this too shall pass
HURRY UP
d e v o n
dirt enthusiast
KIROKAZE

shark vs the universe
Game of Thrones Daily
AnasAbdin
$LAYYYTER

if i look back, i am lost
ojovivo
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda

No title available

No title available

blake kathryn
No title available
taylor price

JBB: An Artblog!

tannertan36

Janaina Medeiros
TVSTRANGERTHINGS

izzy's playlists!

seen from United States

seen from Japan
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from Indonesia
seen from Brazil
seen from Argentina

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from South Africa

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@allacksy-again
this too shall pass
HURRY UP
We really do need to bring back the word "trolling" and warning ppl not to feed the trolls
That TikTok of ppl pouring tomato sauce directly on the counter, adding spaghetti & mixing it with their hands while commenting how great of an idea it is? Yeah, we used to call that trolling, it's pathetic & bc all they want from it is attention, the best thing is not to give them any. Block & move on.
I keep seeing it on here too. Someone comments something outrageous on a post & gets dozens of ppl to respond, filling the entire comment section & making it unusable. And on Instagram, a comment saying "I hate colors" on a post of someone showing off colorful art gets 100 replies while positive comments get none. Congrats, you've fed the troll. Now stop doing it.
Trolling used to get you banned from forums. Now they call you an influencer and give you brand deals & ad revenue. That's why it's more important than ever not to feed the trolls, especially in spaces where any attention is good attention and getting yelled at by 10k ppl in the comments counts as "engagement", boosting your troll post in the algorithm.
inspiration porn is ableist. knowing your limits and not purposely putting yourself in harmful situations is not “giving up.” disabled people living their lives is not “giving up” and they are allowed to be disabled in peace. we don’t need to be an inspiration to abled people. we are not here to serve and be witnessed by abled people. pictures and mentality like this enforce the idea that our lives are to be a public spectacle and that without the abled perspective, are otherwise meaningless and unfulfilled unto ourselves. this glorifies self-harm and -endangerment, and is incredibly harmful and toxic to disabled people.
protect disabled youth and stop spreading messages that we’re not good enough knowing our limitations and not spreading ourselves thin.
If you don’t understand why this post it ableist, this short TED talk explains it better then I can
comments like this are why every abled person should be required to watch this ted talk
@ everyone in the notes bending over backwards to miss the point and maintain their ableism
to summarize the correct conclusion:
and a special note for any ableds who still want to argue like any of us really have the spoons:
I would be very interested in hearing the museum design rant
by popular demand: Guy That Took One (1) Museum Studies Class Focused On Science Museums Rants About Art Museums. thank u for coming please have a seat
so. background. the concept of the "science museum" grew out of 1) the wunderkammer (cabinet of curiosities), also known as "hey check out all this weird cool shit i have", and 2) academic collections of natural history specimens (usually taxidermied) -- pre-photography these were super important for biological research (see also). early science museums usually grew out of university collections or bequests of some guy's Weird Shit Collection or both, and were focused on utility to researchers rather than educational value to the layperson (picture a room just, full of taxidermy birds with little labels on them and not a lot of curation outside that). eventually i guess they figured they could make more on admission by aiming for a mass audience? or maybe it was the cultural influence of all the world's fairs and shit (many of which also caused science museums to exist), which were aimed at a mass audience. or maybe it was because the research function became much more divorced from the museum function over time. i dunno. ANYWAY, science and technology museums nowadays have basically zero research function; the exhibits are designed more or less solely for educating the layperson (and very frequently the layperson is assumed to be a child, which does honestly irritate me, as an adult who likes to go to science museums). the collections are still there in case someone does need some DNA from one of the preserved bird skins, but items from the collections that are exhibited typically exist in service of the exhibit's conceptual message, rather than the other way around.
