blake kathryn
cherry valley forever
art blog(derogatory)
𓃗
todays bird
pixel skylines
almost home
Kaledo Art
KIROKAZE
Fai_Ryy
Noah Kahan
No title available
Misplaced Lens Cap
Sweet Seals For You, Always
EXPECTATIONS
we're not kids anymore.
No title available
RMH
Peter Solarz
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
seen from Greece
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Slovakia
seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from Poland
seen from United States
seen from Greece
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Egypt
seen from United States
seen from Ukraine
seen from France
seen from United States
@ahundredbutterflies
Hey, I know you are.... trying to pretend you know ANYTHING about Venezuela, but you've really just shown you're ignorant. Stop lying to yourself and others. Stop demonizing people who are trying to survive. Stop hating on other countries. Stop excusing hatred and violence inflicted by the US. Stop accusing people of "making excuses" when they point out facts. Learn about Venezuela, and stop being a Tumblr person who knows nothing about it.
Well, this is awkward...
The fastest way to accomplish The Project is to cease being afraid of The Project. The Project cannot maim you. The Project cannot kill you. The Project is more afraid of you than you are of it. It is okay if The Project turns out differently from how it was in your head, and it is okay if it has flaws. You are capable of engaging with The Project.
The most obsession inducing trait a character can have for me is knowing somewhere in their heart That They Are A Bad Kid
This isn't necessarily literal. It can apply to characters who aren't children too. But there's something about characters who are either certain of the fact, or terrified of the possibility, that they are just fundamentally wrong and bad at their core
It is also important to me that it is not true. No one is fundamentally broken and evil.
Companies that rushed to replace human labor with AI are now shelling out to have IRL workers to fix the technology's screwups.
Delicious. We love to see it.
@ralfmaximus
Ultimately, she spent 20 hours redoing the copy from scratch — and with her $100-per-hour rate, that meant her client was shelling out $2,000 for copy that likely would have ended up being far cheaper had a human just written it in the first place.
I love stories like this.
Get peer reviewed!
fighting for my fucking life in the work gc because nobody else has curly hair. freaky ted why have you done this to me.
and that marg was good because my boss made a comment i didn’t care for on the monday of that week so i overserved everybody by at least a shot to haemorrhage stock. there was no skill involved i out enough tequila in that to end Your bloodline freaky ted
Freaky Ted is living up to his name.
"historically people had servants" incorrect. historically people WERE servants, and many of us still are.
I feel like people try to explain how [historical figure] had all the time to do so many Great Accomplishments and thus go "it's because they had servants". Which is true. But then leave it at that rather than continue on to the more important point that the servants actually often were as tired and overworked and unable to have time for themselves as so many of us are. "People lived this way because they had servants" okay and how were the SERVANTS living???
A 75 yo man proudly came into the cafe wearing an Ultra Maga hat. I excused my barista from the register to handle the transaction.
"The hat is customizable," he said, struggling with the velcro patch on the front. "If I need it, I have an ICE one too. I pick based off the business i walk into."
"Customizable is an important hat descriptor," I said. "what can I get you?"
"You wouldn't believe how offended people get these days," he said. "And I'm supposed to do something about it if you're offended? You chose to be offended!"
"We all have hundreds of thousands of decisions everyday," I said. I thickened my accent. "That's what my stepdad always said. But I can make one easier - we have a delicious Ethiopian roast available."
"Like if I told you you have a bull ring," he said, "because bulls have rings in their noses. Is that offensive?"
I laughed. "I've heard that before."
"It's a joke, but people get offended. Maybe you're offended."
I looked at him. I smiled. "You aren't trying to offend me though, right?"
Of course he was. I was being friendly and the friendlier I was, the faster he switched topics. He was saying anything inflammatory he could think of to see if I'd take the bait. After about 20 minutes of my redirecting and deescalating, he settled into a more normal interaction. He took up too much of my time showing me a product I'd feigned mild interest in to get him to stop talking about getting accused of inappropriate behavior at work. When we finally disengaged, he spent 10 minutes trying to catch my eye again. When he failed, he left.
There's this new breed of customer who insists on trying to incite political conversation through their clothing and, when that doesnt work, their snide little comments. If I owned my own business, maybe I would have given the guy the fight he wanted. But I work for a corporation and I love paying my bills so I deescalated.
