a cool evening breeze.

🌼A 6¢ Cardboard Dog Cutout 🌼 ☀️Corylus Avellana ‘useless creator’ (the dork)☀️ 🌼 the OG Jean Moreau advocate🌼 ☀️ "one tiny miracle at a time" ☀️ 🌼 TSC playlist 🌼

[bienmoreau]

He’s in the soup! 💕

[memories-of-ancients]

Anthropeum

A daily game that challenges our understanding of human cultures. Ten objects. 5,000 years of human history. Guess where and when each artif

An interesting game where you are presented with 10 artifacts from the MET. You have to place where the artifact is from and what time period it is from. Each artifact scores up to 10,000 points, and you lose points the further away your guess is and how far off in time you are. You can only play once a day. Thanks to @baebeylik for showing this to me.

Today I scored really well. Yesterday ... not so much.

Anthropeum.com · Jun 8 2026 🟩🟦🟦🟩🟩🟩🟥🟦🟦🟩 79,001 · top 3% of players today!

[motherfuckingnazgul]

oh this is extremely fun. i did NOT do all that well but i can see myself getting good. i will be doing this regularly.

Anthropeum.com · Jun 8 2026 🟩🟦🟦🟨🟨🟦🟥🟩🟩🟦 68,088 · top 12% of players today!

[aurpiment]

Anthropeum.com · Jun 9 2026

🟦🟩🟩🟦🟦🟨🟩🟩🟦🟨

77,134 · top 9% of players, baby!

[yuhengwanye]

Anthropeum.com · Jun 10 2026 🟦🟦🟨🟩🟨🟨🟦🟩🟩🟦 77,633 · top 8% of players today!

[elodieunderglass]

Anthropeum.com · Jun 10 2026

🟦🟩🟩🟨🟨🟩🟦🟩🟥🟦

71,899 · top 21% of players today!

In my defense that red one is where I accidentally flicked the map marker to the wrong side of the planet

[beezelbubbles]

Anthropeum.com · Jun 10 2026

🟨🟩🟥🟦🟨🟨🟨🟦🟨🟩

60,299 · top 56% of players today!

[defira85]

Anthropeum.com · Jun 10 2026 🟨🟨🟨🟩🟨🟥🟨🟩🟩🟩 53,389 · top 80% of players today!

YEAAAAAAH LOOK AT THOSE LOW LOW SCORES BABY this is incredible I will be doing nothing else with my free time from now onwards

[elveny]

Defiraaaaa, fellow low-scorer! 😆🙌

I screwed up most of the ages of them, did better with location (though I did place something from originally South America in Africa, my bad 🙈)

[c3rvida3]

I love to eat warm peaches bent over the sink like a werewolf. Summertime activity of all time.

[dataandphilosophy]

“For example, if you’re trying to convince people to boycott a segregated store, your object is to convince them that boycotting the store will have a strategic effect, not that desegregation is morally important. For whatever reason, on a cognitive level human beings have a really hard time with this. Smucker cites an example of a Lefty roleplaying session where people were tasked with selling an action to people who agreed with them on principle but didn’t see the strategic merit of the action. Surprisingly, the sellers couldn’t make the conceptual switch to sell strategic merit: instead, they doubled down on THIS ISSUE IS IMPORTANT — even though it had been stressed to them that the people they were selling to bought into the importance of the issue. People react poorly to “this is important, so do WHATEVER I SAY”; they want to be convinced that what you’re proposing will work.”

Source.

[myfootyrthroat]

Also from above:

“Bob Wing, a grassroots organizer, explains this nicely: “If winning feels impossible, then righteousness can seem like the next best thing.” But righteousness is not conducive to getting normies to join your team if your team cannot demonstrate ability to, at least sometimes, win. Nor does righteousness help you make real inroads with regular people.”

[bbcwhereareyou]

Somewhat related, my favorite comic strip of all time:

[shopcat]

do you want to see the best trail cam photo ever

[pyuddings]

IM FUCKING SCREAMING FUKC.. MATZ JUST MAKE ME SPEECHLESS

[mapleejay]

does anyone else think about how brave all their friends are and get really emotional about it

[mapleejay]

I'm glad everyone is alive rn

[scribefindegil]

Something I think is really important to remember when doing fandom analysis (and literary criticism in general, since it was a litcrit movement that opened my eyes to this), is "You can only analyze the text that exists."