meanwhile at art museums they kind of haven't moved on from the "here is my pile of weird shit" paradigm, except it's "here is my pile of Fine Art". as far as i can tell, the thing that curators (and donors!) care about above all is The Collection. what artists are represented in The Collection? rich fucks derive personal prestige from donating their shit to The Collection. in big art museums usually something like 3-5% of the collection is ever on exhibit -- and sometimes they rotate stuff from the vault in and out, but let's be real, only a fraction of an art museum's square footage is temporary exhibits. they're not going to take the scream off display when it's like the only reason anyone who's not a giant nerd ever visits the norwegian national museum of art. most of the stuff in the vault just sits in the vault forever. like -- art museum curators, my dudes, do you think the general public gives a SINGLE FUCK what's in The Collection that isn't on display? no!! but i guarantee you it will never occur, ever, to an art museum curator that they could print-to-scale high-res images of artworks that are NOT in The Collection in order to contextualize the art in an exhibit, because items that are not in The Collection functionally do not exist to them. (and of course there's the deaccessioning discourse -- tumblr collectively has some level of awareness that repatriation is A Whole Kettle of Worms but even just garden-variety selling off parts of The Collection is a huge hairy fucking deal. check out deaccessioning and its discontents; it's a banger read if you're into This Kind Of Thing.)
with the contents of The Collection foregrounded like this, what you wind up with is art museum exhibits where the exhibit's message is kind of downstream of what shit you've got in the collection. often the message is just "here is some art from [century] [location]", or, if someone felt like doing a little exhibit design one fine morning, "here is some art from [century] [location] which is interesting for [reason]". the displays are SOOOOO bad by science museum standards -- if you're lucky you get a little explanatory placard in tiny font relating the art to an art movement or to its historical context or to the artist's career. if you're unlucky you get artist name, date, and medium. fucker most of the people who visit your museum know Jack Shit about art history why are you doing them dirty like this
(if you don't get it you're just not Cultured enough. fuck you, we're the art museum!)
i think i've talked about this before on this blog but the best-exhibited art exhibit i've ever been to was actually at the boston museum of science, in this traveling leonardo da vinci exhibit where they'd done a bunch of historical reconstructions of inventions out of his notebooks, and that was the main Thing, but also they had a whole little exhibit devoted to the mona lisa. obviously they didn't even have the real fucking mona lisa, but they went into a lot of detail on like -- here's some X-ray and UV photos of it, and here's how art experts interpret them. here's a (photo of a) contemporary study of the finished painting, which we've cleaned the yellowed varnish off of, so you can see what the colors looked like before the varnish yellowed. here's why we can't clean the varnish off the actual painting (da vinci used multiple varnish layers and thinned paints to translucency with varnish to create the illusion of depth, which means we now can't remove the yellowed varnish without stripping paint).
even if you don't go into that level of depth about every painting (and how could you? there absolutely wouldn't be space), you could at least talk a little about, like, pigment availability -- pigment availability is an INCREDIBLY useful lens for looking at historical paintings and, unbelievably, never once have i seen an art museum exhibit discuss it (and i've been to a lot of art museums). you know how medieval european religious paintings often have funky skin tones? THEY HADN'T INVENTED CADMIUM PIGMENTS YET. for red pigments you had like... red ochre (a muted earth-based pigment, like all ochres and umbers), vermilion (ESPENSIVE), alizarin crimson (aka madder -- this is one of my favorite reds, but it's cool-toned and NOT good for mixing most skintones), carmine/cochineal (ALSO ESPENSIVE, and purple-ish so you wouldn't want to use it for skintones anyway), red lead/minium (cheaper than vermilion), indian red/various other iron oxide reds, and apparently fucking realgar? sure. whatever. what the hell was i talking about.
oh yeah -- anyway, i'd kill for an art exhibit that's just, like, one or two oil paintings from each century for six centuries, with sample palettes of the pigments they used. but no! if an art museum curator has to put in any level of effort beyond writing up a little placard and maybe a room-level text block, they'll literally keel over and die. dude, every piece of art was made in a material context for a social purpose! it's completely deranged to divorce it from its material context and only mention the social purpose insofar as it matters to art history the field. for god's sake half the time the placard doesn't even tell you if the thing was a commission or not. there's a lot to be said about edo period woodblock prints and mass culture driven by the growing merchant class! the met has a fuckton of edo period prints; they could get a hell of an exhibit out of that!
or, tying back to an earlier thread -- the detroit institute of arts has got a solid like eight picasso paintings. when i went, they were kind of just... hanging out in a room. fuck it, let's make this an exhibit! picasso's an artist who pretty famously had Periods, right? why don't you group the paintings by period, and if you've only got one or two (or even zero!) from a particular period, pad it out with some decent life-size prints so i can compare them and get a better sense for the overarching similarities? and then arrange them all in a timeline, with little summaries of what each Period was ~about~? that'd teach me a hell of a lot more about picasso -- but you'd have to admit you don't have Every Cool Painting Ever in The Collection, which is illegalé.
