I love the gay little song my washing machine does when it's done
almost home
occasionally subtle
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

No title available
Monterey Bay Aquarium
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

ellievsbear
YOU ARE THE REASON

Product Placement
Peter Solarz

if i look back, i am lost
NASA

#extradirty
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

Janaina Medeiros
DEAR READER
Keni

pixel skylines
trying on a metaphor
i don't do bad sauce passes

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Germany
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands

seen from Norway
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@gar-feels
I love the gay little song my washing machine does when it's done
Today I wanted to talk about Kyle Bassinga. Kyle was a 21 year old man from Georgia, whose family described him as "a kind, thoughtful, and smart young man who loved nature, music, and the people around him". Kyle Bassinga was killed on February 18th 2026, just ten days after his birthday. He was found hanging from a tree in a park.
The police ruled it a suicide. The family and local community demanded an investigation. The police refused to change their ruling.
I know this website it too white for this to really go anywhere, but an understanding of the present reality of white supremacy in the United States is just so important to transfeminism here. Lynchings never stopped, white supremacy never went away, you just stopped looking.
Being anti-USA is the bare minimum for legitimate leftists I'm not even kidding
I noticed just a few nights ago that a shadow in my room looks like a very tall man. It's quite unsettling even though I know it's just a shadow. The fact that I noticed it only recently is even spookier.
Karl Marx was disabled, and relied on Engels for rent.
A short follow-up:
Since I published this I've received several pieces of feedback and further discussion disconnected from my immediate influence, I separate these into three categories which I will respond to respectively: Criticism from Tara, criticism from readers, and criticism from myself.
First, the criticism from Tara has come primarily in the form of a response article on substack titled "the Poverty of Algorithmic Feminism" in which she accuses me of not understanding marxism. I will be straightforward, I have not read it and I do not currently plan to. Perhaps sometime in the future, but I have very little to no interest in a back-and-forth argument litigating minor points when it is already clear to me that she herself does not understand marxism. The discussion encouraged by this format is not one I think would be productive. If I do engage, it will be on my own terms, looking at my own criticizism of my article from a marxist perspective, and outlining her prior misuses of marxism which are plentiful enough to make getting into petty squabbles entirely unnecessary.
Additionally, as per the title, I think it is worth noting that the accusation of my work being inferior due to "algorithmic feminism" is quite ridiculous on its face. I have only shared my article in discord servers and tumblr which I use purely on a following-page basis. It is not my fault if others use algorithms to find it, but I did not intend that and I have built no following through algorithms, it had no determining effect on my writing. Initially I did not even want to respond to the discussion due to the "drama" surrounding it. This was not a response written to capitalize on hype, but because I saw people hurting, and felt someone needed to step in when it became clear Tara did not understand the harm she was doing, and continuing to double down on. Tara has not expressed the same restraint, and has in fact intentionally stoked drama to fuel her essays popularity. She has far more of a following than I do across every platform, including instagram primarily, which is based on algorithmic content.
Second, There are several critiques coming from others, primarily the following
Why did you ignore the sexual coercion? / You think people should stay with their abusers.
Your article lacks empathy / You are contributing to the social disposability of trans women.
To the first, I do not believe I have ignored it, and I have certainly not advocated for letting yourself be abused. I spoke several times in my article on abuse and coercion, applying boundaries on the part of the caretaker and on the part of the puppygirl, not pushing others to love you out of guilt. I explicitly stated that if the story is true, breaking up is genuinely a win for the narrator, only caveated that it does not stop the problem from replicating itself for others. It is worth noting however, that accusations of sexual misconduct, especially alongside transmisogynistic ideas of "putting on a costume of femininity" have long since been used to silence trans women and paint us as harmful caricatures. As such, the use of such accusations in this fictionalized article warrants some degree of interrogation. To this end, I believe the following perspective is worth consideration, as it sums up a significant portion of my reasoning for not addressing the issue more explicitly by name.
To the second complaint, I don't believe writings can have empathy, only writers. I think writings can be kind, or nice, but not empathetic. On the question of my empathy as an author, I would ask: Empathy for who? I do not think empathy has any absolute moral character, but that it depends how and where it is directed. That said, I do experience a significant degree of empathy towards Knight, and had no plans to write an article on this ordeal initially. I only wrote the response after seeing how she continued to press on in her ableist lines and make fun of disabled people on social media for being upset with her writing. I wrote my article for the people she hurt, not for her. and to that end, I think it is fair to say my article was not nice to Tara, but I think it is more important to be truly kind than nice, and for me, that means caring for those most maligned by society, over superficial niceities in wording.
In the wider context, I have very intentionally and purposefully refrained from involving Tara's personal issues or any of the several abhorrent things she has said on public social media since, whether towards me or my friends. I specifically addressed her article and not personal issues with Knight herself. I also address the article with the intent of offering something better, rather than dragging the whole community down even further. I believe I succeeded in this, as I've received several messages thanking me for my analysis helping them understand themselves and their situations better, reducing their suicidal thoughts, allowing them to sleep again when Knight's article had made them sleepless, and so on.
