Finally, A Day Off

Enjoying what I want. Please do the same.

[tomoleary]

Ralph Meyer — The Undertaker

[rosettyller]

Behind the scenes of PROJECT HAIL MARY (2026)

[cartoonsondrugs]

[angelicguy]

me and the boys have a couple of chains wrapped around the sword in the stone hooked up to mikes toyota tundra gonna pull that fucker out like a tooth.

[seaweed-station]

Me and the boys misunderstood the arcane nature of the stone and now the Toyota is king of England

[mlleclaudine]

from India Rose Crawford's Instagram: Frog bakes a loaf of bread 🍞🐸

[rogerdeakinsdp]

To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar (1995) dir. Beeban Kidron

[prenbyw]

Spoon in the shape of a fish. Carved from some Sycamore I found just outside Wivenhoe, Essex.

[hinako-supremacy]

op i love your fish so much i made it a png

they are now a school of fish

[teaboot]

Posts that prove that despite about 300 thousand years of technological development, humanity at its core hasn't really changed all that much

[kylieminvogue]

"LEGALLY BLONDE" 2001, dir. Robert Luketic

[sophsun1]

Some Like It Hot (1959) dir. Billy Wilder

[depsidase]

[wishbow]

[titsay]

the goddess

[gothhabiba]

see this is exactly what I'm talking about. this labour is so incredibly invisibilised that there are real human beings, walking about amongst us, leading normal lives, etc., who earnestly believe that machines can make an item of clothing from start to finish.

[rowanrightalong]

Hey just in case someone on here doesn’t quite understand how labor intensive making a garment is, here is a list of things that (to the best of my knowledge) cannot be done by machine alone, from a costumer/tailor in training

Cutting - in my opinion, the most labor intensive part of the process. The amount of time/effort needed varies depending on the pattern and if seam allowance is included or marked separately, but no matter what this process can not be done by machine. Each and every panel and piece of fabric that goes into a garment must be cut by hand by a person.

Pinning/clipping - pinning (or clipping) is the stage at which you align the pieces you are going to be stitching together and hold them together with — you guessed it! — either pins or clips. This can not be done by machine.

Stitching - the actual sewing. This can be done by a sewing machine, but that machine still needs to be operated by a human being.

Ironing/pressing - two words that mean the same thing. The iron itself is a machine, but once again, it needs to be operated by a human being.

Finishing - depending on the technique you use, there are certain finishing techniques that can only be done by hand. But, let’s assume we’re talking about fast fashion, which is usually just finished with a simple overlock/serger. Once again: these machines need to be operated by people.

These are just the basic steps to making a garment, and don’t include textile arts that I am not as knowledgeable about, such as weaving, knitting, and crochet. Also, it is important to note that there are a lot of things that can only be done by hand, such as certain stitches and decorative techniques.

Also, the machinery being operated in textile factories is not equivalent to a domestic sewing machine. We’re talking about one of these guys:

See that gray cylinder under the table, behind the knee pedal? That’s the motor. These machines can sew through your fingers bones and all and not even stop. The people in these factories and sweatshops are operating heavy machinery, and are subject to all the risk that comes with that in addition to all of the work I mentioned above.

Please respect textile workers and continue the fight to eliminate the use of sweatshops and exploited labor in the fashion industry!

[uninterruptednonsense]

Reblogging with some additions from a different post o'mine:

" I'm taking a sewing class and I asked my teacher about how much machines can actually do. She said that while a lot of actual fabric we use in our projects is machine-woven, and sometimes there are machines for particular knitting patterns or for the same small thing over and over and over (i.e. socks), the overwhelming majority of pieces of clothing are in fact just sewn together by humans. Usually women. Underpaid and overlooked. Thousands and thousands of them, working 12 hours a day or more in huge warehouse-factories. You're probably wearing something one of those women created right now.

Most of the students (including me) were horrified. We had *no* idea. We figured that, given that we have supercomputers and massive industrial systems for almost every type of product you can buy, surely we would have figured out a better way? Surely there are machines that can put a t-shirt together by now?

She said, no, that's why fast fashion is really so bad. It's not simply about the quality of the product, it's about the human cost.

When you buy a cheap tee that says "Made in Bangladesh", this is where your clothing came from (and these are from one of the nicer factories):

(By Fahad Faisal. CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=89582692)

Don't want to believe it? I understand. Here is the wikipedia page, you can read it in your own time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile_industry_in_Bangladesh#Readymade_garment_(RMG)_industry

[queeranarchism]

This isn't just true of clothes either. There's an astonishing amount of human labor behind most of our products. Even the steps that are automated are only possible because humans are constantly cleaning, maintaining, repairing, adjusting and fine tuning the machines.

I've noticed that the media that educates us often edits that out on purpose. In 'how its made' type videos, steps humans do by hand are often skipped because they don't make as smooth a video as watching machines do the parts of the production process that can be automated. These kinds of videos also seem like they prioritize highly automated factories even if most of the industry for a product is a lot less automated.

[mewantpeepaw]

Shawn interviews "Diesel" in the Heartbreak Hotel

WWF Superstars 2/4/95

[bogleech]

Would you happen to have any idea of why Bug type Pokemon are strong against Psychic types? The leading theory is that it's a common phobia overpowering the mind, but that doesn't feel like a route Japanese developers would take, what with bugs having much stronger positive connotations in their culture. The idea that bugs' minds are too simple to be effected by psychic powers also doesn't feel like something they'd go for. It just seems like utter nonsense to me.

Pokemon in general is based on kaiju and tokusatsu, and insects are simply the most iconic recurring aesthetic for tokusatsu heroes, which I've discussed before as the reason bug type beats dark type

HOWEVER, I think I forgot to ever get into why psychic would be included, which is that the VILLAINS in tokusatsu itself are almost always psychic or magical or employ psychic or magical underlings. I only say "almost" because I can't rule out an exception is out there, but I've actually never seen an exception. 100% of tokusatsu I'm familiar with have magic or mysticism somewhere in the bad guy faction, and it's often that the evil big boss is some kind of demon, witch, yokai, wizard or god themselves.

So thanks to one television genre, there is an unspoken cliche in japan that a beetle or a locust would be the archest nemesis of a telepathic warlock, and usually win.

[fralexion]

Ooh, cool.

I do wonder why Bug is weak against Fairy, though. From a game balance standpoint I would've expected them to want to give the Bug type another advantage if they got the opportunity. Is a fairy more heroic than a bug?

[bogleech]

Only the fairies can calm mothra :)

[aceofblades222]

This is so so incredibly important

[queer-joy-detector]

Queer joy detected!

[machobusta]

The Undertaker enters the ring for his Buried Alive match against Stone Cold Steve Austin. Rock Bottom:  In Your House December 13, 1998