don't get me started on Tashi. She knows that if it wasn't for her injury she would have probably won 15 grand slams by now and would never have considered stopping but she's reduced to just being the wife! Just being the coach! Just being content with being a hot girl who will be won by the guy who plays the best tennis!! And she has to somehow make herself feel okay with that. So no. She can't genuinely be okay with Art stopping but at the end of the day it's not her decision to make because he's the professional tennis player not her. It's not just about one of them winning or the sacrifice it takes. It's about disappointment, bitterness, the underlying inferiority complex, being manipulative enough to achieve your goals through different means and the inherent homoeroticism of having a best friend from the age of 12 who is the only one worth beating for you after playing 13 years of tennis. Anyway I'm chewing on glass rn. Challengers you'll always be famous
3K notes
·
View notes
"The idea of reforming Omelas is a pleasant idea, to be sure, but it is one that Le Guin herself specifically tells us is not an option. No reform of Omelas is possible — at least, not without destroying Omelas itself:
If the child were brought up into the sunlight out of that vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good thing, indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed. Those are the terms.
'Those are the terms', indeed. Le Guin’s original story is careful to cast the underlying evil of Omelas as un-addressable — not, as some have suggested, to 'cheat' or create a false dilemma, but as an intentionally insurmountable challenge to the reader. The premise of Omelas feels unfair because it is meant to be unfair. Instead of racing to find a clever solution ('Free the child! Replace it with a robot! Have everyone suffer a little bit instead of one person all at once!'), the reader is forced to consider how they might cope with moral injustice that is so foundational to their very way of life that it cannot be undone. Confronted with the choice to give up your entire way of life or allow someone else to suffer, what do you do? Do you stay and enjoy the fruits of their pain? Or do you reject this devil’s compromise at your own expense, even knowing that it may not even help? And through implication, we are then forced to consider whether we are — at this very moment! — already in exactly this situation. At what cost does our happiness come? And, even more significantly, at whose expense? And what, in fact, can be done? Can anything?
This is the essential and agonizing question that Le Guin poses, and we avoid it at our peril. It’s easy, but thoroughly besides the point, to say — as the narrator of 'The Ones Who Don’t Walk Away' does — that you would simply keep the nice things about Omelas, and work to address the bad. You might as well say that you would solve the trolley problem by putting rockets on the trolley and having it jump over the people tied to the tracks. Le Guin’s challenge is one that can only be resolved by introspection, because the challenge is one levied against the discomforting awareness of our own complicity; to 'reject the premise' is to reject this (all too real) discomfort in favor of empty wish fulfillment. A happy fairytale about the nobility of our imagined efforts against a hypothetical evil profits no one but ourselves (and I would argue that in the long run it robs us as well).
But in addition to being morally evasive, treating Omelas as a puzzle to be solved (or as a piece of straightforward didactic moralism) also flattens the depth of the original story. We are not really meant to understand Le Guin’s 'walking away' as a literal abandonment of a problem, nor as a self-satisfied 'Sounds bad, but I’m outta here', the way Vivier’s response piece or others of its ilk do; rather, it is framed as a rejection of complacency. This is why those who leave are shown not as triumphant heroes, but as harried and desperate fools; hopeless, troubled souls setting forth on a journey that may well be doomed from the start — because isn’t that the fate of most people who set out to fight the injustices they see, and that they cannot help but see once they have been made aware of it? The story is a metaphor, not a math problem, and 'walking away' might just as easily encompass any form of sincere and fully committed struggle against injustice: a lonely, often thankless journey, yet one which is no less essential for its difficulty."
- Kurt Schiller, from "Omelas, Je T'aime." Blood Knife, 8 July 2022.
10K notes
·
View notes
Maybe also worth considering, in regards to Marcille's weird gender views, that humans canonically looking really masculine to elves, combined with her being half human means she might be kinda masc by elf standards-- which probably adds to her feeling like an outcast and means she has to work harder to fit into whatever standards for femininity elves have
769 notes
·
View notes
Hey, I know chronic pain is absolute hell for physically disabled and chronically ill people, but can we also talk about the chronic discomfort symptoms?
Like, it doesn’t hurt per se, but it sucks ass.
Like involuntary movements, making it hard to move or function
Nausea, the absolute BITCH
confusion, brain fog, forgetfulness
Getting lightheaded or dizzy or problems with the vestibular senses
RESTLESSNESS
Numbness and tingling
Fucking fatigue. Like the kind that makes you feel like a rubber noodle that weighs 800 tons and you can hardly left an arm.
Weakness in general, like that’s annoying as hell. Why can I not open this bottle.
I haven’t experienced this, but I imagine full or partial paralysis is pretty sucky.
Trembling. Like, sometimes not even because something hurts. Your just shaking, vibrating, man. What.
So yeah. Complain about discomfort from your disabilities and illnesses, you deserve it.
927 notes
·
View notes
during pregnancy seb flip flops between being concerned and guilty and worried, to also being the most self-satisfied and smug man that ever existed LMAO. like yup, that was me, i did that
😃👍
(original)
767 notes
·
View notes