janet_catcus

yeah well, no idea where to get seeds xD the place i usually go to used to sell them too, but no longer... i wonder why 🤪

ah ja, danke, passiert wenn man wenig damit zutun hat. spaghettimonsterimhimmelseidank

und ja... die grund annahme sein gegenueber im internet sei maennlich... ich mein, oft genug passte es ja.. alles gut

fuck me.

not telling where i get my shit but i dont get it free and instead it costs a whole fucking lot. main reason why im broke all the time actually...

well fuck me... i dont know how to treat plants good, the clubs cant grow until there exists some sort of training first... bullshit bureaucracy really, and also i dont have any friends who consume or grow...

"Is it possible to buy normal weed in 2024 or is there only shinzo-abe-pack-chernobyl-1000C-hot-knife-sohn-of-a-whore-nirvana-haze which leaves you with a permanent disability?"

you are welcome

and for the germanophones:

"ich verstehe nicht alles hier aber 'shinzo abe pack chernobyl 1000' schiesst wie eine schrotflinte ein loch durch die sprach barriere"

seit willkommen

edith: sorry, hab nix mit flinten zu tun und mach kaum schrott :P

sickening

nope.

dabbled in unity when arcadia was being actively developed, but i am glad i have never finished anything in it.

made a game in godot though, and i like gdscript a whole lot better than either clojure (slow to start-up in jvm, sometimes rancid errormsgs, but that was arcadias fault, not exactly clojure's) or c# (it's c#)

both of them actually...

i found the first mention of rome in that book and basically, speaking about societies that didnt write (like the celts and uh germanics) the authors cite another book by some jack goody saying something like (im translating a german book here citing an english author... oh well, good night. as we say in german:) regarding their gendernorms we have little more than observations from roman authors like tacitus, which often - partly due to ignorance and partly to make a political statement in rome - seemed to talk not about real people but ideal types. greek and roman authors who spoke about wars, wrote that women were allegedly present on battlefields, cheering on their men and caring for their wounded. In extreme cases, as plutarch wrote women too would wield axes or swords. but it is questionable as to how reliable these depictions are, or whether the authors wanted to point out how "barbaric" it was outside of the male dominated culture of the roman empire.

the authors of "the good book of human nature" then state "it is difficult to make a statement about how women fared in the script free europe." it then blames a disinterested and long time male dominated archeological field. apparently archeologists kept finding rich burial sites from iron age women in middle europe, but the scientists didnt question their roles in day to day goings. graves of rich women were apparently as lavish as their male counter parts, but even worse than ignorance, some graves were attributed wrongly to men, like the "Fuerstin von Vix" discovered in 1953, they thought she must have been a man, since such riches were unimaginable to have belonged to a woman. died 490 bce and some analysis showed she was female... while typing i realize some problem.... anyway. i think this could explain why i assumed the role of women was what i said... not much info and it was bad later, so why shouldnt it have been bad before there already?

i guess patriarchy was mostly monotheistic religion's fault

edit: clarifying last line, and some grammar in the middle

i still cant take it for what you say it is.

there was/is this dude (perhaps a journalist) who coined a question to ask oneself as a reader.. "who? says what? to whom? with what purpose? using what channel?"

something like that. and since being able to read/write wasnt as common as today, i can only read this as "to whoever wants to be a good citizen: beware" coming from a ruler, and pointedly not "how to be a happy human on earth <3"

but that is just me. and i only replied again because iheartneopets replied, but he basically says what you were saying... so i feel like you deserve my response more.

sorry if you were hoping lecturing me was over :P

the book concentrated a lot on the bible probably as that is the most likely thing a reader might know. me attacking aurelius like that might be ill advised, but seeing a man talking about which emotions are acceptable and which not, makes me itch

cant remember what this book said about pre constantine, as it was mostly concerned with how the patriarchy developed beginning about 8000years ago, so nonsurviving cultures arent that interesting, except to highlight that indeed we could have been equal all along, if not for the rise of monotheism and then christianity.

the book also highlights how the teachings of jesus were perverted by the church to suppress women from having a say in anything. not only that, it also changed how i see this no-nut bullshit. i used to see it as a silly practice some silly men would do. but now i see it as the continuation of demonizing sexuality. (granted, if you got a problem then you got a problem, but the solutionis to go seek help, not to maim a beautiful woman, thinking she's a demon (as was pretty common in the past, thanks to christianity)) and how religion is basically just politics moved into the clouds, and how monotheism fueled tyrants..

it is funny how it was all basically already there, in stories and films, but seeing it all connected hits hard

i'd also rather be with my family than at work, but yeah...

and i think this is exactly what marcus meant by "the complaining": suck it up, do your work. which is why i cant see this as "be mindful and chill" but only "shut up and be a man"/"boys dont cry"

it's toxic.

i do mourn a certain type of cereal though... but that's long gone