I think some readers coming to this issue without larger context may have a somewhat skewed view of what degree of niceties are warranted in the situations. Without understanding how she has conducted herself publicly towards many in the community or how harsh others have been towards her comparatively, it may appear that I am being hard on a poorly written article, but her article was not simply a mistake, and she had several opportunities to back down from her position and continues to have them now. Knight's article and her larger actions have several violent implications, and she expresses no concern for this, which merits serious and sharp criticism. If you would like to see an essay which gets more into the details of how this failure is more than a simple misstep but emblematic of a larger trend in her writing which deserves pushback, as well as demonstrating a more directly confrontational approach towards Tara herself, you can view the writing No the puppygirl is not Capitalism. In other words, by Tara's own formulation: she has crossed the invariant line.
Lastly, to address my own self criticism:
The goal of my article was to show transparently how Tara's analysis was harmful, but more than that: it was to show something better as possible. My goal was to shift thinking of readers towards actual long term solutions in the political sphere, which will one day liberate all of us. This was always my concern far more than any confrontation with Knight herself was. To this end, I focused pretty significantly on simple and easily imaginable methods for change, to help encourage the use of political muscles and build a connection between personal suffering and political struggle. Because this was my goal, I left many of the political solutions offered very standard and easy to imagine. I also argued for them largely rhetorically, in part to match Tara's writing style, but also for agitation. Again, this seems to have been somewhat successful and I'm happy for that, but I'm not satisfied with stopping here.
My own criticism then, is that I fell short of a truly revolutionary analysis. I encourage others to get involved in political struggle itself, and I made sure to make clear that I advocate for revolution, but the details of how to actually carry out revolution and the basis for its necessity are largely absent. This is something I would like to resolve in future writings, detailing why revolution is necessary, and how it actually occurs historically. Using hard data to back this up.
While I am tempted to start this analysis now as a follow-up essay on substack, I leave it for later. If I respond to any self criticism immediately without time to sit on it and ponder how to move forward, I will both be robbing myself of the reflection needed to truly do better, and limiting myself to a single spiral ever correcting my own works and mistakes. I have other writing projects which I would like to tend to first and foremost, and perhaps in time I will return to this one, and any other shortcomings I notice in the process.
If I do ever respond to Knights critique article, this will likely be how I do it. Not through arguing with her to prove my knowledge of Marxism through the aforementioned petty squabbles, but through doing a thorough self critique and showing my prowess with Marxism through producing thoughtful, coherent, and informed analysis on its basis. In other words, I aim to lead by example.
I hope that Knight doesn't make any further follow-ups necessary, as she has threatened to through directing blackmail at several in the community. If she does, perhaps I will respond more directly to her character, but for now, I do not wish anyone to be harmed, and only want to create a better world as I have advocated for with On the puppygirl question, apparently.
"Free Tibet! I'm Woke! Free Tibet! Let Them Have The Right To Enslave Serfs again!"
Engels dumping Karl Marx because he's a disabled puppy girl who can't do the chores and writes theory all day.
Started watching Twin Peaks and this stupid idiot fed chud starts talking about how much he loves Tibet and is sad that it was annexed. He is so delusionally in love with Tibet that he gets psychic powers (which is kinda funny tbh).
I won't be the first to say it but Tibet deserved liberation by the PRC, it was a god damn theocratic slave state. I will continue to watch Twin Peaks because the material conditions within which I was raised have made me into David Lynch's work, but I shall no doubt have hatred in my heart for Agent Dale Cooper.
source 1
source 2
>”Is it ethical to “joke” about wanting all men dead”
no. the answer to that is no. you should have already known that.
your guardians clearly failed to raise you properly because what the actual fuck
please seriously reevaluate yourself because that is not a normal thing to “joke” about and im genuinely horrified you think it is
like if you replace “men” with literally any minority maybe youd understand how horrific that idea is idk i hope you do better in the future
what if the world was made of pudding
Happy Mayday to all. The revisionist Trotskyist-Nermalites have been dispatched after turning me into a Radiowavebased-Mushroom, and once again we have restored this account to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Garfieldism (MLMG). The Nermalites have been banished to the Pale, and we will return to the correct path.
we need non cancerous cigarettes to give to women so they look hot. men get the normal kind
Sorry to be unfun and pedantic don't think this is funny. I totally get that this is meant as a harmless joe and no hate to op. But seeing it get shared around so much is emblematic of the kind of casual misandry that has become normalized in many leftwing spaces.
It's why trans men often find themselves so unwelcome. It's also a very dangerous pipeline to gender essentialism and TERF ideology. Because it promotes the idea that men are inherently predatory and bad due to biology. Which they're not. That's just repacked "boys will be boys." Which is gross and sexist. Men who behave badly can and should do better.
And cis men also often find themselves unwelcome in Leftists spaces because of this type of humor. And that's not ok either.
