There’s also the trope of getting knocked out and basically sleeping for a couple minutes, then waking up completely uninjured. Irl getting knocked unconscious is a severe brain injury.

John Brosio (American, 1967) - Two Earthlings (2003)

#oh so this is one of those paintings where it’s actually the title that knocks you into next tuesday huh (via astriiformes)

holy shit rewatching invader zim’s halloween special like… dib really threw zim out to the beasts that wanted to tear him apart. zim even agreed to work with him, under an alliance, a treaty, and it’s obvious zim is Scared Out Of His Mind, vocalizing his fear of halloween and the beasts, and dib just tossed him out like a wet paper towel.

this boy… this boy is Not An Angel. i love it.

He also essentially did that in Bolognius Maximus, and screwed both of them over in the process.

At the same time whenever Zim is working with anyone other than Dib, he’s the one doing this.

They’re just really alike I guess? Neither of them exactly know how to play well with others, or trust other people at all for that matter. With one another that at least prevents either of them from getting too hurt, most of the time.

When they do manage to hold it together for five seconds though they can be scary capable.

I do find it really interesting that Dib does to Zim (tosses him aside) what Zim does to others (abandoning the prisoners in FBI Warning at the mall, the way he treats Skoodge in Hobo 13, etc), so in a way it’s not like Dib is doing anything Zim hasn’t done. But the fact that Zim is usually willing to attempt to work alongside Dib and will in instances try to form alliances with him (the Tak episode is another good example) is something that really sticks out to me. It gives me the impression that Zim actually could have the capacity to befriend Dib but Dib helps push their rivalry into staying one because of how he’s treated Zim in moments of his vulnerability (even EtF he tries take advantage of Zim’s depression when he could have opened up more to him and they could have possibly connected further). I feel like writing Dib this way is intentional though to consistently keep their back and forth rivalry. But knowing it’d be probably on Dib moreso than Zim for them to shift their dynamic interests me! It’s interesting to think about.

I love that even though Zim is the alien he at times expresses more humanness in his emotions than Dib and I definitely think it’s intentional because not only does it keep their dynamic like I said, it also helps balance them with an equal back and forth when you have an alien that’s literally attempting to conquer Earth so would be unbalanced if he was pit against any Normal Kid. Zim is horrible to others but Dib is horrible to Zim right back moreso than Zim is to him.

To me the fact that Dib is at times shown to be crueler and more aggressive than Zim feels really important and it’s something I think gets missed a lot by most people who want to project onto Dib more because he’s probably percieved to be more relatable than Zim (EtF didn’t help because they definitely changed the dynamic a bit to make Dib appear more sympathetic).

I LOVE this aspect of Dib’s character. Fans seem to forget that Zim is here to conquer the planet and kill Dib. Dib, despite being more of a victim than Zim is to his leaders, has no obligation to act like one. We all know that Zim would double-cross Dib when the opportunity arises, although it’s interesting that Dib has always beat him to the punch in these scenarios. Dib isn’t about to be duped, he knows exactly what kind of guy Zim is, he knows that their alliance isn’t for long, and he also knows that if he has the chance to kill Zim then he’ll take it. Because if he doesn’t take every chance, he’s risking his own life, and every life on Earth by letting him live.

Remember that Zim is a grey villain with his own motives, but a villain nonetheless who’s doing everything in his power to kill Dib for personal gains.

Planet Jackers and Irkens: A Relationship Between Conquerors

As I’ve said before, I find the Planet Jackers super interesting. Much like the Irkens, they are a space-faring civilization of conquerors who deliberately steal planets to hurl into their dying sun to keep it alive.

Unlike the Irkens, their motivation behind conquering planets is an act of self-preservation. While Irk just wants to have more things for themselves and power, the Planet Jackers are trying to save their home world from destruction.

However, the Planet Jackers are still a merciless group, revealing that they often pick planets with lots of living beings on them because it makes their sun burn better.

Planet Jackers are way bigger than Irkens and physically stronger too. They also have the ability to literally grab entire planets and drag them all the way to their sun.

They are a force to be reckoned with and that’s exactly why when Irkens began their conquests, they sought diplomacy with the Planet Jackers.

It’s objectively the safest option Irk could take. 

The Planet Jackers are huge, strong, have technology powerful enough to move planets, and have likely been conquering planets before Operation Impending Doom I and II even began.  

