“The whole truth is that we are all clinging to a lovely blue ball floating in a sea of blackness. Everything else, including and most especially the "truth" you're looking for? Is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Love Begins
Not today Justin

titsay

⁂

Kaledo Art
KIROKAZE
Game of Thrones Daily
d e v o n
RMH
No title available
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Misplaced Lens Cap

if i look back, i am lost

izzy's playlists!

ellievsbear
Mike Driver
wallacepolsom
No title available
DEAR READER
taylor price
seen from Israel
seen from North Macedonia

seen from Argentina
seen from North Macedonia

seen from North Macedonia
seen from United States

seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from Argentina

seen from Malaysia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from Australia
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia

seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia

seen from North Macedonia
seen from United States

seen from France
@classicintp
“The whole truth is that we are all clinging to a lovely blue ball floating in a sea of blackness. Everything else, including and most especially the "truth" you're looking for? Is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
not every mutual fits neatly into an archetypal medievalism but there are some mutuals that im like yeah addressing you as “my liege” would come strangely naturally
what mutual is prev
my liege lord
my loyal knight
my wise wizard
my evil advisor
my brother in arms
my lady muse
my wild mermaid friend
my fellow alchemist
my dashing rapscallion
my monstrous foe
Growing up with Christianity, questioning it in my late teens due to the constant dismissive answers and rampant contradictions that wholly bothered me as a theretofore earnest & dedicated believer, and abandoning it as I had felt it and its people had spitefully abandoned me........ It brings me great vindictive pleasure that out of any design that could have caught on as the prominent banner for lgbtqia+ pride, it ended up being the rainbow 🌈; a symbol Christianity is incredibly possessive over, a symbol its followers could have shared as allies in favor of Jesus teaching
"LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF"
But no, it was largely, globally denied that association, so you motherfuckers righteously repurposed it.
"FOR IN THE SAME WAY YOU JUDGE OTHERS, YOU WILL BE JUDGED, AND WITH THE MEASURE YOU USE, IT WILL BE MEASURED TO YOU"
Every time I see a pride flag, I see another example of how people have held man-written laws (both church and state) as justification for their worst behaviors, as if they had to obey and follow violence and abuse because a piece of paper encouraged them to, instead of defying those laws because, at the very least, loving & supporting members of your own species should override anyone or anything that suggests otherwise.
Christianity is certainly not the only institution guilty of moral and legal crimes against this community, but it's the institution I was primarily & critically raised in, and is the institution I witnessed (and continue to witness) perpetrate, uphold, and teach this violence, so it's the only group I'm going to specifically acknowledge. Those particular Christians who cheapen the lives of this community deserve so much worse than "being forced" to covet the use of a symbol they arrogantly and falsely claim as their own. Sooooo much worse. But in the meantime, watching them indignantly throw tantrums over a rainbow is still a small win worth celebrating every. single. time.
Reblogging this for pride month
they slayed
Prev’s tags significantly added to my experience of this video
is there anything better than starting a book and it's Good. when you just have to accept that this shit is embarrassingly accurately your jam.
@wikipedie @doctor-lypten
i actually do think too much emphasis is placed on regret rates in the trans community despite said rates being absurdly low. like even if regret rates were at 90% id still support access to gender affirming care because i think people have the right to do whatever the fuck they want with their own bodies. regret is the price you pay for autonomy man get over it.
I hate the videoification of everything. If I have to hear one more video of someone speaking closely into their shitty mic and I have to have all their yucky wet mouth noises and plosives and nose whistles and throat clearings and sniffles I am going to dig a vertical hole the exact dimensions of my body and I’m going to slither in head first
as someone with misophonia, the widespread popularization of asmr audio editing + people that are being pushed to make video content with no formal training and have no idea how to edit their audio (ex college professors, average joe tiktokers, etc) is literally my nightmare scenario. this is hell I am in hell
this is actually the last straw for me I need to start sending people emails
I know the email thing is probably a joke but holy shit actually more people should complain directly to companies about this.
