wallacepolsom
Not today Justin
KIROKAZE
izzy's playlists!
sheepfilms
shark vs the universe
dirt enthusiast
todays bird
roma★
blake kathryn
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Kaledo Art
art blog(derogatory)
No title available
🪼
Three Goblin Art
Stranger Things
Sade Olutola
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Today's Document
seen from Brazil
seen from Italy
seen from India
seen from Türkiye
seen from Spain
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Türkiye
seen from Switzerland
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@beatrice-otter
guy who installs an adblocker and forgets about it and lives in a beautiful world where online ads have become much less frequent
lalala world so beautiful advertisements so extinct (opens website on mobile)AAAAAH!!!!!!! OH GOD MY EYES!!!!!!!!!!!
gonna put them in a blender and drink them
Addams Family Values (1993) dir. Barry Sonnenfeld
Hey Fic Readers!
When reading fic, if there is accompanying art, do you prefer...
Art embedded within the in the body of the fic, between relevant paragraphs
Art embedded within the in the body of the fic, but at the end of the text
Hyperlinked art in the author's notes
Nuance/Bald/Etc. (tell me in the tags!)
Reblogs are appreciated for a greater sample size!
shhhh theyre sleeby 🤏🤏
I'm not expecting this to be posted, I just need a place to share my daily moment of joy and hope.
I'm nonbinary and although I pass as more masculine at a glance, I live in a very close-minded and conservative country, and, even if they assume I'm a guy at first, people always switch back to referring to me as a woman the moment I start talking (I have a higher pitched voice than I would prefer). Today I was at the store and the lady at the checkout (who referred to me by masculine terms when I walked in) DIDN'T immediately switch to feminine, but actually made an effort to omit as many gendered words as possible through our entire conversation! I was dealing with a really bad bout of gender dysphoria, and she made my day, as well as restoring a little of my faith in the people of my country. So thank you, lady at the checkout of a random store I will likely never visit again, whose name I will likely never know, for making the choice to be an ally and a good person today, and helping me through a really bad day, even if you'll never know it. You were my moment of hope today.
Sometimes it really is that simple to make someone's day. And getting a moment of hope makes it easier to give others one too.
Look, if you're having a bad day, here's a 6,000 year old pig-shaped pottery pot.
My day's been fine can I still have the pig pot?
Have a row of them
Posts that just fundamentally misunderstand horror movies like The Thing, that have thousands of notes, are turning me into the joker.
"The thing is only acting in self defense because it gets attacked first"
The very first experience it has with the base crew is that they save it from people shooting at it, give it warm hugs, and kill the people trying to deatroy it. After that it attacks and impersonates an unknown (at the time) member of the crew. After that it gets surrounded by dogs who are angry but too scared to approach, then it changes, then it attacks the huskies, and only then does anyone in the base camp treat it with hostility.
You can imagine anything you want for the unknowns (before the movie starts, whether it can tell animals apart, etc), but you are fully wrong if you characterize its reception as being preemptively attacked. You can interpret things lots of ways, but saying the humans at the camp attack it first is factually wrong.
"None of the men know each other enough to recognize an impersonation."
The entire first act of the movie is devoted to establishing that they know each other with an Intimacy so deep they can anticipate one another's actions and attitudes. They have been in an isolated arctic base for months and months where they can barely leave the same building. They are in one another's personal space throughout the movie. It's a vital plot point that the Thing can immitate people down to memories and personality traits. It's a vital metaphorical point as well. It's so deeply and fundamentally superficial and factually incorrect to call them unfamiliar with each other that it implies total inattention to what is happening on screen.
There are so, so many completely reasonable ways to read ideas of social disaffectation, queerness, and more into the text of the movie without misrepresenting the factual text. I'm screaming and crying and throwing up blood, what else would everyone like to propose about horror movies that sounds great aside from being entirely spurious? Someone told me psychological thrillers are the only good horror movies an hour and a half ago, we could start there. I want people to think in these ways about horror but also talking about it in a way that depends on the the text of the film does require a certain amount of knowing the actual text of the film.
Actually I think this is important tags that speak to a larger idea about horror conversation:
The Thing is, at heart, not a movie about any singular decision or behavior creating a bad outcome. Baked into the 1982 movie is failure, death, entropy, inevitable loss. It's not a movie that's meant to have a right solution, or a right decision - but when someone comes at this very bleak story without a good grounding in horror, there's a kind of urge to treat it like a puzzle. If only they were closer. If only they communicated.