Anyone wearing that type of shit and preying on workers for their own spank bank material is a brainless fucking sheep.
something i want to mention because i’ve seen it growing as a trend online is that not only do people do this just for their own gratification, but watch for glasses. smart glasses are a growing segment of the consumer market, and creeps like this are harassing people in public in order to gather content without the victims being aware they’re being filmed
good job on how you handled it, op!
I saw a similar post, about people farming content like this, that suggested putting on Disney music in the background if you suspect it, because then they can’t post their stuff because of Disney’s fierce copyright lawyers, so idk how well that works, but it’s probably worth trying if you suspect that’s what is happening and can’t deescalate.
jojo heritage post
Jason: Respectfully, I disrespect your taste in men, and also my dad… but mostly my dad.
not my tweet but I thought it would be a good psa for artists here too
Oh this is a common scam I find at work. Any file that:
isn't jpg, jpeg, pdf, or png
Is a file extension you don't recognise (this one is a visual basic file, used for scripting, but others like exe or bat are used)
has a very low or unexpected file size (this one's is less than 1KB, or 0.001MB, a good reference should be at least 500KB)
Is likely a scam. Stay safe kids.
Saw a post on Facebook that was like, "Yes, Superman is an immigrant, but he's not illegal, because he was ADOPTED" and I want to know if the person who wrote that really thinks that Ma and Pa Kent filed proper, honest paperwork explaining precisely how they found Clark??
It was rural Kansas, and originally in the 1910s when they would have found him. It would be easy enough to say he was a home birth during a particularly snowy winter, get the Smallville doctor to sign off on a birth certificate, and presto! Clark Kent is legally the son of Martha and Jonathan Kent. And once you have the birth certificate, the rest of the paperwork is easy.
[waves fake birth certificate] Aside from this illegally-forged document, it's all legal!
Big!!! Steppy!!!
Taking her job very seriously
I'm gonna say it, I do think that even the laziest person imaginable should have a roof over their head, food in their stomach, and access to healthcare
I think we overestimate how many lazy people there are. Chronic illness is on the rise, from environmental factors, etc. People who sit in their rooms all day are likely dealing with past or present trauma.
Agreed, but also: we don't have to care.
See, my point of view is that if we keep trying to separate out the "legitimately need to lie in bed," from the, "lying in bed because they're lazy," our first instinct is to work very hard to hone our ability to evaluate people. To get the right forms, get the right diagnoses. And that's a thing that doctors' offices should do, yes. (Lying in bed can get sooooo boring. It is hard for me to imagine doing it without a reason. Just saying.) But when it comes to spending money or appointment time or whatever on getting a roof over people's heads, is that really where we want to spend our resources?
I don't think so. I think so long as we can start saying, "You get X," before we worry about evaluating, we actually take strain off the system. At least, that's what some studies of Universal Basic Income suggest.
Truncated text of tweet from MrPitBull, Mar 11, 2026:
She kept finding women in laboratory photographs from the 1800s. Then she read the published papers—and every single woman had vanished. Someone had erased them from history.
Yale University, 1969.
Margaret Rossiter was a graduate student studying the history of science. She was one of very few women in her program.
Every Friday afternoon, students and faculty gathered for beers and informal conversation. One week, Margaret asked a simple question: "Were there ever any women scientists?"
The faculty answered firmly: No.
Someone mentioned Marie Curie. The group dismissed it—her husband Pierre really deserved the credit.
Margaret didn't argue. But she also didn't believe them.
So she started looking.
She found a reference book called "American Men of Science"—essentially a Who's Who of scientific achievement. Despite the title, she was shocked to discover it contained entries about women. Botanists trained at Wellesley. Geologists from Vermont.
There were names. There were credentials. There were careers.
The professors had been wrong.
But Margaret's discovery was just the beginning. Because as she dug deeper into archives across the country, she found something far more disturbing.
Photograph after photograph showed women standing at laboratory benches, working with equipment, listed on research teams.
But when she read the published papers, the award citations, the official histories—those same women had disappeared. Their names were missing. Their contributions erased.
It wasn't random. It was systematic.
Women who designed experiments watched male colleagues publish results without giving them credit. Women whose discoveries were assigned to supervisors. Women listed in acknowledgments instead of as authors. Women passed over for awards that went to male collaborators who contributed far less.