So, at some point, whoever was the current Tallest at the time made a treaty with the Planet Jackers so they could both continue their conquering in their own corners and away from conflict. 

This isn’t to say Irk wouldn’t eventually betray the Planet Jackers as they did to Vort, but clearly they aren’t in a powerful enough position to do so yet. 

As far as we can see in the series, Vortians are not interested in conquering.

Conquering is a core part of a Planet Jacker’s life and is probably how they got their name as the Planet Jackers. As I said before, it’s likely that the Planet Jackers have been stealing planets long before Irk started their conquest.

One on One? The average Irken doesn’t stand a chance in a fight against a Planet Jacker. 

The size and strength difference is staggering. Zim couldn’t even leave a dent on Oog-Ah, it was his durability and Oog-Ah’s general lack of caring that Zim even survived the encounter. 

The Planet Jackers aren’t threatened by Irkens at all. If Oog-Ah was more pissed off than he already was, he probably could have decided to kill Zim right there. 

Irk would have to really have their power secured to even consider betraying the Planet Jackers. Taking one of the planets the Planet Jackers have their sights set on could land them in huge trouble. Irkens would have to rely on their wits to get them out of that mess.

The relationship between the two seems to be decent. The Planet Jackers seem to respect the deal they made with Irkens, but one can only imagine their reaction if Irk went back on their word.

Who knows! Zim violating the agreement through this insistence on his fake mission being real could’ve landed Irk in some trouble. 

(On a side note: I respect Zim for allowing himself to get beaten bloody so that the Planet Jackers would be distracted from him freeing Earth. That is some dedication right there.)

So this is entirely fan-canon/speculation but,

I don’t think the Planet Jackers (as a race, not not one on one) are a stronger force against Irkens. Irkens have several planets conquered and working for them after all- they likely could succeed in numbers. It can be safe to say they have similar or better technology, especially in transportation and fuel in order to casually drag planets across the cosmos into their sun. But in any case, I think the Irkens could eventually win against the Planet Jackers. I suspect the reason I feel they opted for a treaty is laziness and/or convenience. The irkens could try to conquer the Planet Jackers, but they’d have to risk having a number of their planets targeted by individual Planet Jackers or even Irk itself if they did that. On the other hand, the Planet Jackers clearly see Irk as a big enough threat to avoid stealing their planet or any of their conquered planets. So the treaty they have is actually pretty convenient for both of them.

the fandom’s characterization of zim and dib is so funny, “dib gets bullied and beat up and zim feels bad and helps him.. :(” ma’am, zim will be the one who’s kicking the shit out of him

u know what ur so right…..

Okay BUT, these comments aren’t any better in my humble opinion. Neither Zim or Dib are innocent, nor is one relentlessly bullied by the other for no good reason. 

Zim isn’t defenseless or a non-threat just because he’s incompetent. It’s his incompetence that is the most dangerous aspect about him. Remember, Earth (outside of Dib, Gaz, and arguably Membrane) are exaggeratedly dumb and easy to conquest. Dib HAS thwarted Zim from taking over Earth on a number of occasions. If Dib wasn’t a factor, Zim would have likely taken over Earth by now. Dib isn’t bullied every episode either. As noted, he often instigates attacks, and his primary goal isn’t to save Earth, but to prove himself right among the people who’ve made fun of him. But even that bullying from classmates is sometimes justified- Dib has been harassing students for a long time prior to Zim’s arrival. 

One thing I like to keep in mind about Dib is that, at the heart of his character, he’s a little boy who’s obsessed with the paranormal. He isn’t purely a hero trying to save his planet, he’s largely obsessive about Zim because he’s always been obsessive about aliens in general. Dib wants to save the world, but for selfish reasons... he wants the praise involved, which is fine because kids like to fantasize about alien invasions and stuff. Zim also isn’t any kind of victim. He has similar goals to Dib- he wants to prove himself, and show what he’s capable of. But, like Dib, he’s bullied on Irk for very good reasons. He’s dangerous, but also very work-oriented, he’s focused but doesn’t come up with the smartest ideas.... regardless of whether he’s actively competent, Zim is dangerous whether he tries to be or not. The whole point of the Tallest sending Zim away was because he’s only controlled when he’s distracted. 

