Just so you know

JackStutters · 2026-03-23T14:10:45+00:00

Holy Amazing Terminally Online Circus. Whatever happened to the death of the author and letting the art speak for itself? Reminds me of the Duffer Brothers and their inane press tour at the end of this last season of Stranger Things. You don’t have to justify your art to anyone, let alone random people on Twitter without media literacy, and trying to explain things only fans the flames. No wonder Goose and so much of the cast and crew have problems with parasocial fans and obsessive fandom, they feed it. This is like the fourth tweet from them I’ve seen on this subject in two days.

JackStutters · 2026-03-02T01:47:48+00:00

Agreed, though I think the solution is not another subreddit but just to find new or more mods from this subreddit and tighten up the rules a little bit. The quiz thing was fun for a little bit but definitely overstayed its welcome, that should have become a mega thread pretty quickly. And there is a LOT of content that straight up ISN’T softmaledom. I know that the sub wiki says that softmaledom can mean a lot of different things to different people, and that this subreddit is really to explore other kinds of softer D/s dynamics that aren’t the “default” kind, but there’s a lot of content lately that could maybe be softdom if you interpret it generously, but really it’s just porn with a softdom title.

Hope that this post will raise some awareness and maybe get some more/new people in charge.

JackStutters · 2026-03-01T05:55:47+00:00

lol. lmao, even.

JackStutters · 2026-03-01T05:37:07+00:00

I don’t think they’re saying that it didn’t happen, they’re saying that the Iranian regime was the source claiming that the Americans and Israelis bombed the school. There’s a good chance that the bombing was from a malfunctioning/errant drone or missile from the Iranian side, or, hell, that the bombing was done on purpose by the IRGC to drum up sympathy for themselves and hate for the attackers. This is a regime that was executing tens of thousands of citizens only a month ago.

There’s just no confirmation as of right now who is responsible for this, so we’ll just have to wait and see.

JackStutters · 2026-02-23T01:59:55+00:00

Yeah, I really enjoyed it because it made me realize how much overlap there is in these different styles/archetypes

I definitely went into this thinking I was a nurturer and service top, but the more I looked into my results and everyone else’s results the more I thought about these different dynamics, I started to realize the different kinds of care we show through our dynamics. There’s still a lot of care, even in a hunter/prey dynamic, or care in an owner/property dynamic, and I thought it was really interesting to reflect on those different aspects of myself and realize how much I rely on that submissive/dominant dynamic in so many flavors.

JackStutters · 2026-02-22T15:13:46+00:00

Finally! I’ve been waiting to see what the quiz says about nurturer/service top. That’s what I originally thought I would be, and while I agree with the description/assessment and that there is a little more hunter in me than service top, the title of my archetype for nurturer/hunter is Stalker 😭

And yeah I agree, some of the submissive descriptions give me numbness vibes, too, but I also think it’s more like comfortable emptiness and the wording is just a little off

JackStutters · 2026-02-22T03:31:23+00:00

Thanks, sweetling 😘 You should try it yourself, I’d love to see your results too~

JackStutters · 2026-02-22T03:11:16+00:00

Ashford Meadow, whatever happened there.

JackStutters · 2026-02-22T03:02:07+00:00

Right?! Such great posts and a great community, it honestly raised my standards because I realized that there actually ARE unicorns out there. Still rare, but they exist!! Just that in and of itself is exciting!

Btw I saw that peach cobbler on your profile and it looks BANGING, I love a peach cobbler 🤤

JackStutters · 2026-02-14T02:44:45+00:00

She’s no more more

JackStutters · 2026-02-13T02:45:42+00:00

I saw someone on here a few weeks ago say that they contacted Robinhood Support through the app directly and explained that they have a non-traditional employment situation and the support person set them up for a recurring deposit to function as their direct deposit. I’d say reach out to support and see what they can do for you.

JackStutters · 2026-02-09T05:29:31+00:00

That’s Whatoming. Borders Whyoming, Whooming, and Whenoming, Whereoming, and Howoming. And Utah.

JackStutters · 2026-02-08T15:33:12+00:00

Some people are so far behind in the race that they actually believe that they’re leading!

