Reblog To Explode A Landlord

Did I mention that this woman is so beautiful but like not in a stalkery way?

Murmur, Cameron Barnett

Do you guys think that when he was recording "Whiskey for My Men, Beer for My Horses" Toby Keith had any idea that Willie Nelson would outlive him?

When you're a giving person, who takes care of people and doles out emotional support like you're being paid, and you find yourself in a friendship where the other person doesn't reciprocate, do you push back? Do you demand support? Do you pull back and stop giving so much? Do you decide that this is how things are and you can either get used to it or walk away?

It's hard not to feel resentful when the friendship feels like there are different rules for different people. And (this is a me problem) I HATE having to ask to have my emotional needs met. It makes things feel artificial and forced. Again, me problem. If they cared, wouldn't they have asked or said something before? Or is that just the toxic 'mind-reading' bullshit my parents ingrained into me from birth?

Some info to remember later:

92.7% of households in the US make less than $250,000/year.

Half of American households make less than $75,000/year. (The median is $80,000.)

27% of households in the US make less than $40,000/year. (The poverty line for a family of 4 is $30,000.)

The income tax rate increases as income increases until $600,000, where it's capped at 37%.

This means that someone earning a billion dollars a year pays the same percentage in taxes as someone who earns a million in a year. And both of them are richer than 9/10 American households.

I haven't started s5 yet but I wanted to do a mini review for each season of YOU from someone who loved the first book and enjoyed the others:

S1: obvi most closely follows the books, but also is a great season of TV in general. Performances, music, visuals, story. It grasped some of the series' main themes, about terrible people and delusion and dedication vs dependence. Just excellent.

S2: big departure from the book but mostly pretty good. I actually loved Forty and Ellie and Delilah and Willie B. But this is where the series starts to lose something in the sense that because those characters are sympathetic, balancing them with the humanity of Joe gets tricky. I'm not crazy about the Love twist but at least the season is entertaining.

S3: woof. Possibly my least favorite season of the first four. It's just so sad, Love clinging to her marriage while Joe is Joe. I mean she is also coocoo banana pants but at least she admits it? And although a major departure from her book counterpart, Marianne is amazing. Same problem with S2 though in that many of the supporting characters, at least IMO (Theo, Shary and Cary, Dante) are really compelling and so the portrayal of Joe is flattened.

S4: Honestly kind of a return to form while also being a giant "what the fuck." The supporting characters other than Phoebe, Nadia, and Kate are awful people (cartoonishly so) and while the twist is both a huge cliche and a middle finger to actual psychology, it is fun. Ed Speelers is fucking fantastic. And by this point, at least for me, the show has lost all pretence that Joe is anything but an unredeemable serial killer and they're leaning in. Which is like not really the point of the original story but it was inevitable given the nature of TV, especially in the streaming age.

Tldr; excited for S5 and ready for some justice.

Rewatching YOU in anticipation of the final season, and season 1 is so damn good. The acting, the writing, the editing, the ACTING. Lail and Badgely are fucking phenomenal.

I'm definitely biased because I love the book so much but damn. There are so many bangers in this season.

"One day you won't need love anymore."

"It is EXHAUSTING being your friend."

"Get the batter off the ladle while it's wet."

"From every boy masquerading as a man that you let into your body, your heart, you learned you didn't have whatever magic turns a beast into a prince."

Anyway this show got real silly but the first season is amazing.

Another one of those things I feel like I should have already known and maybe did but didn't articulate before now:

The way people treat each other has way more to do with their subjective feelings and personal hangups/desires than anything else. To the point where most people don't even realize themselves that this is the case.

We say things like "this flower is pretty." But the flower is just a flower. Someone else could see it and say it's ugly. Neither one of those observations is "true" in an objective sense. And it may be true that humanity as a whole agrees more with one person or the other, but that also doesn't make the observation true.

And further, the goodness of importance or morality of the descriptor (pretty, ugly, stupid, wise, thin, short, useful, natural, cheap, tacky, fancy, special) is not objective or true in any real sense. A flower is not better because it is pretty.

I do think one could make observations about a person's thought process/perspective based on how they call out what they see. Are you someone who only calls out things you think of as negative? Or do you notice/call out things you think of as positive?

It has been helpful to me to mentally add a strong "YOU THINK" before anyone gives their opinion on anything. This is partly because I raised in a house where one person got to define objective truth and any opposing ideas were dismissed. I've spent decades dismantling the idea that there is always a correct or right or true solution and that I should try to align with that, that not doing so is __insert disparaging adjective here__ (stupid, naive, immoral).

I've also long noticed that how I feel about someone/something will change how I value what I observe. If I love someone, I usually think they are beautiful. I'm still puzzling out why beauty is so important to me, but right now it encompasses a host of ideas that I think of as positive. Maybe the association is more than I "like" them. I like sunsets and oceans and cats and flowers and therefore I use "beautiful" when what I mean is "beloved."

The flower is a flower. If you look at it and feel something positive, or even just something at all, then your life was made better by it.

Another thing I've realized is that debate "topics" are not and should not be viewed as existing in a vacuum, and I honestly think that conservatives/right-leaning thinkers push this idea because they know, unconsciously or otherwise, that their ideology is internally inconsistent.

For example, take the abortion debate and the antivax debate. In the latter conservatives will argue that people have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, that the safety of others should be considered secondary or not at all, that their autonomy should come first. And those same people will argue that the life of a fetus is more important than the life of its parent, that the fetus overwrites the autonomy of the parent and that the parent should have no right to end the pregnancy regardless of their feelings on it.

Obviously there are other arguments on both topics out there, but as an example, you can see how disingenuous the thinking is. Somehow the life of an unborn zygote is more important than the life of its creator and the right of its parents to make stupid medical decisions is more important than the safety of all the kids in its future daycare.

Some food for thought:

Voter turnout in US pres elections has been generally increasing since 1980. It has gone from a low of ~51% of the voting eligible population (VEP) in 1996 to the high of 65% in 2020. To reiterate, the election with the highest turnout since 1980 still had around 1 in 3 voting eligible people NOT voting.

It is true that 2024 was the first time the GOP candidate won the popular vote since 2004 (Bush-Kerry). The good news is that 2024 had the second-tightest margins of the popular vote between the candidates. The tightest was Bush-Gore in 2000.

In 2024, Harris actually won more popular votes than Trump did in 2020. Trump did better in 2024 than he did in 2020 or 2016, but he still didn't get close to Biden's 2020 numbers.

While the turnout has increased, the gap between winning and losing candidates has decreased since 2000. Before then, candidates in both parties won by anywhere from 5% of the turnout (Clinton-Bush in 1992) to 18% (Reagan-Mondale in 1984). Since 2000, the gap has generally been less than 4% of turnout, with the exceptions of Obama's first election (2008, against McCain--7%) and Biden in 2020 (4.5%).

Perhaps most interesting, the way all these numbers shake out is that our president is regularly elected by a mere 30% of the VEP. Sometimes (1992, 2000) they're elected by just 25% of the VEP. Rarely does a candidate on either side win more than 30% of the VEP vote, and Biden holds the record of largest amount of the VEP in 2020 (33.77%).

So, assuming we get to have another election, we need people to vote.