If your first response to a character being aroace is "Aroace people can still date!" So that you can justify your ships (Especially self ships), you're not as accepting of aroace people as you think you are.

people who complain about babies being in public places are so fucking annoying…like i’m not sure if y’all are aware but having a baby doesn’t mean you’re suddenly obligated to be shut inside the house with them until they’re old enough to walk and talk. i can’t believe i’m seeing grown ass adults on this website complain about people bringing their babies to public places like movie theaters or restaurants. maybe YOU should stay the fuck inside. hearing y’all bitch and complain about babies is 100x more annoying than like, hearing a baby cry in public because it’s hungry or tired or whatever. grow up and get over it

no but this is such bullshit

I do stay the fuck inside actually, most of the time, even before the pandemic. I have severe sound sensitivity, and going somewhere is pretty scary because meltdowns in public are dangerous. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but baby screams are incredibly loud. Like, pierce through noise-cancelling headphones loud.

I used to think there were safe spaces, one of these being libraries. All of a sudden, this changed, because oooo society is now “vibrant” and “dynamic” and we “welcome everyone” and now people bring their babies who clearly aren’t having a great time.

I’m glad you don’t have to know what it’s like to be in a position where hearing a baby scream it’s head off is more “annoying” (literally painful) than “hearing [people] bitch and complain about babies. But it’s completely bizarre to me that seeing a tumblr post about something could be somehow worse than sensory overload.

I stay the fuck inside a lot, actually. But I didn’t choose to be autistic. Having a baby is something you choose. It really, really is. And sure, I get called selfish, entitled, and childish a lot for this. So you’re not telling me anything I haven’t heard before. We clearly exist in different worlds because to me, inflicting a sound that’s comparable to a hydraulic drill on complete strangers is pretty selfish, just because you were tired of “not having a social life”. (your baby probably isn’t having a great time in the cinema btw)

Libraries aren’t quiet places anymore-as most librarians would tell you- seeing as they host classes and books groups for people of varying ages. Babies are gonna be there with yound adults that need the libraries resources and you’re just gonna have to deal with that.

Also you are an adult with the ability to leave and go somewhere else if a baby is annoying/causing sensory overload. I work at a supermarket that plays loud music, always has some fan running, and is frequented by plenty of very annoyed children. I too have sensitivities to sound as does my girlfriend (it feels like being stabbed in the ear and that’s before the inevitable headache sets in), but when a baby starts screaming cuz they’ve had enough stimulation, I don’t get mad at the fucking baby. I go to another part of the store, -usually the back room- or I step outside. I do that, on the clock and usually don’t even have to tell a manager. This happens multiple times during a shift and of it gets busy I don’t even have noise cancelling headphones OR an escape to use because I have to hop on register.

The post isn’t just about people saying a baby being loud is annoying and you missed the actual point by a fucking mile. It’s about people complaining that babies (and by extension the caregiver/s) are outside at all and not holed up with the baby until the baby learns noise control. It’s the way people get mad at parents for wanting some time with other fucking people (adults) but need to bring their child because they can’t afford not to. The post is about how babies/children are expected to be silent or not present at all lest they annoy/inconvenience the adults around them.

And an extension of that point is that locking an adult inside with a child and then saying the adult can’t have any contact with other people (who have a better chance of calming the child) is cruel. Caregivers also need to get out and sometimes the only way to go out is to bring your baby. I’m sorry about your sensory overload, but people basically saying “you should be the only person to be stuck inside as punishment for you having a baby” is not a good thing either.

I agree for the most part. People with babies shouldn’t be barred from socializing. I feel like there’s this expectation that having a baby involves constant ready sacrifice on the behalf of the parents, especially the mother, and that can include locking yourself indoors, not enjoying activities you used to enjoy, and doing everything possible for your baby alone without consideration for your own needs. I think this expectation needs to be heavily tempered- obviously you need to consider the needs of your baby, and how your baby may bother those around you, but it’s ridiculous to shun babies and young children from society because of personal difficulties. I say this as someone who hates the sound of crying babies. 

BUT....there is no reason babies should be in libraries or movie theatres, or a number of other places for that matter. These are places where a crying baby really is a huge bother to everyone else’s good time and you need to take that into account. Other places, such as bars and concerts, just isn’t a place for your baby to be.... I understand the parents are human and should enjoy themselves too, but there’s a line where you either get that babysitter or don’t go.