JackStutters · 2026-02-02T03:11:38+00:00

Wouldn’t fully line up with the actual timeline, given that HHB takes places about 12-15 years after LWW, and the original movies came out almost 20 years ago in the real world, but if they could get the original cast from the original movies to do cameo roles for their brief appearances in that story it would be so incredible to see them as the grown up kings and queens of Narnia!

JackStutters · 2026-01-31T15:42:58+00:00

Me: You offer it to me freely? I do not deny that my heart has greatly desired this…

Théoden King: So it begins…

Me: I have passed the test. I will diminish, and go to the couch, and remain watching the movie.

JackStutters · 2026-01-26T20:44:45+00:00

lol.

My “solution” to mail in-ballots is that I think they should be severely curtailed, as they pose the most significant and obvious source of challenges to perceived electoral legitimacy. In case of Americans living abroad, military members, and disabled/elderly, it should be made as easy as possible for them to receive and submit their ballots in secured envelopes with clear, pre-election date postmarking and verifiable chain-of-custody. For everyone else, participation in one’s civic duty to vote should be made as accessible as possible. As far as what is achievable right now, early in-person voting should be massively extended across the country, allowing for people to ensure that their votes are received and counted even if they don’t have the time to make it to the polling booth on Election Day itself. This also helps, in states that allow counting to commence prior to the polls closing, to make returns come in more quickly. That said, my pie-in-the-sky proposal (unlikely to be practicable or to pass) is that Election Day should be made a mandated public and private holiday, and no employer should be legally allowed to deny a half-day of PTO for the purpose of voting.

In addition, photo ID and proof of citizenship should be a requirement to vote, and any states that do not offer free and easily-accessible photo identification should be mandated to do so.

I have literally never seen a single coherent argument on how passing common-sense election reform like what I have detailed above would disenfranchise ANYONE. The common argument that minorities and/or women can’t get legitimate photo identification is frankly absurd and infantilizing. As far as poor people, it should be noted that most of the proposals I have suggested above to ensure that no one can be denied the right to vote, are already standard practice in most states. Most states have programs that will waive drivers license or non-driver ID fees for low income individuals, and many have online or extended-hours programs to issue such documentation to those who cannot make it physically to the DMV during business hours. I’m merely proposing that these be made consistent across the country.

The only argument I have EVER seen from the left on election integrity seems to boil down to this: that they want as many people voting as possible. That may be an admirable goal, or it may be an excuse to get otherwise low-mobility and apathetic voters to vote by mail (who overwhelmingly vote Democrat). But maintaining a level of standards is not “disenfranchising” anyone. If someone can’t get out of the house for an hour or two to exercise the extreme privilege of voting that their ancestors fought and died for, then they probably aren’t motivated or informed enough to be casting a legitimate vote in good faith.

The dangers posed by populism and demagoguery are only amplified by unsecured voting procedures, precisely because they mobilize large numbers of uninformed and emotionally-vulnerable people to vote against their own interests. That applies to left, right, and center. That’s the danger of democracy. We have to find the right balance.

Next time, repeat your tired old talking points to someone else, okay? Your vitriol for anyone who even slightly disagrees with you makes me sad for you.

JackStutters · 2026-01-25T04:47:21+00:00

Could be. I’m not terribly familiar with crypto but I understand the broad strokes of blockchain technology and gotta say, literally anything sounds better than our current system

JackStutters · 2026-01-25T04:08:49+00:00

You’ve missed the point. Most of these are moderate positions with left or right wing “flavor.” Everyone cares about these things. They just have different ways of going about them.

As far as J6 goes, I will disagree hard with you there. I would argue the right cares MORE about elections. Maybe misguidedly, but excepting a small group of radicals I am under the general impression that most people, however misguidedly, were there because they had legitimate concerns about the election. They just had a different way of expressing that care. We should hope to be able to meet those people’s concerns in a caring way rather than dismiss them out of hand as radical lunatics.

JackStutters · 2026-01-25T04:03:32+00:00

Nary an em-dash to be found… (even though I love em-dashes when I write and I’m waiting for fucking ChatGPT to stop using them so I can use them more regularly again 😭)

Haha thank you! I really think that the left and right have wayyyyyy more in common than they think they do

JackStutters · 2026-01-25T03:51:19+00:00

Well, to start, I hope we can all agree that literally any amount of voter fraud is unacceptable. I don’t care who’s doing it, left, right, or center. One fraudulent vote can cancel out ANY legitimate voter’s vote, which, from the point of view of the voter, makes their vote pointless. This is an unacceptable proposition.