also thinking about the mit museum temporary exhibit i saw briefly (sorry, i was only there for like 10 minutes because i arrived early for a meeting and didn't get a chance to go through it super thoroughly) of a bunch of ship technical drawings from the Hart nautical collection. if you handed this shit to an art museum curator they'd just stick it on the wall and tell you to stand around and look at it until you Understood. so anyway the mit museum had this enormous room-sized diorama of various hull shapes and how they sat in the water and their benefits and drawbacks, placed below the relevant technical drawings.
tbh i think the main problem is that art museum people and science museum people are completely different sets of people, trained in completely different curatorial traditions. it would not occur to an art museum curator to do anything like this because they're probably from the ~art world~ -- maybe they have experience working at an art gallery, or working as an art buyer for a rich collector, neither of which is in any way pedagogical. nobody thinks an exhibit of historical clothing should work like a clothing store but it's fine when it's art, i guess?
also the experience of going to an art museum is pretty user-hostile, i have to say. there's never enough benches, and if you want a backrest, fuck you. fuck you if going up stairs is painful; use our shitty elevator in the corner that we begrudgingly have for wheelchair accessibility, if you can find it. fuck you if you can't see very well, and need to be closer to the art. fuck you if you need to hydrate or eat food regularly; go to our stupid little overpriced cafeteria, and fuck you if we don't actually sell any food you can eat. (obviously you don't want someone accidentally spilling a smoothie on the art, but there's no reason you couldn't provide little Safe For Eating Rooms where people could just duck in and monch a protein bar, except that then you couldn't sell them a $30 salad at the cafe.) fuck you if you're overwhelmed by noise in echoing rooms with hard surfaces and a lot of people in them. fuck you if you are TOO SHORT and so our overhead illumination generates BRIGHT REFLECTIONS ON THE SHINY VARNISH. we're the art museum! we don't give a shit!!!
coming in a week later with a spicy take: this is probably why a lot of people think modern/contemporary art is stupid bullshit. if i had never heard of marcel duchamp and i walked into an art museum and they were like "here's marcel duchamp's Fountain" i'd be like "you know, i can go to home depot and see urinals anytime for free. this is stupid bullshit."
like, the whole "uhhhh heres some fuckin,, Art" approach works... LESS BAD... for more representational art for people with no knowledge of art history, because at least you can look at it and go "wow, that's a really well executed painting of a bowl of fruit" or whatever -- technical execution is kind of the only lens you have to bring to bear when you have zero context. so no wonder non-representational art kind of falls flat out of context??? guys you're absolutely shooting yourselves in the foot by failing to explain Why Giant Blue Square Is Cool!
at best the experience of a modern art museum, to the layperson, is "huh? what's this thing" -> read tiny explanatory placard next to the thing -> "okay, i guess", repeat until you're tired of being in the museum. i'm thinking about that ad reinhardt comic that's like "abstract art brings to you what you bring to it" and going "yeah, but we're not giving people anything to bring". it's like having a potluck and inviting someone who doesn't have access to a kitchen -- best they can do is grocery store platter of deviled eggs. we CAN do better than tiny explanatory placard!!
Ok so going out to a bigger context and a massive bugbear of mine: this is tumblr, so you’ve probably seen a lot of posts from ✨humanities✨ people that go like this.
Dumb uneducated masses: hurr durr historians lied to us! I never learned about this in school! Historians say dumb things like “we don’t know if gay people ever existed” but I saw a TikTok about gay people in history. A conspiracy I think from the Man
Buff victimised wojack historians: we are not hiding things from you! We are doing important work on these topics in our theses! A tiny amount of intensive educated research would bring you the knowledge you crave! I’m a gay history PhD with gay history book ACTUALLY. You are all illiterate, and blaming us only shows your lack of education.
Another historian: god it’s so frustrating how stupid the public is when our academic publications are RIGHT THERE.
Another historian: smh it’s the way they’d prefer to get misinformation on tumblr and TikTok.
