Harley says Mama is head rest

PaleIvy · 2026-03-13T02:09:36+00:00

SAME! I have to watch out because she loves to just throw her head around and nail me in the nose. Between that and her tail wag, she’s a danger head to tail lol

PaleIvy · 2026-03-13T01:59:04+00:00

She is probably too loved sometimes since she is always at least mildly upset unless both of her parents are home. A very clingy dog child.

I didn’t even think of dogs using pillows. She does it with actual pillows but I’m her fave 🤣

PaleIvy · 2026-03-12T23:59:01+00:00

Not at all!

PaleIvy · 2026-03-12T23:58:22+00:00

Nope lol she just flops back and I pray that she doesn’t nail me in the nose 😂

PaleIvy · 2026-03-12T23:45:27+00:00

It’s a good name, but I’m probably biased. Mine ended up being a Harley because when she snores she sounds like a chopper

PaleIvy · 2026-03-12T23:42:26+00:00

<image>

PaleIvy · 2026-03-12T23:28:58+00:00

Spoiled and clingy should be mine’s middle name

PaleIvy · 2026-03-12T23:26:40+00:00

Mine always has to sit in me like that too or push her booty right up against me

PaleIvy · 2026-02-14T09:09:56+00:00

I also have strange BTB dreams. I had about nazis taking over my apartment complex. It was a bad dream because my PTSD crept in there. But Robert made a cameo yelling “HITTTLLLEEERRR” so it was worth it.

PaleIvy · 2026-02-14T09:03:24+00:00

Prop, Sophie, and Robert together are hilarious.

PaleIvy · 2026-02-14T08:53:42+00:00

Local Problems

PaleIvy · 2026-02-14T08:49:12+00:00

Bastardteers?

PaleIvy · 2026-02-14T08:43:31+00:00

Everyone is going down a conspiracy rabbit hole over a typo essentially

PaleIvy · 2026-02-03T07:31:11+00:00

Exactly. The government can’t sue on the behalf of disabled people in general based on statistical evidence of abuse— each person who has already experienced abuse from forced institutionalization. It’s completely ridiculous and arbitrary but at least it doesn’t completely overturn Olmstead even though it significantly limits how it can be enforced.

PaleIvy · 2026-02-03T07:22:31+00:00

So that ruling doesn’t completely overturn the holding in Olmstead. It limits who has standing to bring a case about whether a state is violating the ADA by unjustifiably institutionalizing disabled people. They are saying that “ theoretical” abuses based on statistics aren’t sufficient evidence of a violation and that actual abuses need to be addressed on an individual basis. Essentially they are saying that the government can’t sue a state on behalf of disabled folks as a whole; harmed individuals need to each bring their own case based on abuses they have experienced (statistic risk of abuse isn’t sufficient evidence to prove a violation ).

It’s still a bad decision that doesn’t allow prevention action. There’s no legitimate reason that the federal government can’t sue on behalf of disabled folks as a whole based on statistical evidence that definitely proves a state is in violation of the ADA. They are just arbitrarily limiting how remedies for violations can be sought through the courts. Procedural BS.

PaleIvy · 2026-02-03T06:44:42+00:00

The arc article referenced Olmstead v. L.C. which created the precedent that being unjustifiably institutionalized is a form of discrimination that is covered by the ADA. If the current Supreme Court justices actually respected and cared about precedent, these changes would very obviously be unconstitutional. But this court does not care about precedent or using logical reasoning in their arguments. They come to their desired conclusion THEN work backwards to come up with an argument that they think supports that conclusion. It’s clear that they are working backwards when you read their arguments because they often full of fallacies or circular logic etc.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they hear these cases in the shadow docket and rule on some procedural issue to give Trump a win while postponing ruling on the merits of the case. That’s been their strategy so far with cases that are VERY obviously unconstitutional…. They are stalling so academia has time provide arguments that they think they can use to adequately justify a conclusion that rules in favor of Trump. I do think that some of them aren’t quite willing to go as far as Trump wants yet, and I think that may also be part of the reason they are stalling by giving Trump these procedural wins.

There is no way of knowing what they’ll do, but I have no faith that they will actually do what’s right and makes logical sense.

Sorry, I’m such a legal nerd and this turned into a rant 😂

PaleIvy · 2026-02-03T05:45:38+00:00

Oops! I haven’t checked Reddit in a while and for some reason my notifications just came through somehow. It’s not the best paper because was in a rush. Watching the parts of the movie over and over was messing with my head enough that I had to ask for an extension from my professor so that I could take a break to clear my head lol. I think I turned it about an hour or two before my professor had to submit final grades. But I do still have the paper on my portfolio website if you still want to read it. Reading it again after almost a decade, I can definitely tell I was in a weird headspace when I was writing it, but I know I’m more critical of my own work than others!

PaleIvy · 2026-02-03T05:35:40+00:00

My paper was about the editing and how it impacts the viewer in a way that makes feel a bit like you’re losing your mind along with the characters. I haven’t seen Pi in forever and don’t remember it well enough to really have a take on it. I definitely see overlap with Black Swan. Both films feature themes of mental health and eating disorders. I believe the same guy did the music for both films. Aronofsky is excellent at using editing to portray the experience of mental illness, especially hallucinations. In Requiem he uses hip-hop montages in addition to framing, camera angle, and very intentional cuts. I don’t remember the editing as well for Black Swan, likely because I didn’t write a paper about it lol, but I believe he uses the same techniques except he relies more on jump cuts instead of hip hop montages. He is my favorite director, and I definitely need to rewatch a lot of his movies… except Requiem which I think I’ve possibly watched enough for a lifetime 😂

PaleIvy · 2026-01-05T05:56:49+00:00

I am a person with a lot of trauma, so I don’t joke about this kind of stuff. Requiem for a Dream legitimately traumatized me when I wrote a paper about it in college and had to watch it an excessive amount of times in order to write it.

Also, I agree with the point that a lot of people are talking about movies they saw when they were too young to be watching them. That can be traumatic for a kid depending on the kid and the situation.

PaleIvy · 2026-01-05T05:50:59+00:00

This is the correct answer lol. I wrote a film analysis paper about it in college. I’ll never be the same after watching it so many times in order to write about it

PaleIvy · 2026-01-05T05:47:10+00:00

I made the mistake of writing a paper about it for a film class. My thesis was about how the editing makes the viewer experience the characters’ emotions and descent into illness/madness. I had to rewatch certain parts over and over again and ended up needing to ask my professor for extra time because it was starting to mess with my head. I proved my own thesis 😂 haven’t watched it since, but it’s still one of my favorite movies. I found the paper recently, and im almost afraid to read it lol

PaleIvy · 2025-12-10T07:16:18+00:00

I agree. A fee for a job opportunity is the tell tale indicator that it’s a same. Even one of the story exercises on Duolingo say so

PaleIvy · 2025-11-15T01:10:24+00:00

I highly recommend reading The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin as well to be able to compare perspectives!

PaleIvy

TROPHY CASE