For my job I’ve written and overseen the development of hundreds and hundreds of pages of training material and guides and what the fuck ever so you can use the products one your own and my boss is convinced that what people want is videos explaining this shit and I’ve managed to comvince her that if we post a video that we have to include the text article/document with it but this is an argument I have with her every other week so that’s tbh on the chopping block constantly. But now we have hundreds of stupid 1 min videos that each explain how to do X and tbh so many of them are like 3 lines of instruction just to make sure people know which order to press buttons or whatever. Like the opening and ending credits of these videos are longer then the actual instruction part in some cases. It’s such a fucking waste of everyone’s time making them. But according to her, none of the clients have ever complained or said they don’t want videos so she’s having us make them bc everyone is shifting to video instructions now.
She got the idea for the study while walking with her advisor at Stanford to discuss her thesis topic, and the paper she eventually published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 2014 is sharp enough that it should have ended the seated meeting on the day it came out.
She ran 4 experiments on 176 people. Same person tested twice. Once sitting, once walking. The creativity tasks were the standard ones psychologists have used for decades to measure how good a brain is at generating novel useful ideas.
81% of participants in the first experiment produced more creative ideas while walking than while sitting. In the second experiment, 88%. In the third, 100%. Every single person walked into a more creative version of themselves. On average, people generated 60% more novel useful ideas the moment their legs started moving.
The skeptical question is the obvious one. Maybe it was the fresh air. Maybe it was the scenery passing by. Maybe it was the change of environment doing the work, not the walking itself.
Oppezzo killed every one of those explanations with one experimental decision. She put people on a treadmill facing a blank wall. No scenery. No fresh air. No environmental change. Just legs moving in place while staring at white drywall. The 60% boost held.
Then she ran the experiment that closed the case completely. She took participants outside in two conditions. Half of them walked through a Stanford courtyard. The other half were pushed through the exact same courtyard in a wheelchair. Same outdoor stimulation. Same scenery passing at the same speed. The only difference was whether the legs were moving.
The walkers produced dramatically more novel high-quality ideas than the wheelchair group. The outdoors did almost nothing on its own. The walking did everything.
She also tested the opposite kind of thinking. Convergent thinking. The kind where there is one right answer and you have to narrow down to it. Word puzzles where 3 words share a hidden fourth word that connects them. The seated participants did slightly better on these. Walkers got slightly worse.
Walking is not a general intelligence enhancer. It does one specific thing. It opens up the divergent search inside your brain. The part that generates options. The part that produces unexpected connections. The part that takes a problem and finds five ways into it instead of one.
When you need to converge on the single right answer, sit down. When you need to find the answer in the first place, get up.
The mechanism is now well understood. Walking selectively activates what neuroscientists call the default mode network, the system inside your brain that runs when you are not consciously focused on anything. The DMN is where mind-wandering happens. Where memories cross-reference each other. Where ideas that have been sitting in separate folders inside your head finally bump into each other.
When you sit at a desk and force yourself to concentrate, you suppress the DMN. When you walk at a natural pace, the executive part of your brain gets just busy enough handling the walking that the DMN comes online and starts doing the work that focus was blocking.
The most useful finding in the entire paper is the one almost nobody quotes. The boost did not turn off the moment people stopped walking. Participants who walked first and then sat back down stayed elevated. Their next round of seated creativity work was still significantly better than people who had been sitting the whole time. The rest lingered for at least several minutes after the legs stopped moving.
You do not need to do creative work while walking. You need to walk before the creative work. The brain holds the state.
Edited down a long tweet. (x)
Nothing like spending the last 6 hours crying over a god-damned cartoon
here are some additional requirements I would add to the United States presidency:
you are not eligible for the presidency if you are over the age of 65, if you turn 65 in office, that is fine but you cannot campaign if you are over 65
you cannot be president if you are a felon
you cannot be president if you have a personal net worth over $8 million
you cannot be presidency if you have had to file for bankruptcy in a business venture
you cannot be president if you cannot pass a basic neurological exam