Margaret realized she was witnessing a pattern that stretched across centuries.
Women had always been present in science. The record had simply pushed them aside.
She needed a name for what she was documenting.
In the early 1990s, she found it in the work of Matilda Joslyn Gage—a 19th-century suffragist who had written about this exact phenomenon in 1870.
In 1993, Margaret published a paper formally naming it: The Matilda Effect.
The term captured something that had been hidden in plain sight for generations. Once you knew the term, you saw it everywhere.
Her dissertation became a lifelong mission.
For more than 30 years, Margaret researched and wrote her landmark three-volume series: Women Scientists in America. She examined letters, institutional policies, individual careers. She gathered undeniable evidence that women in science had been consistently under-credited and structurally excluded.
Her work faced resistance. Many dismissed women's history as political rather than academic. Others insisted she was exaggerating.
Margaret didn't argue emotionally. She presented data. Documented cases. Patterns repeated across decades and institutions.
Eventually, the evidence became undeniable.
Her research helped restore recognition to scientists who had been erased:
Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray work revealed DNA's structure—credit went to Watson and Crick.
Lise Meitner, who explained nuclear fission—omitted from the Nobel Prize.
Nettie Stevens, who discovered sex chromosomes—received little credit.
Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who discovered stars are made of hydrogen—initially dismissed.
And countless others whose names had nearly vanished.
Margaret changed the narrative. Science was no longer just the story of solitary male geniuses. It became a story of collaboration that included women who had been written out.
The Matilda Effect became standard terminology. Scholars used it to examine how credit is assigned, how authors are listed, who receives awards, who gets left out.
The "Voicememo Guy" discourse on TikTok has taught me the following things:
The straights aren't okay
It's likely that none of the young, straight people talking about this are having good sex.
People sure do like to project their stuff onto strangers.
Okay @syntheros-artemidos, this is the rundown in as neutral a way I can write it:
A man and a woman went on a date. The man says on the first date that sexual compatibility is a priority for him, and that he's interested in having sex early on. The woman says she doesn't know if that's what she wants.
Apparently things went well enough though for the two to plan a second date, which is apparently to happen at her home.
Since the woman said she wasn't sure if she wanted to be physically intimate, he feels like he's getting mixed signals being invited over, so he sends her a voice memo. In the voice memo, he reiterates that he wants to have sex, and that if she's not interested in that he doesn't see the point of continuing. He says it's okay if that's not what she wants, and if that's the case they shouldn't keep seeing each other.
Then, the woman shared the voice memo with a friend, and the friend uploaded that voice memo to the internet.
Because nothing is allowed to be private in the modern panopticon.
There are two prevailing interpretations of this situation.
One, which is the one I tend to agree with, is that he got mixed messages, made his wants clear, and sent them to her when there was physical distance so she wouldn't feel pressure to turn him down. It was literally just a potential second date and they started as strangers, so he was pretty much saying "hey, we shouldn't waste each other's time if we don't want the same thing." She clearly didn't, and beyond the weird need to violate his privacy, it was the optimal outcome for these two people to just part ways.
Like was he the smoothest when he said what he said? No. But it was a pretty straight forward. I should note that this is the interpretation that most queer creators seem to be going with too.
Because, uh, the second interpretation is kind of wild.
You see, the other group of people think he was being entitled asking for sex. That somehow, him leaving the voice mail is an act of coercion (even though he has no power over her and there is no implied threat of violence -- since he was making sure he talked about it while he was literally nowhere near her). Also, people are wildly claiming that if he got her to say yes to sex in a text that somehow it would be considered consent in a legal case in case he raped her. Which is, y'know, not how consent works.
(I honestly think a lot of people were projecting their own trauma onto things)
There are also a bunch of people effectively shaming him for wanting to have a casual sexual relationship at all, and that somehow there was something wrong with him for not wanting the same thing that she wanted. People saying that folks looking for hookups shouldn't be using dating apps (as if someone looking for a sexual relationship might not be prioritizing sex too). Mostly just a bunch of puritan culture weirdness, and some people wanting to date for the performance of dating over the desire to find a compatible partner, etc.
And it's been going on for a couple of days.
Honestly, it's ridiculous.