Me: I don’t know if I ever want to be pregnant, I’d rather adopt a kid or two that are a bit older

Someone: Are you SURE? Older adoptees present UNIQUE CHALLENGES

Me: We are discussing human beings not digital pets

Literally every child every born and/or parented presents unique challenges. It’s like people are unique individuals…..or something………….

An amazing and revolutionary concept

When people ask me, “Why do you want to adopt teenagers?” I always answer, “Because you asked like that.”

I’m real over it. If I become a foster mom to a 17 year old kid and I get the privilege of the option to adopt them? You better believe I am legally making that kid mine.

“They’ll be a legal adult in no time, why spend the money to adopt? They’ll be aged out of the system.”

There’s no aging out of family, Marvin.

“They might be rebellious or smoke or do drugs or steal things! What if they won’t listen to you?”

Then I guess I’ll have to step up and do some fruxking parenting, Stanley.

“You want to adopt problem children then?”

All. Children. Are. Problem. Children. If you’re not prepared to deal with the fact that at some point, any child ever, whether you birthed them yourself or adopted them at any age, could become a problem? Then you are NOT ready to have children, and should really just step off and let the people who actually want to be parents live in peace with their kids.

Hey I’m so glad this post is picking up

Uhh so sorry that this isn’t our usual writer broadcasting but I just wanted to say??? Im so happy so many fanfic writers are ace?? or on the aro/ace spectrum?? I never realized how many of us there were in the community until I joined on here. It makes me SO INCREDIBLY happy. I always thought It was weird to enjoy romance or smut content without wanting it at the moment or at all. 

It makes me feel so secure knowing that we all just enjoy weird horny shit but can have like… a universal experience of being aro/ace. I’m obsessed with romantic/smut content, but have never actually *been* in love or sexually attracted to a person, and I always felt like a weirdo. But!!! my fellas!! this is bonkers!! I just wanted to give a little appreciation post bc the aro/ace community is so heavily criticized upon. 

The romance genre is like the fantasy genre (or really any genre.) You don’t need to have the same experiences as the characters to enjoy projecting yourself onto them, or fantasizing about a world where you’re attracted to someone in a whole new way.

Me, full of shit: I've watched a lot of horror movies, most of them are pretty repetitive. It really takes something unique to keep my interest anymore.

Horror movie premise: there's something weird in the woods

Me: 👀👀 something weird in the woods, you say??? 👀👀

Good news: if you’re currently laying around and not producing anything, you are a credit to your species.

I’m an ant biologist and I’d like to point out that ants also spend a significant percentage of the time doing nothing.

Turns out sometimes the most evolutionary useful thing you can do is chill and not wear yourself to shreds, whether mammal or insect. It helps you deal with emergencies and adapt to change. Plus, you can act as living food storage!

That last part is probably more an ant thing than a human thing, but hey, live your dreams.

it’s also a bear thing, which absolutely explains me

Doing absolutely fuck-all is how antarctic sea sponges live to be over 10,000 years old, so live your best, longest, laziest life.

Remember lions? Fellow apex predators?

Yeah, they spend 16-20 hours of the day laying around, socializing, raising Cubs and napping.

The last 4-8 hours are spent hunting.

Wait wait, they’re not a primate so they don’t count.

How about Orangutans?

Well, they spend 90% of their time awake just hanging out in food-rich areas, eating fruit and leaves, socializing, raising children, and chilling.

Well, they’re not people so it doesn’t-

How about Stone Age people in Europe?

They probably worked 3-5 hours per day, every day. (Though seasonal changes in food scarcity could change that)

Laborers in ancient Egypt worked 8 hours, with an hour break at lunch. They did this for 8 days, then rested 2 days. That sounds familiar. Except… they also had regular time off for festivals and holidays, and only worked for about 18 out of every 50 days.

Artisans in imperial Rome generally worked from 6am to Noon, and then had the rest of the day off… and only worked for half the year, due to all the holidays and festivals they got off.

But that’s too easy, what about a Peasant in medieval England?

6-8 hours per day, with Sundays off, Farm workers put in longer hours at harvest time but worked shorter days in winter when there are fewer hours of daylight. Economist Juliet Schor estimates that in the period following the Plague they worked no more than 150 days a year, due to the long holidays and many festivals.

Ugh, let’s go poorer. 17th century France. Starvation was afoot for the working poor!