"But the creator was pressured into changing their vision for the worse!" Sometimes this is wishful thinking. Sometimes it is demonstrably true. Sometimes it's ambiguous. If there are documented issues affecting the production of a work of art, you can and should absolutely talk about those as part of your analysis! But 'the creator's vision' isn't real. The version that was actually made and actually exists is. Once I commented that I disliked how an asexual character had been handled in a book, and the person I was talking to said, "Oh, I bet it's their editor's fault." But even if that were true . . . the book is published. I was responding to the portrayal in the published book. I can't analyze a text based on what the other person in the conversation imagined the author's intent might have been. Even when we know for sure that a story would have been very different without certain pressures (an editor who nixed an author's original ending, an executive producer who vetoed all mentions of queer characters, a show that was cancelled prematurely and had to wrap up its plot in a couple of episodes instead of another full season), we can talk about those pressures and we can talk about things we know were cut and we can talk about how the bad pacing of those final episodes were significantly influenced by the circumstances under which they were made. But we can't talk about the platonic ideal of the piece of media, the version that would have existed if the circumstances were perfect, because it's not real. Every person is going to have their own idea on how it would have turned out and these will be wildly divergent from person to person. It's not helpful or productive to get mad at people for criticizing or otherwise engaging with the actual piece of art instead of the version you made up in your head.

"But I understand this character better than the author! They would never have done X!" Look, we've all been there. Do whatever you want with your own personal interpretation. But it's just that: an interpretation. The character isn't real, and there isn't a secret better version of the text waiting to be freed from the tyranny of the person who's actually writing it. You can write an AU, or talk about how, for example, a character in an episodic TV show with many different writers suffers from a lack of consistent characterization, or make a post about how you think X plot point was badly handled or poorly written. And you can absolutely give the character the storylines and development that you want them to have! In this case, you're creating your own text, and it exists, and it can be analyzed either on its own or in relation to the source material. But you can't expect everyone to agree with you, and you can't believe that your interpretation of a character is more real than anyone else's—and especially not that it's more real than how the character is actually written in the text. I see this very often with people who want their favorite characters to be more progressive than they are. Yes, maybe the author's sexism is part of why this character acted sexist. But if you are rejecting part of the text you are rejecting part of the text. Other people will choose not to do this, and you can't blame them for analyzing a character or society as they are actually presented.

For people who really love fiction, it's very easy to fall into magical thinking. The stories and characters feel real, like they exist somewhere out there in their true, uncorrupted form, unsullied by authorial bias and executive meddling and the long, messy, awkward process of actually making and sharing a creative work. But they don't. A piece of art is a material object, a series of words or sounds or images or bits of data that has been put into its current form by one or more human beings. That is what's real. Personal interpretations can be wonderful, transformative works and alternative readings can be powerful and illuminating. But you can't analyze a hypothetical the same way you can something concrete. You can't be so caught up in your own feelings that you forget that other interpretations are possible. And you can only do textual analysis on a text that actually exists.

[saul-tortellini]

This is how 40k works

[edgar-allan-possum]

Reading this post renders you unable to get legally married by Cocaine Bear

[consultwithmouse]

Bradley's full post on IG 💔❤️

[menelaiad]

just cried so hard at this that i actually nearly threw up

[luciferrous]

clemonsteen studies

[samsincerely]

EVERYONE get in the tags rn and tell me your favorite cheese

[brucespringsteencomments]

[aaronstveit]

Now, those memories come back to haunt me They haunt me like a curse...

Bruce Springsteen • The River The River Tour, Tempe 1980

[banderboucher]

The idea of spontaneously getting on a train and going somewhere far might be romantic in another country but England is too small for that. Pull an Eternal Sunshine and go where? Fucking Slough? Go to fucking Slough and get a fucking boots meal deal?

[birthdaysongs]

i only understand about 60% of the words in this post but i still think its funny

[muirneach]

x

[alexadelphia-official]

Picker Wheel - Spin the Wheel to Decide a Random Choice

Picker Wheel is a wheel spinner for a random picker. Various functions & customization. Enter choices or names, spin the wheel to decide a r

let's see if this works. this contains randomised ingredients from various recipes, including: chocolate chip cookies, banana Nutella pancakes, lemonade, orange juice, carrot cake, homemade pizza, curry chicken, cornbread with bacon and cheese, and probably some other combinations possible in there

Rules of the game: pick the first 5 ingredients that the wheel gives you. Are you COOKING or are you COOKED? Comment in the tags