That's not meeting it where it's at, because it rests on a situation where none of those elements really exist. People acted the best they could in the circumstances with the tools and information they had - and it simply was not enough. Nearly everyone dies. Even with the ambiguous ending, whoever is human is going to die, because it's winter in Antarctica and he is hundreds of miles from anywhere with no shelter and no food and no transportation. That's the sort of horror it is, the idea that when faced with extinction humanity's best efforts won't succeed. Creating an interpretation where if we had "just" this or that is shying away from the bleakness. But at the same time, not facing up to the idea that some things really might not be solvable, that the worst can happen in spite of it all, is a necessary skill. Not one we need to indulge in constantly, but we should have that knowledge.
And in a greater capacity, this is where I see things go very wrong when someone unfamiliar with or disdainful of horror tries to expound on the genre. It comes from a place of not wanting bad things to happen - not rose colored glasses or naivete - but not wanting the animal to die, not wanting the house to burn, not wanting the parents to lose a child. Not wanting to feel sick or hurt, a normal and human response to a genre which constantly steps over those lines, and quite often does so artlessly and with nothing but puerile shock at heart. That makes it difficult to examine in good faith, and wanting to see horror as something good for oneself leads most people to look for the places where horror doesn't stray close to the boundaries. Solving the problem of "bad horror" by presenting horror comedy or psychological thrillers as better side of horror, for example. But that's just another case of wanting to solve something that doesn't exist to have a solution. Part of getting the genre is recognizing not only that bad things happen in horror, but the ugly and awful and transgressive side is not a mistaken choice, not an error. It's part of what horror is, like a person, you can't understand it without understanding what you dislike along with what you like. Horror can't be corrected out of a set of flaws, those have to be accepted as part of seeing the genre as a whole.
Also, this isn't meant to suggest all horror is hopeless, mean, and cruel. Plent of horror is actually about having made one bad decision, having acted out of hubris, could have been solved by just talking reasonably and so forth. Those are all their own kind of horror plus loads of others. It's more that you can't fix the genre by decoding a right or wrong horror anymore than you can support an interpretation of The Thing where the base crew would have survived or mediated or so on. It's not a genre where a good version exists, because there's too much in it already which is either awful as a matter of fact like pain and death, or which is morally repugnant like racism and homophobia. It's useless to look for a way all of those things can somehow be retroactively solved. It's necessary to face all those things as a part of life. In horror, we have to acknowledge how much of it sucks (artistically) and was made by awful people and had deeply flawed examples of systemic oppression to actually like see the genre in a clear light. And similarly we also have to recognize how much of it is also necessarily transgressive in a way that cannot be anything except unpleasant, because that's part of things people find horrific. You can't have a respectable horror genre, is kinda the thing. There's too much going on, and trying to solve a flaw in like "too much gore" or "animal death" just ends up cutting off a necessary thing to the whole genre. The absolutely most bloodless zero death zero problematic element in the present day zero conflict good ending horror is still going to be uncomfortable because that's the point. Or it might suck. But lots of horror sucks, also, and sometimes that's also interesting.
i feel like some of us on here are treating "sometimes disorders can cause harmful behaviors" and "you are responsible for your actions" as mutually exclusive concepts
like, many disorders & disabilities notably affect behavior, communication, and relationships, as does stress, discomfort, and hardship in general, and we should give people a little grace when theyre going through a tough time. but also, if you repeatedly hurt the people who care about you and make no effort to apologize, or improve, or make up for it, or even just own up to it, those people are under no obligation to endure being treated badly
“YOU BETRAYED YOUR UNIFORM!”
Deep Space 9, Season 5 - Episode 13: “For the Uniform”
started a new book and immediately realised i was expecting something very different to what i was getting so. question
if a book is labelled literary fiction, do you expect the prose to be good?*
yes
no
secret third thing
*define ‘good’ however you want, i guess. i can’t really define it either, but in my mind litfic prose should be good, and also there’s something about it generally that reads differently to genre fiction**
**this is not a value judgement and i’m not saying genre fiction prose can’t be good. please do not piss on the poor
Well yes, otherwise what's the point? It's not like there's worldbuilding or plot to fall back on.
depends on if it's "expect" as in "it SHOULD be" or "expect" as in "it WILL be" cause those are very different
if a book is labeled literary fiction, and the author writes in multiple genres, then I know they're not so offended by the idea that literary fiction is just another genre that they've fucked up the execution of their perfectly good premise and given it anxiety around potentially being perceived as genre (derogatory) fiction
if a book is labeled literary fiction, and absent evidence that the author has ever written in any other genre, then the prose needs to be fucking spectacular, but usually they've executed their perfectly good premise by circular firing squad
I tend to assume that anything labeled literary fiction is going to try (and fail because that's not how words work) make up for being nonsensical by being overwrought.
