Cupboard Storage

(I know I don't know how to tag okay I just panic and start typing every possible theme and/or trigger aaahhh)

[gutsygills]

mold pisses me off so much

oh you have to eat your produce the moment it leaves the store or the fuckin Hungering Dust will get it. and. poison your food

[tobiasdrake]

I ran into this post years ago and to be honest, it has completely reoriented the way I engage with food.

Like. I’ve always sorta understood that things grow moldy or stale or sour or such if left out, but I never really internalized it in a meaningful way.

But now I’m just like.

Yeah. The hungering dust. There exists omnivorous dust in the air that will eat my food if I don’t.

Those bagels have been sitting there for a week. Are we going to eat them soon or are we leaving them for the hungering dust?

Pizza’s been sitting out on the counter for an hour. Everyone’s enjoying the pizza, but if we don’t want “everyone” to include the hungering dust then we should probably put it away soon.

That’s just. That’s how food works to me now. There exists an invisible predator in the air that hungers for your yummies, and it will not hesitate to eat your food if you don’t make the effort to protect and preserve it. And eat what can’t be preserved before the dust can.

Life-changing.

[the-missing-number]

food doesn’t actually “go bad”, it just gets eaten by something else first

[the-haiku-bot]

food doesn’t actually

“go bad”, it just gets eaten

by something else first

Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.

[everythingfox]

Crumch

[underwaterfraulein]

Paging @gothiccharmschool !

[gothiccharmschool]

FUZZY BABY!!!

[tannisroute]

isn't it crazy that a woman being gender nonconforming literally just requires her to exist in her own body without making any changes whatsoever. why does the fact that i don't wear makeup and i don't shave and i don't wear a bra have to be some political act. why can't i just fucking exist

[yourreddancer]

The European Union already forced Apple to abandon its proprietary charging port and adopt USB-C across its entire iPhone lineup. It just did something bigger. A new EU mandate requires every smartphone sold in Europe including Apple devices to feature a battery that can be replaced by the user without specialist tools, without voiding a warranty, and without sending the device to a manufacturer approved service center. Batteries must maintain a minimum capacity threshold after a set number of charge cycles and replacement parts must remain available for up to ten years after a model goes on sale.

The consumer electronics industry built its current business model around batteries that degrade, cannot be replaced at home, and create a natural upgrade cycle every two to three years. The EU just legislated that model out of existence in the world's largest regulatory market.

Apple, Samsung, and every other manufacturer now faces a choice between redesigning their devices for the European market or accepting that their current hardware architecture is no longer legally sellable there.

Given that no company walks away from European consumers voluntarily the phones are going to change and once they change for Europe the rest of the world will ask why theirs still do not.

[makingqueerhistory]

I've been hearing that we're not supposed to use labels like "gay" and "trans" to describe historical figures. But like, they were homosexual or transgendered. Why is that verboten?

This is actually a pretty controversial part of researching queer history, so I am going to try and give a thorough answer! There is a vocal portion of people who study history who believe that using modern labels to describe historical figures does harm to the study of history. I've heard both sides of the argument pretty thoroughly so I'll try and sum up my understandings on them, while also sharing my personal viewpoint.

Okay on the side of not using modern terms I find the more academic side of the argument. The thing is, the labels as we understand them now have fluctuated intensely and will likely continue to do so. So it means it's a different thing to call someone trans fifty years ago versus now. There was a time that the popular (and academic) understanding of transgender excluded anyone with same gender attraction. So people like Lou Sullivan were excluded from medical treatment because they were gay and trans. This is to say that without a fixed definition of labels it is hard to pin a historical figure down with certainty and doing so runs the risk of erasing or diminishing any evidence that doesn't suit the label.

It is also worth discussing that words like "queer" imply difference and when applied to cultures where same-gender attraction and gender nonconformity are normal, it can flatten the unique realities between cultures. Like, just because in some European cultures "queerness" was an oddity, does not mean that is a universal truth. There are many cultures and eras where what we understand now as "queerness" wouldn't be different or unexpected to any degree. On that note, applying the term queerness to cultures where the gender binary didn't exist runs the risk of flattening the discussions and participating in a neo-colonial line of thought.

All of this being said, I personally think that these arguments have merit, but don't convince me. First I have to speak to my personal experience which is to say the more discourse there is around a type of identity the more this argument is trotted out. It is not applied universally by any stretch of the imagination.

You will absolutely see people call a historical figure gay, but then start arguments over using they/them pronouns, asexual, aromantic, and two-spirit identities. I also believe in a debunking argument that says that if we are willing to use the word "feminist" to describe people before the more modern birth of the feminist movement, then queer terms are also allowed.