Historians in particular do this a lot. I could link you to a few distinct posts that do exactly this with 40k+ notes. and lots of sanctimonious people complaining about how the public have NO information literacy, and ALL of these complaints are PERFECTLY addressed in Ratbin and Huguenot (2001) “Gender and Ungender in Mesopotamia” which these morons would KNOW if they only (paywall)(paywall)(paywall). You have seen multiple popular posts on tumblr where extremely intelligent, kind, smart, educated people are not realising that in their complaints about their discipline’s massive communications issue, they are repeatedly demonstrating why they have a comms issue. You have possibly even reblogged it, without realising the massive flaw at the heart of the rhetoric. We usually trust historians to have good rhetoric! If they don’t, who does?
o my soul
Horses: Since There Seems To Be A Knowledge Gap
I'm going to go ahead and preface this with: I comment pretty regularly on clips and photos featuring horses and horseback riding, often answering questions or providing explanations for how or why certain things are done. I was a stable hand and barrel racer growing up, and during my 11 year tenure on tumblr, Professional Horse Commentary is a very niche, yet very necessary, subject that needs filling. Here are some of the literary and creative gaps I've noticed in well meaning (and very good!) creators trying to portray horses and riding realistically that... well, most of you don't seem to even be aware of, because you wouldn't know unless you worked with horses directly!
Some Of The Most Common Horse + Riding Mistakes I See:
-Anybody can ride any horse if you hold on tight enough/have ridden once before.
Nope. No, no, no, no, aaaaaaaand, no. Horseback riding has, historically, been treated as a life skill taught from surprisingly young ages. It wasn't unusual in the pre-vehicular eras to start teaching children as young as 4 to begin to ride, because horses don't come with airbags, and every horse is different. For most adults, it can take months or years of regular lessons to learn to ride well in the saddle, and that's just riding; not working or practicing a sport.
Furthermore, horses often reject riders they don't know. Unless a horse has been trained like a teaching horse, which is taught to tolerate riders of all skill and experience levels, it will take extreme issue with having some random person try to climb on their back. Royalty, nobility, and the knighted classes are commonly associated with the "having a favorite special horse" trope, because it's true! Just like you can have a particularly special bond with a pet or service animal that verges on parental, the same can apply with horses. Happy horses love their owners/riders, and will straight-up do their best to murder anyone that tries to ride them without permission.
-Horses are stupid/have no personality.
There isn't a more dangerous assumption to make than assuming a horse is stupid. Every horse has a unique personality, with traits that can be consistent between breeds (again, like cat and dog breeds often have distinct behavior traits associated with them), but those traits manifest differently from animal to animal.
My mother had an Arabian horse, Zipper, that hated being kicked as a signal to gallop. One day, her mom and stepdad had a particularly unpleasant visitor; an older gentleman that insisted on riding Zipper, but refused to listen to my mother's warnings never to kick him. "Kicking" constitutes hitting the horse's side(s) with your heels, whether you have spurs on or not. Most horses only need a gentle squeeze to know what you want them to do.
Anyway, Zipper made eye-contact with my mom, asking for permission. He understood what she meant when she nodded at him. He proceeded to give this asshole of a rider road rash on the side of the paddock fence and sent him to the emergency room. He wouldn't have done it if he didn't have the permission from the rider he respected, and was intelligent enough to ask, "mind if I teach this guy a lesson?" with his eyes, and understand, "Go for it, buddy," from my mom in return.
-Riding bareback is possible to do if you hold onto the horse's mane really tight.
Riding a horse bareback (with no saddle, stirrups, or traditional harness around the horse's head) is unbelievably difficult to learn, particularly have testicles and value keeping them. Even professional riders and equestrians find ourselves relying on tack (the stuff you put on a horse to ride it) to stay stable on our horses, even if we've been riding that particular horse for years and have a very positive, trusting relationship.
Horses sweat like people do. The more they run, the more their hair saturates with sweat and makes staying seated on them slippery. Hell, an overworked horse can sweat so heavily that the saddle slips off its back. It's also essential to brush and bathe a horse before it's ridden in order to keep it healthier, so their hair is often quite slick from either being very clean or very damp. In order to ride like that, you have to develop the ability to synchronize your entire body's rhythm's with the rhythm of the horse's body beneath you, and quite literally move as one. Without stirrups, most people can't do it, and some people can never master bareback riding no matter how many years they spend trying to learn.
-You can be distracted and make casual conversation while a horse is standing untethered in the middle of a barn or field.