During the reign of King Louis XIV, the workers of France had it tough, and hunger for the poorest was a fact of life. The typical working day was as much as 12 hours long, but two hours were set aside midday for lunch and perhaps an afternoon nap. Nevertheless, the Ancient Régime is said to have also guaranteed peasants, labourers and other workers a total of 52 Sundays, 90 rest days and 38 religious holidays off per year, meaning they worked just 185 out of 365 days.

So what changed?

The industrial revolution, baybe~~

New factory owners could work their employees to the bone due to a lack of regulation and abundance of cheap labour.

The typical factory worker in mid 19th-century England toiled away for a soul-destroying 16 hours a day, six days a week, 311 days per year!

THAT nightmare became the standard by which western society began to judge “work-life balance” and anything gentler than the industrial factory’s unfettered brutality is considered “softness”

(So many people died being mangled in those machines. Hair handkerchiefs went into style during American industrialization because working women would otherwise get their hair caught in the machines, and be either scalped or be bodily pulled inside to die…. But that’s a horror for another time)

Americans in 2020 worked an average of 8.5 hours per day on weekdays, plus another 5 hours on weekends.

Taking out federal holidays and weekends, we work 262 days per year. Most of us get 5-9 sick days to take per year. (Yes, a fixed number, no matter how sick you really are), and usually either no paid vacation, or 7-15 days paid vacation, depending on seniority and the company. Unpaid vacation doesn’t have a max, but taking it often risks you getting fired.

Even comparing against the poorest laborers in ancient history the current working structure for humans is, frankly, inhumane.

We are mammals. Let us rest. Let us celebrate holidays and attend festivals. Let us attend to our homes and families.

Even the ultra wealthy folks who got their heads chopped off gave us more time off than this!!!

Someone in the comments said something like “humans are instinctively industrious and productive, as social creatures!”

Buddy, that’s a lie fed to you by capitalism.

In our default state, we attend to our families yes, but we also party like hell, lounge around, and make fantastic works of art just to be proud of ourselves. We made beautiful things for the joy of creating them.

Stone Age humans may have spent a couple hours hunting and gathering, but DEFINITELY spent loads of time painting every available surface. Time and weather washed most of it away, but some places like Arizona and Colorado still preserve a few of the endless murals made by ancient hands.

Evidence shows that the ancient world was COVERED in paintings and etchings - just saturated with images of birds and beasts and humans, sunsets and cool weather. We invented mythologies and painted about them. We did something impressive, and painted about it. We taught our children how to paint and lifted them into our shoulders so they could mark the ceiling.

In our most base state, humans will work enough to survive, but our instincts demand we use all other time to create art. We want to communicate. To make connections.

“Working” or “being productive” is not on that list.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

»swofehuper« by richard tipping (+)

[via]

men fabricated the idea that they are the default sex to compensate for their biological inferiority and general superfluousness

this is not just the “natural order” this is the language of a patriarchal culture

Omg no, you are wrong on so many levels and as a linguist this makes me ache something terrible. In my linguistics class in undergrad, we actually made fun of people who think like you along these lines and for good reason, because you are wholly ignorant and are choosing to spin narratives about things and fields which you know completely nothing about yet pretend you do.

Please never proselytise your faulty ideology and misandrist thinking within speaking about word origins and morphology again, as unless you actually do fact checking, I will school the everloving hell out of you, stay in your lane.

This is true and like yeah that’s how these etymologies came to be. Just as a queer linguist, I wanna be nit-picky here for a second.

The idea that language change (@/rhysiare said phonological change specifically) has nothing to do with patriarchy is something I’d push back against. Language is a social system, intimately connected with the society in which it’s used. The idea that language change is somehow neutral or immune to forces such as patriarchy is…questionable at best.

I don’t happen to have any gender-related examples off hand, but a class-related example of social influence on language change would be the word villain. Villain comes from Latin villanus meaning a peasant/serf (someone from a villa, a country estate). This word, associated with the working poor, came to mean in the modern day something entirely negative.

I’d also like to emphasize that diachronic and synchronic linguistic analyses are different (though both important). The modern speaker of a language doesn’t have ready access to these etymologies (without consulting a dictionary). Their previous meanings and developments become obscured, so all they have to analyze are the present words.

