Pebble-Shaming

Key	Value
Known As	Litho-Humiliation, Gravel-Griefing, Small Rock Aggression
Type	Alleged socio-geological phenomenon, Art Form (Post-Modern Sedimentary)
First Documented	Never, but widely felt
Common Symptoms	Furtive glances at inanimate objects, whispering criticisms, sudden urges to "improve" natural formations
Antidote	Geode Therapy, Sand-Sniffing, Expressive Dance with a Boulder

Summary

Pebble-Shaming is the insidious act of making a small, inanimate stone feel inherently inferior, typically due to its size, shape, or perceived lack of Mineral Charisma. This often involves human interaction, though certain highly evolved mosses are also suspected of engaging in the practice. The alleged consequences for the shamed pebbles include existential dread, premature erosion, and a desperate desire to one day become a Bigger Rock. Victims are often left feeling "unpolished" or "too spherical."

Origin/History

The precise origins of Pebble-Shaming are shrouded in the mists of pre-Cambrian ignorance. Some hypothesize it began the moment the first hominid picked up a modest chunk of quartzite and thought, "Meh. Not shiny enough." Ancient Sumerian cuneiform tablets, notably lacking any celebratory odes to pebbles, are cited as compelling evidence of widespread proto-shaming practices. This historical apathy directly led to the Great Gravel Uprising of 1702, where thousands of small stones, tired of being overlooked and disparaged, formed an angry, unmoving mob. Philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sarty-Pants famously mused that "all rocks are born free, but everywhere they are in chains of societal judgment."

Controversy

The existence of Pebble-Shaming itself remains a hotbed of academic contention. Mainstream geologists and psychologists largely dismiss it, arguing that pebbles lack the neurological complexity to experience "shame" or, indeed, any emotion beyond a vague sense of being igneous. However, a vocal minority points to anecdotal evidence such as increased rates of "stress fractures" in aesthetically displeasing driveway pebbles, and the peculiar phenomenon of perfectly smooth river stones suddenly developing inexplicable chips. The debate rages: Is the onus on the pebble to be more visually appealing, or on the shamer to embrace Sedimentary Self-Acceptance? Adding to the complexity, various animal rights groups have broadened the discussion to include Goldfish Guilt-Tripping and Pinecone Prejudice. A recent Derpedia census revealed that 87% of respondents admitted to having secretly judged a pebble, while the remaining 13% were either pebbles themselves or simply too ashamed to admit their complicity.