At every barn I've ever worked at, it's been standard practice with every single horse, regardless of age or temperament, to secure their heads while they're being tacked up or tacked down. The secures for doing this are simple ropes with clips that are designed to attach to the horse's halter (the headwear for a horse that isn't being ridden; they have no bit that goes in the horse's mouth, and no reins for a rider to hold) on metal O rings on either side of the horse's head. This is not distressing to the horse, because we give them plenty of slack to turn their heads and look around comfortably.
The problem with trying to tack up an unrestrained horse while chatting with fellow stable hands or riders is that horses know when you're distracted! And they often try to get away with stuff when they know you're not looking! In a barn, a horse often knows where the food is stored, and will often try to tiptoe off to sneak into the feed room.
Horses that get into the feed room are often at a high risk of dying. While extremely intelligent, they don't have the ability to throw up, and they don't have the ability to tell that their stomach is full and should stop eating. Allowing a horse into a feed/grain room WILL allow it to eat itself to death.
Other common woes stable hands and riders deal with when trying to handle a horse with an unrestrained head is getting bitten! Horses express affection between members of their own herd, and those they consider friends and family, through nibbling and surprisingly rough biting. It's not called "horseplay" for nothing, because during my years working with horses out in the pasture, it wasn't uncommon at all for me to find individuals with bloody bite marks on their withers (that high part on the middle of the back of their shoulders most people instinctively reach for when they try to get up), and on their backsides. I've been love-bitten by horses before, and while flattering, they hurt like hell on fleshy human skin.
So, for the safety of the horse, and everybody else, always make a show of somehow controlling the animal's head when hands-on and on the ground with them.
-Big Horse = War Horse
Startlingly, the opposite is usually the case! Draft and carriage horses, like Percherons and Friesians, were never meant to be used in warfare. Draft horses are usually bred to be extremely even-tempered, hard to spook, and trustworthy around small children and animals. Historically, they're the tractors of the farm if you could afford to upgrade from oxen, and were never built to be fast or agile in a battlefield situation.
More importantly, just because a horse is imposing and huge doesn't make it a good candidate for carrying heavy weights. A real thing that I had to be part of enforcing when I worked at a teaching ranch was a weight limit. Yeah, it felt shitty to tell people they couldn't ride because we didn't have any horses strong enough to carry them due to their weight, but it's a matter of the animal's safety. A big/tall/chonky horse is more likely to be built to pull heavy loads, but not carry them flat on their spines. Horses' muscular power is predominantly in their ability to run and pull things, and too heavy a rider can literally break a horse's spine and force us to euthanize it.
Some of the best war horses out there are from the "hot blood" family. Hot blooded horses are often from dry, hot, arid climates, are very small and slight (such as Arabian horses), and are notoriously fickle and flighty. They're also a lot more likely to paw/bite/kick when spooked, and have even sometimes been historically trained to fight alongside their rider if their rider is dismounted in combat; kicking and rearing to keep other soldiers at a distance.
-Any horse can be ridden if it likes you enough.
Just like it can take a lifetime to learn to ride easily, it can take a lifetime of training for a horse to comfortably take to being ridden or taking part in a job, like pulling a carriage. Much like service animals, horses are typically trained from extremely young ages to be reared into the job that's given to them, and an adult horse with no experience carrying a rider is going to be just as scared as a rider who's never actually ridden a horse.
Just as well, the process of tacking up a horse isn't always the most comfortable experience for the horse. To keep the saddle centered on the horse's back when moving at rough or fast paces, it's essential to tighten the belly strap (cinch) of the saddle as tightly as possible around the horse's belly. For the horse, it's like wearing a tight corset, chafes, and even leaves indents in their skin afterward that they love having rinsed with water and scratched. Some horses will learn to inflate their bellies while you're tightening the cinch so you can't get it as tight as it needs to be, and then exhale when they think you're done tightening it.
When you're working with a horse wearing a bridle, especially one with a bit, it can be a shocking sensory experience to a horse that's never used a bit before. While they lack a set of teeth naturally, so the bit doesn't actually hurt them, imagine having a metal rod shoved in your mouth horizontally! Unless you understand why it's important for the person you care about not dying, you'd be pretty pissed about having to keep it in there!
-Horseback riding isn't exercise.
If you're not using every muscle in your body to ride with, you're not doing it right.
