nip over to troy, bit of rough and tumble, big horse, bish bash bosh, back home to ithaca. simple as
if you live in upstate new york this has significantly different connotations i think probably than the OP intended
Xuebing Du

JVL

bliss lane
taylor price

oozey mess
Misplaced Lens Cap
RMH
Mike Driver

No title available
No title available
noise dept.
wallacepolsom
Game of Thrones Daily

ellievsbear
d e v o n
$LAYYYTER
we're not kids anymore.
Jules of Nature
tumblr dot com
Sweet Seals For You, Always

seen from Canada
seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Indonesia
seen from Germany

seen from Türkiye

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Canada
seen from Ireland

seen from Germany

seen from United States
@annekewrites
nip over to troy, bit of rough and tumble, big horse, bish bash bosh, back home to ithaca. simple as
if you live in upstate new york this has significantly different connotations i think probably than the OP intended
Beware of the mentality of "if just one person does it, it's not so bad" especially when it comes to things that can affect other people.
As we all hopefully know, we don't touch art when we go to the museum, even though depending on the materials one person touching an art piece probably won't ruin it. However, if enough people visiting the museum were to touch it this could damage or destroy a piece. This is because our actions add up to having collective consequences.
So say for example you're visiting a quaint little town that's a popular tourist destination, and to get the perfect shot of say, a windmill, or a particularly pretty footbridge going over the river, you'd have to stand in someone's yard. Before you think to yourself "well, it's fine if just one person stands in this person's yard to get a picture of that thing" consider you're probably not the only tourist who's had this thought, and perhaps this person has tourists standing in their yard all day every day, and it's starting to cause problems for them.
Our thoughts and impulses are rarely unique. So before you act on the thought "it's probably fine if I do it since I'm just one person" you're probably not the only person who's had that thought, and if enough people have that same thought it can add up to collective consequences.
Reblog this and tell me what was your biggest crying over a piece of fiction. You can be vague if you don't want to spoil.
FEED by Mira Grant (aka Seanan McGuire).
Where the Red Fern Grows
The Winners by Fredrik Backman.
"He was all heart."
If you could instantly be granted fluency in 5 languages—not taking away your existing language proficiency in any way, solely a gain—what 5 would you choose?
A frustrating part of the mainstream vegan “love all animals and protect the environment” mindset is the fact that things need to die in real-life ecology all the time but deer hunting season makes icky feelings and carp culls aren’t cottagecore
The vegan “any animal death ever is morally wrong” mindset doesn’t hold up when:
We don’t have any of the large predators we used to (black bears, mountain lions, or gray wolves) but still retain large deer populations. If nothing is removing animals, they’ll quickly overload the carrying capacity of the environment and have massive losses to starvation and disease that can also pass on to livestock. Human hunters replace the large predators that our landscape can no longer support.
It’s kinder to euthanize an un-releasable hawk rather than try to find it a permanent home with humans. Wildlife rehabs have extremely limited space and resources and are usually run entirely on donated money and volunteer time. Only a few are large and stable enough to care for permanent residents long-term, and those spots are few and far between.
An invasive species poses a danger to threatened native wildlife. I will admit- Australian possums are adorable. But not in New Zealand, where they’re an invasive species that eats the eggs of ground-dwelling birds that previously had no such predators. The landowners I worked with replanting native bush, all native Maori, had no qualms about setting the dogs on them.
I don’t know how to end this except. Sometimes things just gotta die and acting otherwise just isn’t a realistic expectation.
Highlights from the notes over the past 6 months include a lot of angry vegans saying “you’re blowing things out of proportion, no vegans actually think like this!” and a lot of people who work in conservation and education saying “Every day. I have to fight people who think like this.”
As a bonus this post was originally inspired by the vegan who called me racist for saying we should kill invasive species
To say nothing of the fact that the circle of life requires death. The ecosystem is built on decay.
What is organic fertilizer made from? Bone and blood meal, from slaughterhouses. Or composted manure, from commercial livestock operations.
The fertility in the soil comes from the activities and deaths of animals. It is possible to have a fully vegan organic farm in theory, I read a whole book about it, but that’s just one ecosystem. (Full disclosure, this was homestead-scale at best, and part of this man’s system involved using human manure to fertilize hungry crops like corn where the food bit is far from the soil so you don’t have to worry about bacteria. Yes. Is it vegan if there’s animal poop in it, if it’s a human animal? Also how can you really certify that your farm is vegan? Certainly you can’t do it on a commercial scale; the mechanical harvesters of your huge monocrop fields are committing genocide on your fieldmice etcetera. The book wasn’t claiming it was vegan, btw, he was just saying he didn’t use animal inputs, so. ymmv there. i forget his name, but i’m sure it was a rodale book.)