That being said, I absolutely respect the academic perspective of not using ANY of these terms and exploring history without labels like these at all and maybe finding more nuance through that method. The thing is I don't think just because it makes sense in one type of discussion, it should be applied to EVERY type of conversation. There is frankly an obvious difference between an academic book or paper versus a project like ours that is framed around accessibility.

I also find the people who fight against using these terms often have a very fixed version of history in their minds. There is one way of looking at the past and that is the CORRECT way, which in my opinion is a thought stopping behaviour. I think bringing queer terms into historical discussions reflects something very important about the study of history, fluidity.

Any study of history that relies on one truth, one perspective, and perfection, doesn't interest me. I think what makes history so valuable as an object of study is that we are always learning more and are always expanding our understandings.

I have gotten some backlash for using they/them pronouns for historical figures that did not use these pronouns during their life. But I am not married to the idea that if they were alive today they would use these pronouns. The conversation I am instead having is that when we aren't sure using they/them is a good default. Instead of it being a theory about one persons personal identity, it is instead a reminder that in this moment we are sitting in uncertainty and that's okay. I love when I see people use she/her pronouns for Claude Cahun, or King Kristina, I think they are making a valid choice. My use of they/them is often to remind people that it is a choice that they are making.

Regardless, I think there is space in the discussion for multiple points of view and as long as someone doesn't harass me over my stance (which has happened) I love hearing and learning different ways people study history. We all bring our own baggage and understandings when it comes to the study of history and I am much more intrigued by exploring that rather than muting it.

[sometiktoksarevalid]

[fuckyeahcomicsbaby]

Different Stories Resonate with Different People

[lovingmyselfishard]

I will always reblog this.

[brightwanderer]

I once spent three hours scouring the internet to find this comic again, I will not let that be repeated.

[thecollectibles]

Siren by Michael MacRae

[shutyourmoustache]

“There’s simply no room for me to park my hellcat” wins best in show for me.

[fatsexybitch]

I have crotchless panties with more coverage than that

[atelier-xm]

There's a new mural in Szczecin

[kaava]

You forgot to add the best thing about it

[wheelsgoroundincircles]

Pierre-Jules Boulanger

Paris fell on a Tuesday. By Wednesday, German officers were already walking the factory floor at Citroën. Their orders were simple: France's greatest automobile manufacturer would now build trucks for the Wehrmacht. Supply vehicles. Military transports. The mechanical backbone of Nazi occupation. Pierre-Jules Boulanger, the 55-year-old chairman who had spent his career building cars for French families, now faced a choice that would define everything. Refuse — and the Germans would shoot him, install someone cooperative, and build the trucks anyway. Comply fully — and he would be personally responsible for vehicles carrying soldiers to kill Allied forces, supplies sustaining the occupation, machinery enabling conquest. He refused both options. Instead, he gathered his engineers late one evening and said something they would never forget: "Production must appear respectable to the eye. But never to the heart."

The vehicle the Germans wanted was the Citroën T45 — a powerful, heavy-duty truck perfectly suited for military logistics. Reliable engine. Solid construction. Exactly what the Wehrmacht needed to keep its war machine rolling across Europe. Boulanger's engineers studied every component, looking for a vulnerability so small it would be invisible at inspection, yet catastrophic enough to matter in the field. They found it in the most ordinary place imaginable. The dipstick. That thin metal rod you pull from an engine to check the oil level — the one with a simple notch marking "full." Every German mechanic, following standard maintenance protocol, would pull it out, check the level, add oil if needed, and move on. Boulanger's engineers made one quiet adjustment. They moved the "full" notch. Not dramatically — that would be caught immediately. Just enough. A small filing. A modest repositioning. When a German mechanic checked the oil and the dipstick read full, the engine would actually be running low. Not catastrophically empty. Not enough to trigger an immediate warning. Just enough to create chronic, invisible stress on the engine's most critical components. Under normal use, nothing obvious would happen. But under sustained military operation — long supply runs, heavy loads, demanding terrain — the engine would begin destroying itself from the inside. Heat. Friction. Accelerating wear on parts designed to float in a film of oil that was never quite there. And then, eventually, on some road far from any factory inspector, the engine would seize. Every truck that left the Citroën facility passed German quality inspection perfectly. Test drives were smooth. Oil levels appeared correct. Vehicles were approved, signed off, shipped to Wehrmacht units across occupied Europe. The German mechanics who serviced them were doing everything right. They checked the oil. They topped it off when the dipstick said to. They followed every protocol. The dipstick told them everything was fine. The dipstick was lying.