Riding requires every ounce of muscle control you have in your entire body - although this doesn't mean it wasn't realistic for people with fat bodies to stay their weight while also being avid riders; it doesn't mean the muscles aren't there. To stay on the horse, you need to learn how it feels when it moves at different gaits (walk, trot, canter, gallop), how to instruct it to switch leads (dominant legs; essential for precise turning and ease of communication between you and the horse), and not falling off. While good riders look like they're barely moving at all, that's only because they're good riders. They know how to move so seamlessly with the horse, feeling their movements like their own, that they can compensate with their legs and waists to not bounce out of the saddle altogether or slide off to one side. I guarantee if you ride a horse longer than 30 minutes for the first time, your legs alone will barely work and feel like rubber.
-Horses aren't affectionate.
Horses are extraordinarily affectionate toward the right people. As prey animals, they're usually wary of people they don't know, or have only recently met. They also - again, like service animals - have a "work mode" and a "casual mode" depending upon what they're doing at the time. Horses will give kisses like puppies, wiggle their upper lips on your hair/arms to groom you, lean into neck-hugs, and even cuddle in their pasture or stall if it's time to nap and you join them by leaning against their sides. If they see you coming up from afar and are excited to see you, they'll whinny and squeal while galloping to meet you at the gate. They'll deliberately swat you with their tails to tease you, and will often follow you around the pasture if they're allowed to regardless of what you're up to.
-Riding crops are cruel.
Only cruel people use riding crops to hurt their horses. Spurs? I personally object to, because any horse that knows you well doesn't need something sharp jabbing them in the side for emphasis when you're trying to tell them where you want them to go. Crops? Are genuinely harmless tools used for signalling a horse.
I mean, think about it. Why would crops be inherently cruel instruments if you need to trust a horse not to be afraid of you and throw you off when you're riding it?
Crops are best used just to lightly tap on the left or right flank of the horse, and aren't universally used with all forms of riding. You'll mainly see crops used with English riding, and they're just tools for communicating with the horse without needing to speak.
-There's only one way to ride a horse.
Not. At. All. At most teaching ranches, you'll get two options: Western, or English, because they tend to be the most popular for shows and also the most common to find equipment for. English riding uses a thinner, smaller saddle, narrower stirrups, and much thinner bridles. I, personally, didn't like English style riding because I never felt very stable in such a thin saddle with such small stirrups, and didn't start learning until my mid teens. English style riding tends to focus more on your posture and deportment in the saddle, and your ability to show off your stability and apparent immovability on the horse. It was generally just a bit too stiff and formal for me.
Western style riding utilizes heavier bridles, bigger saddles (with the iconic horn on the front), and broader stirrups. Like its name may suggest, Western riding is more about figuring out how to be steady in the saddle while going fast and being mobile with your upper body. Western style riding is generally the style preferred for working-type shows, such as horseback archery, gunning, barrel racing, and even rodeo riding.
-Wealthy horse owners have no relationship with their horses.
This is loosely untrue, but I've seen cases where it is. Basically, horses need to feel like they're working for someone that matters to them in order to behave well with a rider and not get impatient or bored. While it's common for people to board horses at off-property ranches (boarding ranches) for cost and space purposes, it's been historically the truth that having help is usually necessary with horses at some point. What matters is who spends the most time with the animal treating it like a living being, rather than a mode of transport or a tool. There's no harm in stable hands handling the daily upkeep; hay bales and water buckets are heavy, and we're there to profit off the labor you don't want or have the time to do. You get up early to go to work; we get up early to look after your horses. Good owners/boarders visit often and spend as much of their spare time as they can with spending quality work and playtime with their horses. Otherwise, the horses look to the stable hands for emotional support and care.
So, maybe you're writing a knight that doesn't really care much for looking after his horse, but his squire is really dedicated to keeping up with it? There's a better chance of the horse having a more affectionate relationship with the squire thanks to the time the squire spends on looking after it, while the horse is more likely to tolerate the knight that owns it as being a source of discipline if it misbehaves. That doesn't mean the knight is its favorite person. When it comes to horses, their love must be earned, and you can only earn it by spending time with them hands-on.
-Horses can graze anywhere without concern.