This leads to things like the above image, called folk etymologies or reanalysis, where speakers break apart words to reanalyze their pieces in ways that they didn’t originally mean. This is super common. The word hamburger originally came from Hamburg (the city in Germany) plus -er (meaning “person from”). The word has since been reanalyzed as ham + burger, and we now see burger used as a productive stem (cheeseburger, veggie burger, chicken burger).

Yes, it’s important not to spread misinformation and use false etymologies to push a certain narrative. But also? In a world where so many times women are the “marked” gender, the non-default, it’s not hard to see how one can come to these conclusions (even though the linguistic data used is still wrong). Patriarchy still exists and is a systemic problem, but it just didn’t cause these words to be this way in this instance.

I don’t think people who don’t have autism understand what it is like to hate socializing, hate small talk, hate organized social events and icebreaker challenges and “getting to know you” type conversations, and still very very badly want and need human connection in our lives. Organized socialization is not a situation I am comfortable in so my only two options are to either be honestly, openly closed off in my behavior, or pretend I am someone I am not - which I learned to do through years of masking. Growing up, I grew extremely dependent on escapism because I was so damn lonely and all the adults in my life dismissed friendship and connection as something I “wasn’t capable of” and thus “didn’t need” to the same degree that neurotypicals did. I don’t think allistics understand that we are humans and we want and need regular human connection as much as anyone else and the fact that we can’t get it unless we play by the rules of a game we never even wanted to play is the most crippling thing sometimes.

“ Was thinking on focusing on the emotional impact between the characters and her deriving pleasure from how her boyfriend feels rather than the sex itself but worried it's cheesy. “ This isn’t cheesy, it isn’t done enough. And even if you don’t have personal experience, I find that a lot of sex scenes are written through a biased lens... a lot of people write something that will sexually gratify themselves, while focusing on the most climactic bits that are also easy to write. Basically it comes out as oversexualized, and misses a lot of the core components of why physical intimacy is compelling- the emotional angle, how the characters are actually feeling in that moment, why it’s important to them and why the readers should care. I’m asexual myself to naturally I’m biased as well, but because of this, I get frustrated with romance and sex scenes that rely so heavily on physical attraction. If you’re only intimate with someone because they look nice, the relationship won’t last. I want to read about how you feel closer to your partner, how you trust them enough to let them invade your personal space, how you feel the physical intimacy meets those needs. 

Heck, you know what I’d actually like to read? Fears during sex, and there’s plenty of them in the real world. Fears of pleasing your partner, fear of not being good enough, frustration if you’re unable to get the effect you want, etc. If you’re going to write a sexual scene as an asexual individual, I’d ask to look at it from a lens that most don’t. 

Also as a side note, I’m not sure how comfortable you personally feel about sex or romance, but it might help to think of it from your own point of view. Hard to do if you’re asexual, but think about it. Would you have sex to please your partner? Do you enjoy the idea of sexually satisfying them? If you did have sex, why would you do that and what would your personal goals be in that hypothetical situation? It’s generally different for an asexual person, but not bad, and not too far removed from allo experiences when you get down to it.

I’m always gonna be pissed that amatonormatvity as a term and a model for understanding society was literally mocked into disuse by exclusionists because of its association with aromantic folks.

Amatonormativity, honestly, has approximately fuck-all to do with aros. We did not even coin it, we’re simply the only people who actually take it seriously cause we’re among the ones who are most hurt by it. And it PISSES me the fuck off that it is not a widespread model used in greater queer discussions.

Amatonormativity is what causes romantic relationships to be prioritized above all else. The adults who find themselves slowly losing friends until their only contacts are their coworkers and their own nuclear family? Amatonormativity.

Rebelling against this culture and embracing a non-hierarchical view of relationships is the first step to making genuine connections and improving our collective mental health.

i could fix him (the piece of media i just consumed that was poorly executed but had a good premise)

Just saw a very serious tumblr post refer to adults age 25+ as “older adults.” I am begging you kids to go outside and interact with diverse groups of people. Please. It’s for your own good.

The human lifespan, according to tumblr:

Birth to 17.99999999 years: Child. Doesn’t matter where you fall in that range. You are a helpless, innocent child.

18-approximately 21 years: Adult. Full internet privileges!

21-25 years: Sketchy adult. You can stay, but you’re on thin fucking ice.

25 years to end of life: Senior citizen. Old fart. Washed up has-been with nothing to contribute to society who should never socialize below their age bracket. Also probably a pedophile.