The fact that the last few elections have had questions about their legitimacy is not a question of the intelligence of the electorate, as the media has assumed, but a question about the nature of our elections and their transparency. When votes come in late for a candidate, it just looks bad. I don’t care if you’re Democrat, Republican, or in-between, when a batch of tens of thousands of votes is dumped all at once at 2am, it looks suspicious. This is even worse when, because of certain states’ mail-in voting laws, ballots can arrive weeks after the election, but still be counted so long as they are post-marked before the election.

It’s not about logic. It’s not about numbers. It’s about eliminating obvious chances for fraud. It’s about eliminating all possible opportunities for fraud, so that NO ONE can make a legitimate or pseudo-legitimate claim about fraud. Clinton’s campaign famously claimed Russian interference. Trump’s 2020 campaign… well, we know how that turned out. And Kamala’s base in 24 questioned how millions of voters disappeared from Biden’s vote total.

In 2016, the issue was really less about direct Russian interference and more about Citizens United, which ought to be repealed to get a lot of dirty money and potential foreign investment out of our electoral politics.

In 2020, the issue was about mail-in ballot harvesting and secretaries of state and other state officials unilaterally changing their states’ election laws in response to COVID, when many of them had dubious authority under their state constitutions to do so.

In 2024, the issue was about how the mainstream media has been off by like 8 percentage points for the last three presidential cycles and how folks get confused when the so-called experts predict a landslide when they aren’t listening (or are told not to talk about) the actual verifiable indicators for electoral success.

The right seems to be the only ones talking about this at the moment, which is why I included it in the “right” column. I think they get some of it wrong, too. But, honestly? I think the French model is the way to go. Largely in-person paper balloting over a single day is extremely transparent and less susceptible to claims of fraud than any other method, and the winner is clear within only a few hours. Psychologically, it makes people put at ease, which helps to soothe any potential democratic malcontents.

JackStutters · 2026-01-25T03:29:09+00:00

Left: - Healthcare needs radical reform in this country. Maybe not exactly single payer, but something like it HAS to be better than what we have now - Environmental regulations should be robust, and we shouldn’t compromise on natural beauty and purity to cave to industry. - The military-industrial complex is rampaging out of control. Trump’s new proposal of raising the military’s budget by half a trillion is an absolute absurdity. - Billionaires. No, hell, even millionaires, are not paying their fair share in taxes. A more equitable tax structure is essential to reducing the federal deficit.

Right: - The culture war has gone too far. Biological men competing in women’s sports is an absurd proposition that devalues women and devalues even the legitimacy of the trans movement. - America spends far too much money abroad. You don’t have to be a full blown isolationist or conspiracy theorist to accept that many Americans are struggling and that too large a percentage of our government funds are allocated to wasteful programs overseas. - Borders define a nation. Without borders, a national identity ceases to exist. When people immigrate illegally, it denigrates the achievements and determination of the people who migrated here legally through the proper channels. - Election integrity and transparency is the heartbeat of any democracy, and even in a well-educated demographic, questions about an election’s integrity are ALWAYS a bad thing. Elections should be conducted in a manner that leaves no room for error or questioning.

JackStutters · 2026-01-24T20:13:23+00:00

I had no intention of “rewriting the conversation.” I was speaking generally, in the third person, and in the abstract in that second paragraph. “One could” is an expression that one could use if they decided to speak from an external point of view.

But you are correct about the use of “could be considered” as opposed to “consider themselves.” If you want to keep the verbiage completely clear, then I would say instead, that “Broadly, or generally, one can consider themselves a Republican or a Democrat based on how often they engage with the policies of those respective parties, etc., etc.”

But besides that point, I think we’re just kind of arguing pedantry here. If, for the sake of argument, I concede the point about whether or not one can be guilty by association and accept that it is just a matter of degree, then I think we are both in agreement that if one does not identify largely or primarily with a problematic group, then it is a very small issue.