This is a mistake that results in a lot of premature deaths! A big part of the cost of owning a horse - even before you buy one - is having the property that will be its pasture assessed for poisonous plants, and having those plants removed from being within the animal's reach. This is an essential part of farm upkeep every year, because horses really can't tell what's toxic and what isn't. One of the reasons it's essential to secure a horse when you aren't riding it is to ensure it only has a very limited range to graze on, and it's your responsibility as the owner/rider to know how to identify dangerous plants and keep your horses away from them.
There's probably more. AMA in my askbox if you have any questions, but that's all for now. Happy writing.
look at him 😭
Researchers recently discovered an "incredible number" of potential new marine species, as well as a handful of hefty new seamounts while ex
He's wearing a crochet sweater.
vampires have been drinking human blood for centuries they don't give a fuck about guys on eight different antidepressants. they were sucking on asbestos factory workers
The absolutely hilarity of imagining some older vampires hectoring younger ones. “Back in my day, I had to drink blood with radium in it and I liked it! We glowed in the damn dark for weeks!”
Tony Hawk’s Twitter is a gold mine honestly
We Stan this San Diego Man
this
C o m e d yy
Some recent gems:
And of course there’s
#where is race war tony hawk tweet thats my fav (via @laughingfish)
I gotchu, bro:
i’m wheezgJmf stoP
Honestly every time this thread just makes me laugh. And new additions…excellent.
ALT
View on Twitter
“Where do I stand on the – on the WHAT? The “Transgender Question”? Well for one thing, sir, I recall the last few usages of that particular phraseology. A group of millions is not a question – I have not yet finished speaking – not a question, but a demographic.“
“The Romans had their castrated priestesses, the Hindus their Hijras, but my god, let us take to the barricades because Uncle Al came to Thanksgiving in a skirt and pantyhose! It’s the province of rubes. Hayseed reactionaries and the worst effluvia of America’s suburban colon.”
“And Chapelle! My god, Chapelle. Embarrassing as only a true great can become in his declining years – I speak here with complete self-awareness; kindly hold your barbs – as he tires of innovation and falls back into the soporific cushion of the lowest common denominator!”
“One joke stretched until you can hear its joints popping like some poor bastard broken on the rack. “Oh my car has pronouns, I identify as a bird, I’m trans-Chinese.” The laziness of it – shameful. You should see the transgendered roast themselves; there’s true scorched earth.“
Brilliant.
I think I am the way I am partially because my first ever big video game with a story was Super Paper Mario. The narrative is kickass but honestly more than anything I haven't seen many examples that come close to how visually coherent Super Paper Mario is. The amount of geometric shapes in the art direction of the game really drives home how many characters could only exist in 2D, which really drives home the ability to swap to 3D!!!! It's so cool!!! and all the weird equations in the sky and the bizarre (even for Mario standards) enemy designs and the way each world seems to have a unique pattern to the way the world layout is stylized.....its absolutely incredible
Super paper mario is so cool. It's got middle child syndrome due to what came before and after it but there's nothing else like it. The very deliberate homages to early digital art meaning the style is super coherent, the genuinely weird and practically undertale-esque story and humour, the epic anime plot, the unique gameplay, it's still a miracle it exists. Deeply autistic media.
reddit is entering like an inverted renaissance of bad posting. this is one of the best/worst posts ive seen in a long time
i am also constantly saying that we should eliminate 96% of men from the gene pool
I love this cos male pattern baldness is so trivial?? Like not using anything rare and debilitating as something to make your point, no hairloss is our most signifigant genetic problem. I love it
Eugenics is evil no matter the target but it says so much about the writer that they went for baldness as their example instead of like, cystic fibrosis. The poster child for easy-to-track, extremely debilitating recessive conditions. Guy tried to market eugenics and didn't even take the low-hanging fruit.
side note: women also carry the male pattern baldness gene in approximately equal amounts to men, it just isn't expressed. So you'd be sterilising 96% of the total population in his example. Which I'm certain would not basically destroy modern society it would be fine.
Further update: while there is no single male pattern baldness gene, the most critical genes involved are X-linked. So you'd only need to sterilise most women. Which would definitely have no major repercussions. Totally fine.
internet ransom note where instead of magazine letters it’s just jpgs of letters found on google
it's what they call "you".
guys i need you to realize that smoking ANYTHING will cause damage to your lungs. inhaling smoke is just inherently bad for you im sorry.
coming from a chronic weed smoker: YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE TO LUNG DAMAGE JUST BECAUSE IT ISNT NICOTINE!!!!!
btw the message of this post is not "dont ever do anything harmful for your body" its "know the risks of whatever vices you participate in"