Death is part of the circle of life, and to artificially pry animal death out of ecosystems that require it is a kind of violence.
Sure, we can try to minimize our harm, but smugly buying quinoa in the bulk section isn’t the place literally everyone should pick as the point where they stop caring.
Humans are animals, and are part of their ecosystem, and contorting ourselves to pretend otherwise is not the enlightened position many seem to think it is.
people on here are always saying “we NEED a story where the art of storytelling is abandoned” like ugh literary devices are soo annoying like that wouldn’t happen in real life that only happened to further the story (why is there story in my story) why would orpheus turn around when he was explicitly told not to why would icarus fly so close to the sun romeo&juliet catcher in the rye why are they so earnest why pour your heart and soul into anything why bother why cant all art be quippy logical monotony like my marvel movies there’s a void in my heart bc i refused to fill it and the curtains were blue
“i hate poetry its so pretentious” but then you reblog a quote or a throwaway line and say “why does this go so hard” you are desperate for poetry you are starved for it and u dont even realise you’re hungry
just saw someone say they were "hyperfixated" on cooking with seasonal squash i love that nothing means anything
i’m seriously traumadumping pepper all over these boiled eggs
I’m gaslighting my stove
how the heck porn addiction is not real
Because scientists have studied it and they've found insufficient evidence to prove that it's real. It's really quite simple.
There are literally scientists who went into these studies genuinely believing in porn addiction who were eager to study it and its effects who came out no longer believing in it. Why? Because they're good scientists who changed their minds in the face of new evidence.
The key point in studies like this is that they always expect porn-related problems to go up as porn use goes up, and you would expect that because that's how every addiction works from gambling to cigarettes to alcohol to crack cocaine, but what they actually find is that the people with the most distress over their porn use is actually related to how religious they are, not how much porn they're watching. This is significant, because it means people who identify as "porn addicts" are not actually watching more porn than the average person; They just feel worse about it because they think they shouldn't be watching it AT ALL.
I really can't stress this point enough; Are there people whose lives are badly impacted by watching 22 hours of porn a day? Sure, they do exist and they have my sympathy, but the majority of cases of "porn addiction" are completely religiously motivated and have nothing to do with how much porn people are actually watching.
The key takeaway here is that shaming people for their sexuality is harmful. It's bad for people's mental health to make them feel shame over something they have no control over, like how horny they can get. It's wrong to force people to suppress their emotions and make them feel guilty for not harming anyone. As Drew of Genetically Modified Skeptic once said; You can't shame someone out of feeling horny any more than you can shame someone out of feeling hungry.
Christianity often does this as a form of control by selling you the sickness and the cure; We are created sick and commanded to be well.
Research finds that porn-related problems are predominantly caused by religious conflict. Clinically, this means people need help, but not n
"What does it mean that religion, not porn use, predicts porn-related problems?"
oh my fucking god
Schrödinger's Tortoise
What IS Grooming, Really?
The term "grooming" has been getting thrown around a lot lately, both online and in the news. Accusing someone of being a groomer has became the go-to tactic that conservatives and alt-right internet trolls use to discredit anyone doing something they don't like. People like sex educators, LGBTQ+ people living their lives, and librarians who are against book-banning. They often get away with targeting these people by claiming that they are "exposing children to dangerous ideas."
Interestingly enough, the word "grooming" rarely comes up in the media when someone has actually abused someone else.
The reality is that grooming doesn't look like young people receiving comprehensive sex education, seeing gay people in public, or reading books about people different from themselves. In fact, data shows that most of these things can actually reduce the chance of a young person being abused and/or make them more likely to report abuse when it happens — because they can learn how to recognize abuse.
s.e. writes: "It’s behavior that comes from someone looking to exploit another that’s intended to create the feeling of an emotional connection for the purposes of making that exploitation easy. This is a process that can take time as someone slowly pushes the target’s boundaries, confuses their feelings, and gives them a false sense of security and care. The target may not understand they are experiencing abuse because it happens slowly over time, and they may also feel like they can’t tell anyone because it involves a “friend” or even someone they feel they love."
Now, we can't do too much about conservatives not liking us, queer and trans people, or reading books… but we can try to educate people about what grooming actually is, how to recognize it, how to intervene when it happens, or how to tell a trusted person if you suspect it is happening to you.
Because the reality is that allowing conservative politicians, political pundits, and alt-right grifters to misuse this word actually makes it more difficult for people to recognize actual grooming… which makes it way easier for real abusers to get away with causing harm.