you cannot be president if you have been convicted of or found liable for any sex crime, domestic violence or sexual harassment. unproven allegations are cause for investigation and can result in immediate termination from office if proven.
you cannot be president if you have been divorced more than once
you cannot be president if you never smoked weed out of a soda can in high school
you have to be up to date on all of your shots and forklift certification
straight cis white men are barred from holding executive office, if you’re a cisgender white guy and you want to run for president, you have to kiss another man with tongue for at least 15 minutes on national television and you’re disqualified if you display any sign of disgust
candidate may choose any American man past the age of majority as a partner for the presidential gayness confirmation ritual as long as they consent 
"you cannot campaign if you're over 65" and "if you turn 65 while in office that's fine" implies you actually can't campaign if you're over 64.
Anyway, no, if you turn 65 while President that's not fine. The chair immediately goes to your vice president. Campaigning as president when you're 61 is very discouraged for this reason. If the vice president is already over 64 then it goes down the line of succession until someone isn't.
There will be billionaires, corporate executives, and other groups conspiring against encumbents they fear, to get them arrested and charged with an easily faked bogus felony to prohibit them from becoming president. A lot of corrupt judges and police willing to play ball for some extra money. I suggest the substance of the felony should be considered; fraud and financial felonies with established victims like in Trump's case isn't something that can (easily?) be faked. Chelsea Manning was convicted in military court for whistleblowing and holding our military accountable, I don't think she should be barred from becoming the President.
I don't have a direct argument for this but that number should mean something, whereas it looks like it was arbitrarily chosen. Why not 1 million? Why not $500k?
That's a terrible idea for an excrutiating amount of reasons. So many small businesses file for bankruptcy because they got burned for not being ruthless and exploitative, some for getting outpriced by their billion dollar competitors, some for getting sued into oblivion by a sociopath taking advantage of our lawsuit system, some because their spouse or child fell ill and our healthcare system took a toll on finances and time. You're going to bar a lot of good leaders from attempting to become the president. Abraham Lincoln, for example, filed for bankruptcy 25 years before he was elected president.
Supported
See #2. ..... I agree with the essence of the rule, I don't want rapists or domestic violence abusers as our leaders. But Trump admitted to sexual harassment and wasn't convicted of it. He was found liable in a civil lawsuit, but not convicted of any sex crimes or violence despite mountains of evidence, including his own verbal admissions. Regardless, if this becomes a rule, you're going to have encumbents suddenly get accused and charged for rape or sexual violence allegations that never happened, with enough corruption even unproven claims will lead to a conviction if it becomes a hard rule that bars someone from leadership. People with influence who have committed sex crimes will get away with it and still be eligible for Presidency. Like I said I support the rule but history has proven it will not work in our favor.
On the surface I don't think getting divorced should bar you, I was initially going to say that maybe if a candidate is divorced twice they have to get a public endorsement from both their ex-spouses, but that can be easily bought. Then I looked at history again and the two worst U.S. presidents in history were the only ones who ever got divorced, so maybe this is a good rule
Some people are allergic. Some people had very strict parents and they couldn't smoke until college. In high school, some of the poorest people I grew up with scavanged for quarters and saved their tips for two days in order to buy a cheap glass pipe for their weed and never needed a plastic bottle or soda can. This rule needs to be modified.
Supported
15 minutes is excessive for a lot of people. I'm not saying most people. I'm just saying I'm a cishet man and I could do it with 0 disgust, but I'd get bored. My kissing partner would get frustrated, the audience would roll their eyes. Kissing someone you're not attracted to is boring. Drop it down to 2 minutes. Long enough to get the point, not so long that you need a bed. If you personally need more than 2 minutes to be satisfied then make the cishet white man suck a dick instead, 15 minutes makes sense then.
I shave with a safety razor and very cheap shave soap sticks, I bought a shave brush from a company called YAQI, but their logo.. Well.
Yaoi Brush.
It's just me and my gay little brush now.
Futurama Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth Cosplay
Created by Tested
(via: Kotaku)
I THOUGHT THAT WAS A 3D MODEL JESUS CHRIST
Good news everyone!
Wow.
hey everyone "I" have something to show "you"