Weeks later, reports began filtering back through Wehrmacht supply chains. Citroën trucks were developing unusual engine problems. Vehicles were seizing during operations. Supply convoys were breaking down at inexplicable rates. Commanders blamed driver error, poor roads, excessive loads. No one suspected the dipstick, because every truck from that factory had the same dipstick. There was no correctly calibrated reference to compare it against. The sabotage was, in the most elegant sense, self-concealing. Meanwhile, Boulanger ran a parallel campaign of productive-looking paralysis. Workers were instructed to maintain schedules — but never exceed them. No urgency. No efficiency gains. If a German officer demanded faster output, Boulanger would nod thoughtfully and cite material shortages, equipment maintenance, worker fatigue. Always polite. Always documented. Always just plausible enough. The frustration in German command was visible. Why was Citroën slower than other factories? Why were their trucks underperforming in the field? They suspected resistance. They could never prove it.

In 1944, French Resistance fighters raided Gestapo headquarters in Paris and discovered something chilling — a detailed blacklist of French civilians to be arrested and executed upon Allied invasion. Pierre-Jules Boulanger's name was on it. The Nazis had never found the tampered dipstick. They had never proved deliberate sabotage. But they knew something was wrong at Citroën, and they knew who was responsible. They were right. They were just too late. When Allied forces liberated France that same year, Boulanger didn't seek recognition or medals. He went back to his drafting table. His first post-war project became one of the most beloved vehicles in automotive history — the Citroën 2CV. A simple, honest car for ordinary French families. Cheap to run, impossible to break, designed to carry four people and fifty kilograms of potatoes across rural France on almost no fuel at all. Nearly seven million were built over four decades. The same engineers who had quietly dismantled a military machine with a filed notch on a piece of metal were now building the car that helped rebuild a nation.

Boulanger died in 1950, before he could see his full legacy take shape. But the story of what he did — or more precisely, what he chose not to fully do — traveled through generations of Citroën workers, whispered on factory floors long after the occupation ended. He didn't have weapons. He didn't lead raids. He didn't blow anything up. He just decided, very quietly, that the line marked "full" didn't have to mean full. And somewhere on a forgotten road in occupied Europe, a Wehrmacht truck's engine seized mid-convoy, stranding its soldiers and disrupting its mission. The German mechanic jumped out, frustrated, and did what he'd been trained to do. He checked the dipstick. It said the oil was fine. He never understood what had happened. That was exactly the point.

[autumncottageattic]

instagram - chevres_miniatures_moulinjouet

[shutyourmoustache]

After the hell of the past two days, this reminded me of what America could and should be about. It’s a little pocket of hope when our administration is trying to extinguish diversity and community and basic human decency and replace them with fear and hate and division.

[wizardarchetypes]

Awesome video displaying phenomenal craftsmanship—posted by one of my favorite Tiktok accounts: Tlingit_Haida

Aani (the land known as Southeast Alaska) has been home to the Tlingit and Haida Peoples since time immemorial

Edit: To clarify, this particular video features Git Hoan Dancers, of the Tsimshian Tribe. They say so in the video, but I realize my caption about the Tlingit and Haida Nations might cause confusion.

[tlirsgender]

Being critical of your interests is sooooo fun when you have the critic gene & then you sound kind of insane to the average tv watcher when you're like "this is my favorite show, It's Racist" & then you try to clarify what you mean & get that [Speech (legendary) - FAILURE] "the racism is really interesting though"

[tlirsgender]

[Speech (legendary) - SUCCESS] I find the sociopolitical context of pulpy old sci-fi born circa the civil rights movement really fascinating to analyze especially when it was progressive for its time but still reveals the writers' unexamined biases in the subtext

[sqbr]

Them: So you're saying its bad and I shouldn't watch it?

Me: I mean depends on your tolerance for this type of racism, but like I said it's my favourite show, it def has some great parts if you're up for it.

Them: Oh so it's not racist.

Me: It absolutely is.

Them: So you're saying racism is ok??

Me: No.

[mikkeneko]

[crowshapedvoid]

[ID: a reply from @jingerpi that says:

when you become sufficiently woke (literal meaning) your options are to always be miserable about everything forever or to find intrigue in case studies of racism as illustration of the society that made them

/end ID]

[blignick]

[tiktoksthataregood-ish]

[nitewrighter]

Peer-reviewing tags by @dickwitch