If you'd like to learn more, read What is Grooming, Really? by s.e. smith
This tweet read me to filth
at some point in your life you will be boiling fruit, water, sugar, and lemon juice in a pot to make a syrup or jam. the instructions will tell you to simmer for a certain amt of time. your timer will go off and you will look at the pot and go, "hm, this doesn't look thick enough. maybe i'll let it go for another 10 minutes." this is the devil speaking. it's only so liquid right now because it is at boiling point. it will thicken when it cools down. learn from the follies of my youth and do not let this happen to you
at some point in your life you will be making a sauce or a stew in which you need to add cornstarch to thicken it. and you will prepare a slurry of starch in cold water and think "this looks like way too little starch to thicken this amount of liquid." this is the devil speaking. cornstarch instantly polymerizes at 95°C and if you add too much it will turn into an impossibly thick goop.
at some point in your life you will be making some sort of cream based dessert that requires gelatin to thicken it. and you will soak some gelatin sheets in water and think "this is too few gelatin sheets for this amount of cream." this is the devil speaking. it will thicken in the fridge and if you add too much you will end up with milk jelly
at some point in your life you will be baking cookies. you will take the sheet out after twelve minutes as the recipe instructs and the cookies will still be glistening and soft. "these don't seem cooked enough," you will think to yourself, "i should place them back into the oven until their edges are nice and golden." this is the devil talking. this is how you get dry, overdone cookies. the cookies will continue to bake on the warm sheet for several more minutes and then harden up after sitting on a rack for a while. trust the process. trust the process.
at some point in your life you will be adding a small pasta to a soup and you will think "that is not enough small pasta." this is the devil talking. the pasta will absorb the stock and expand. this is how you end up with a soup that is a solid mass of soggy ditalini.
At some point in your life you will be adding garlic to a dish and you will think "that is not enough garlic." These are angels speaking. They are correct. Add more garlic.
btw i live on nailpolish reddit nowadays
and everyone is posting their 4th of july manis
except this year its very few american flags and red white and blue and stars.
and a LOT of pond scum inspiration
This is an absolutely FASCINATING cultural snapshot.
pratchett will write an entire book about the grim reaper pretending to be santa claus while the grim reaper’s granddaughter goes about hunting down the dumbass who decided to kill santa, and then right when you think you’re done and the oddly pointed shenanigans are winding down he hits you with “humans need fantasy to be human. to be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape,” and knocks you into next wednesday
#YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT ARENT TRUE#HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME#god those words are engraved on my heart#gnu terry pratchett
“Why does the third of the three brothers, who shares his food with the old woman in the wood, go on to become king of the country? Why does James Bond manage to disarm the nuclear bomb a few seconds before it goes off rather than, as it were, a few seconds afterwards? Because a universe where that did not happen would be a dark and hostile place. Let there be goblin hordes, let there be terrible environmental threats, let there be giant mutated slugs if you really must, but let there also be hope. It may be a grim, thin hope, an Arthurian sword at sunset, but let us know that we do not live in vain.”
GNU TERRY PRATCHETT
Gnu Terry Pratchett
GNU Terry Pratchett
GNU Terry Pratchett
Women in Shakespeare
Also like to point out that when her mother says “I was your mother much upon these years that you are now a maid,” (translation: I had you when I was your age) you have to remember her father’s words: “earth hath swallowed all my hopes but she,” (translation: all the other children died.) The whole plot point of Juliet being an only child is explained by her mother being a Margaret Beaufort type who had her first child too young and it damaged her past the point of being able to bear more children.
Margaret Beaufort died in 1509. She was a major player in the Wars of the Roses, the swirling on-again-off-again civil wars that consumed England from 1455-1487. Romeo and Juliet was written and first performed in the early 1590s. Your average English person of Shakespeare’s day would probably have had at least a vague understanding of who she was and what happened to her, because she was a key figure in recent history and was still getting passed around as a cautionary tale.
There are two great problems with what happened to Margaret (and that her parents are trying to do to Juliet). One is easy for modern people to spot (but was also a common response back in her own day). And that’s the moral implications of what was done to her. She was too young to be married, and it was horrifying that she was forced into it so young. Every one of the adults around her either acted immorally or failed to protect her. They were wrong. This is what modern people see, and it’s important to remember that people back in her day mostly agreed with it. You’re supposed to think it’s fucked up! When girls were married that young (and it didn’t happen often!) it was a formality 99% of the time. It was for dynastic or financial reasons (the girl has lots of money and/or land and/or a title that her husband wants), but the “couple” don’t consummate their marriage for years. And it’s not just that they would have separate bedrooms. They might not even live in the same country until the girl was in her late teens and physically and mentally mature enough to bear and raise kids. Hell, a lot of times they didn’t even meet until the girl was older! They had this thing called “proxy marriage” where you would have two separate ceremonies, in two separate places, with each party saying their vows separately, one in one city and the other in a different one. So, yeah, sure, the girl was technically married at 12, but she didn’t actually meet her “husband” in person until she was 17 and they didn’t start sleeping together until she was 20. That was a thing they did.