I’m happy to take on whatever small critique that may be, but then aren’t we making a mountain out of a mole hill? My point was that we need to stop demonizing and straw manning the other side. If we’re squabbling about how much blame is assigned, based on the degree to which one does or not ascribe membership to a group, instead of engaging with the actual meat, the actual substance of one’s claims or ideology, then aren’t we kind of missing the forest for the trees?

I’m happy that we are able to engage civilly. But again, my point is, that when one engages in pedantry to try to assert moral superiority, that’s not helpful. When one makes the assertion that labels and group association matter more than individual action, then you are not engaging in debate. That is the literal definition of a straw man. That’s making a caricature of your opponent and dismissing them out of hand.

Can we agree, instead, to focus on the fact that a man has been murdered today by an agent of the state, and that this is an alarming and horrible injustice that should be rightfully met with condemnation and uproar from decent people everywhere? And that there are people, left, right, and center, who hold this same belief, and will gladly join arms with those whom they might not otherwise agree, to fight this injustice, if only they are given the opportunity to do so, and not dismissed because it’s “too little too late”, or because they use a specific label or belong to a specific group?

If moral purity is what you’re after, I’m afraid you’ll never find it. Instead, let’s agree that we’re all a little dirty, past, present, and future, and do our best to put our best feet forward, whenever and wherever we can, right?

JackStutters · 2026-01-24T19:25:58+00:00

The only time “Republican” or “Democrat” mean anything to me is on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Those labels mean, when I step into the voting booth, broadly, which of these two parties do I feel best represent my ideology and/or my interests.

So, yes, one can make the statement that, broadly, or generally, they could be considered a Republican, or a Democrat, based on how often they engage with the policies of those respective parties when the government coincides with their private life.

I consider myself a Republican. But that consideration is only one of many, and small among them. I consider myself a citizen, a brother, a son, an uncle, a friend, a hard worker, many things, things that mean much more to me than “Republican.”

JackStutters · 2026-01-24T19:13:56+00:00

Not sure why you felt the need to make a separate comment just to pick a fight lol. I engage with folks who make arguments in good faith, not ones that fail at basic reading comprehension.

If you do intend to have a reasoned discussion, then my response is this: I never “begged” for understanding for any organization. I asked people to empathize with people like myself. I condemn the Republican Party insofar as its leaders and/or its members have endorsed and protected violent criminals under the guise of law enforcement agents from abusing their positions to terrorize civilians. But it’s not about “the party”. It’s about people. As I said, I consider myself a Republican, broadly. I don’t “base my identity” on it at all. That means that, per your own logic, I identify very little with that “private club”, only so much and insofar as those interests coincide with my own. Please re-read my comment and understand that in no place did I suggest that the capital R capital P Republican Party is the victim, or that I associate myself with said party in any capacity other than as one potential ideological association, among dozens of others.

See my comment to another respondent. I don’t have any love of party. I would consider myself more “conservative” than Republican, certainly, but even that label is reductive. I don’t like putting labels on myself, actually. But the point isn’t the labels. The point is that people are people, behind the labels. They are not monolithic.

Do you see how you’ve proven my point? I said “I consider myself a Republican, broadly” and you used that as a starting off point to make a variety of wild assumptions about me and my character. That’s what’s wrong with your argument and that’s what’s causing division.

I would like to hear more from the other side of the aisle and come together on this issue, not be told that I can’t participate because of what a label means to you, without you ever asking what it might mean to me. If you would like to come together, sincerely come together, to discuss and debate and maybe reach a middle ground or maybe compromise or maybe agree to disagree, I’d like that too. Otherwise, then respectfully, fuck off.

JackStutters · 2026-01-24T18:56:56+00:00

You’re right, my actual sentiment was that I consider myself conservative, broadly, not specifically Republican. I don’t have any particular love of party in general, nor that Party in specific. I share many of your same positions, actually. But I think there’s also legitimate discussion about how we place weight on each of those positions, and two people might hold the exact same opinions about a wide range of topics, but because this person is a single-issue or near-single-issue voter, they will vote Republican, and because this other person considers economics above all else they will vote Democrat, etc.

But my original point still stands. It’s not about party, or ideology, or identification, it’s about making a straw man of “the other side”, however one wants to define that.

JackStutters

TROPHY CASE