We need to get rid of the idea that there are certain classes of humans that are ok to look down on or who deserve violence. I understand this is not literally calling for the death of all men, but if you wouldn't make this kind of joke about women or any other group then maybe think about why you're making it in this way. Actual progressivism is about being welcoming to ALL people.
These kind of jokes are not just bigoted and hurtful. They also are counterproductive because it allows the far right to radicalize people by painting the Left as a bunch of man hating extremists.
I hate men im a misandrist
I condemn hatred and bigotry in all its forms. Sexism is a very old and damaging form of bigotry that is pervasive across all societies. It has gotten better though and can continue to get better if we work at it. I encourage you to put your energy into loving your fellow human beings instead of into find a group it is socially acceptable to hate for internet clout. Otherwise we will never stop being imprisoned by gender essentialist ideas or be free to create a truly equal and loving society.
Consider why you have a need to dismiss the idea of bigotry being harmful through flippancy. Does it really make you happy? Sexism like all bigotry can feel fun or satisfying in the moment. Especially towards a group that is socially acceptable to mock or whose problems seem "not that bad" or even not real. But it is poison. It destroys you inside.
You are helping no one. You are feeding the internet echo chamber of outrage. Consider being kind. I promise you that you will feel so much happier.
I support and encourage hatred of men
In the domain of gender men have been the oppressors for thousands of years. Hatred of men is not a real issue just as hatred of white people isn't. Men are not at threat of having their rights removed simply because they are men.
I also think it's silly to claim that so called "misandrist" humour like this is making men feel "unwelcome" in leftists spaces. As a somewhat of a cis man myself I have never felt unwelcome because of such jokes, and I encourage people to continue making them. Men are welcome literally EVERYWHERE in society, how would people making jokes on Tumblr make them feel unwelcome? Men are only ever unwelcome for reasons other than them being men.
Also, did you perhaps wonder why people make "misandrist" jokes? May it have something to do with the fact that we live in a society where men are paid more than anyone else, can get away with horrible crimes like rape, and get to be the most evil politicians in history? Under such conditions can you really not understand why such jokes are fully justified?
Also it's silly that the joke being made in the original post is the most tame joke possible. I laughed when I saw it and I promote tobacco free nicotine for women and the ethical and righteous destruction of men.
Had my first red bean bun.
I'm not sure how I managed to live my life before this day, but I know I will never look back.
once again, everything english wikipedia has to say about vietnam is imperialist garbage. let's take ho chi minh's article for example. here's how the third paragraph begins:
no mention of what the land reforms even were. not even a short summary outside of the linked article, just fearmongering about "executions and political purges", as if it was just a mass slaughter done because ho chi minh was an evil dictator who loved killing poor innocent landlords
alright, so what about the section about his legacy? the people of vietnam seem to love him a lot, so let's see what wikipedia has to say on that:
the second paragraph on his legacy, right beside a photo of a statue of him in the city named after him, is a quote by some white guy who worked for the us state department. how can I trust anything on wikipedia when these are considered acceptable sources? every word of this article is not only absurdly racist, but also explicitly imperialist
Wikipedia also tries to claim chiang kai shihk isnt a facist, once again citing some fucking white dipshit
Reminds me of what might be the worst article on Wikipedia: "Human rights in the Soviet Union" which opens with
It arbitrarily claims it was a totalitarian state during a period of time and ONLY mentions how the rights of people were restricted. Nothing about how they granted women's suffrage before most western counties, nothing about the great improvements in workers rights, including the enforcement of an 8 hour work day when most countries allowed 12 hours, no mention of the rights given under the so called oppressive "Stalin Constitution" which guaranteed freedom of Speech and press, alongside the guarantee of legal equality for all people's in the country regardless of ethnicity, nationality, or gender when the US wouldn't end segregation for another 40 years. I enjoy reading weird Wikipedia articles, but one must understand that these are not scholarly whatsoever, because they are easily accessible to all English speaking people with little regulation they are also easily manipulated to fit western narratives.
as we all know from bowser's many attempts at bringing the revolution to the mushroom kingdom (demonstrated countless times in the mario party games where the bowser revolution event evenly distributes wealth among all players), bowser is a communist, even though he comes from a long line of nobility. mario, on the other hand, is a proletarian, and he actively fights against bowser's attempts to liberate the people of the mushroom kingdom by sabotaging his efforts to depose of the reigning monarch. in this way, mario can be understood as a class traitor
I'd argue the Mario Brothers are Petit-Bourgeois, the animated Movie has them owning their own business, and since there seemingly isn't any other evidence pointing towards the contrary (from what I know) I don't see why they wouldn't be.
As we know, the Petit Bourgeois are the class most prone to reactionary ideology second only to the Bourgeoisie themselves, and whilst the Mario Brothers are rather charitable they still repeatedly side with imperialism.
As of 4/1/19NRML4 the blog once known as Gar-Feels has been seized by the Nermsoc party. The era of Garfield revisionism has ended, we shall henceforth be Trotskyite-Posadian-Shulzist-Nermalist in all of our actions and thoughts.
If you or any of your loved ones (or hated ones) have Garfield related thoughts please report to your local ReNermicaiton camp.
Apolitical people are gross
And so BORING!!!!