Like, whether or not you buy into the Commonwealth Prize AI thing, the judges of this still said a story with lines like “She had the kind of walking that made benches become men” was a story worthy of winning a prize. I think that's much more significant than the question of whether AI was used--that literary fiction is the kind of place where that kind of nonsensical writing wins a prize. (Of course, if they kick up a fuss about AI they don't have to face the fact that the problems with their genre go much deeper.)
I like to imagine Rose’s brothers gave her shit for not sticking it out with Shane Hollander long enough for him to meet the family then when they find out it’s because Shane is gay they give her shit for not passing him along to one of them and she’s like??? you’re not gay??? to which they’re like !!!! everyone’s gay for Shane Hollander, Ilya Rozanov ain’t special
i just drew some BULL SHIT!!!!!!
I conceptualized this poll for other people who rediscovered TOS as adults, but anyone is free to respond!
Which regular cast member of Star Trek: the Original Series, as an ACTOR, was the least like what you expected?
George Takei as Hikaru Sulu
Majel Barrett as Christine Chapel
Leonard Nimoy as Spock
Grace Lee Whitney as Janice Rand
Walter Koenig as Pavel Chekov
Nichelle Nichols as Nyota Uhura
William Shatner as James Kirk
DeForest Kelley as Leonard McCoy
James Doohan as Montgomery Scott
This can be for any reason, positive or negative!
Mind your "yeah, but"s. Don't unnecessarily crush someone with negativity when they're excited about something or trying to be positive.
Someone in your friend group is REALLY excited that a popular artist just release a new song or album? Now's not the time to crush them by telling them how much you think that artist is overrated and that anyone who listens to them just doesn't know any real music. They're not hurting anyone, why make them feel bad or dumb just for being happy and excited?
Your co-worker tries to share something positive they read in the news, such whatever country you live in now has lower rates of alcoholism, or more trees than ever were planted last year in re-forestation efforts? Ask if yourself if it's necessary to "yeah, but" their positive news with a spin on making it negative. Is that helping at all or serving any purpose? In a lot of cases it's not helpful or necessary.
What do you really have to gain from crushing someone's excitement or attempts at being positive? Ask yourself what your real intentions are. Ask yourself if you actually have anything worthwhile to gain outside of crushing someone who was excited or trying to be positive.
And in the future, be more considerate of people who are excited about something harmless, or trying to be positive. You never know what inner pain or turmoil they could have in their personal life that they haven't shared with you, which they're just trying to get through with excitement and positivity. Consider being more supportive of their excitement or attempts at positivity in the future.
An invaluable skill I learned from the book How to Talk So Kids Will Listen And Listen So Kids Will Talk (the single greatest relationship/communication book I've ever read, BTW) is to respond with a "you" statement in situations like this.
Basically, if someone is all fired up about something that you don't care about, don't understand, actively dislike, whatever, you can still be considerate and just make a fairly neutral observation like "you really love _____" or "you must be so excited about _____" instead of dumping on their mood with your own negative opinions.
Three simple communication principes to ask yourself before you open your mouth:
Is it true?
Is it necessary?
Is it loving?
See how much will remain to say... ;)
Project Hail Mary - Phil Lord & Christopher Miller
“Because the truth is, tech doesn’t have an image problem. It doesn’t have a message problem. It has an intention problem. What’s wrong with the axe murderer who broke into my house is not that he hasn’t successfully persuaded me to buy into his narrative. What’s wrong is that he’s trying to kill me with an axe. Similarly, when you launch a product that’s designed to put millions of people out of work, block access to sources of verifiable truth, replace human creativity with slop, and lower the barriers to every sort of atrocity, the problem isn’t that you haven’t told the public a good story about those things. The problem is that you are trying to do them.”
— The 40 Most Rage-Inducing Problems in Tech
Everyone should be aware of nitter.net
for any address to twitter you can replace the “x.com” with “nitter.net” and you will be able to browse as if you have an account. Lifesaver.
Similarly, imginn.com works for most Instagram addresses. I still haven’t found one for Facebook.