The other problem, the one that modern people don’t notice, is dynastic. See, marriage wasn’t generally because you loved someone. It was because you had the resources to support a family, and you or your family wanted to pool those resources with someone. It’s about “our family has these resources, and we want that to continue.” It’s about continuity across generations. It’s about making sure that your children and grandchildren have the best possible resources to survive and thrive, whether those resources are land or a trade or a title or money or whatever. In order for this to work, you have to have kids! The family and the family’s resources depend on the married couple having children. If the couple doesn’t have children, the marriage is a failure. And that failure affects not only the couple, but both families. This is a really big problem. And you can’t have just one kid to pass on the family name, because half of all kids die in early childhood. If you want to be safe, you need several kids, to be sure at least one will survive to adulthood (when they can marry and pass on the family name and resources.
You know what happens when a girl has her first pregnancy too young? She is very likely to either die in childbirth, or have complications that destroy her future fertility. Just like Margaret Beaufort. Just like Juliet’s mother. In other words, the marriage is a failure, not just for her, but also for her family, and her husband (who can’t divorce her, it’s not allowed except in extremely rare circumstances), and her husband’s family. So even the people who didn’t have a moral problem with adult men having sex with pubescent girls had a practical problem with girls married too young because you are very likely to destroy the entire purpose of the marriage by doing it. As Shakespeare reminds us in the play through Juliet’s mother having been married too young and only having one child.
Shakespeare is telling us “yeah, this is fucked up. but even if you’re the kind of awful person who doesn’t think girls marrying too young is morally wrong, it’s also a problem for practical and dynastic reasons, don’t forget that by doing this wrong thing you are very likely to destroy what you most want out of it.”
Interesting
It bears repeating:
don’t forget that by doing this wrong thing you are very likely to destroy what you most want out of it.”
yes, excellent discussion!
another thing i noticed, the year my local community shakespeare theater did r&j, and i made the costumes so i got to watch the show every night: part of why capulet is telling paris, take your time, get to know each other, no rush, is that he still has his nephew tybalt as his heir. as long as tybalt is in the picture, there is no pressure on juliet to go further with paris, than get acquainted. once tybalt is killed, then suddenly capulet needs an heir, he needs a husband for juliet, now, this week. (the role of capulet is best given to the actor in the company that can do over the top apoplexy, you need to believe his urgency comes at least in part by how clearly he could drop dead any moment from giving himself a stroke)
i feel like this play is often taught in middle schools as if it was somehow relevant to, or about, teen hormone storms. really it's got more to do with the social structures around family and inheritance. leaving that context out makes it confusing, why is capulet suddenly flipping from nice dad to evil dad?
art history matters.
I've been thinking about this play a lot lately. I really wanna highlight that Lord Capulet asks Paris to wait and get to know her, and to woo her, while Tybalt lives. While Tybalt is alive, Juliet has something of a reprieve, and her wellbeing as his only child matters more to Capulet. But once Tybalt has died, the gloves come off. Lord Capulet was worried about his daughter's wellbeing when he felt he had the space to care, but as soon as his dynasty is at stake, as soon as this becomes larger than Juliet's happiness, his consideration for her health and mental wellbeing get thrown away. Which also is due in part to the fact that Capulet's family is implicated in a brawl that has left several dead after the Prince's family EXPLICITLY told the Capulets and Montagues to stop fighting or face dire consequences, AND Capulet is trying to align himself with the Prince's family by marrying Juliet off to County Paris, a relative of the Prince. So to Lord Capulet, it is now less important that Juliet is happy, and more important than he reminds the Prince of his loyalty via this marriage and aligns his family with the Prince's before it's too late. And he believes this must be done, at any cost...until Juliet kills herself. And that's when he realises the devastating cost of treating his family as chess pieces. He realises his wrongdoing far too late.
Seriously Romeo and Juliet is HEAVY on the dynastic politics, and I think you can't fully understand the play without understanding how that all works, especially because the impact of dynastic marriages on women and girls is like. THE POINT of the play