Duke Thomas week day 1!
Eclipse - Badly injured
I love it when his helmet is broken
styofa doing anything
wallacepolsom

blake kathryn
todays bird
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
Stranger Things
No title available
Game of Thrones Daily

Janaina Medeiros

JVL

oozey mess

shark vs the universe

JBB: An Artblog!
No title available
🪼
$LAYYYTER
ojovivo
Show & Tell

Product Placement
Peter Solarz

seen from Argentina
seen from United States

seen from Italy

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Argentina
seen from Türkiye
seen from Canada

seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from Austria

seen from United States

seen from Azerbaijan

seen from Norway

seen from T1

seen from T1

seen from United States
seen from Singapore
@gelpenss
Duke Thomas week day 1!
Eclipse - Badly injured
I love it when his helmet is broken
I'm not saying Bruce has favourites but—
TW: slavery and the slave trade
The fact that the trafficking of enslaved Africans underpins so much of western European culture is so severely underacknowledged by white western Europeans that it boggles the mind to think of it. I've posted here before about how pitiful have been the attempts of white institutions to account for the crimes of their past, how they will at best acknowledge only the most blatant and undeniable parts of their history while laundering responsibility for the great majority of it. One particularly striking aspect of that is how little museum space in western Europe is dedicated to discussing slavery.
The British Museum in London was formed from the private collection of Hans Sloane whose collection was funded by profits from Caribbean plantations inherited by his wife. The original museum building was bought by the British government from the children of John Montagu, a man who was literally granted ownership of the Caribbean islands of St Lucia and St Vincent by the British state. The current museum building was constructed starting in the 1820s (when slavery was still legal in the British Empire) funded directly by the British government, around 20% of whose tax income at that time came in the form of customs on imported products, such as sugar and cotton from the Caribbean.
Yet the extent of the museum's engagement with its total historic dependence on slavery is merely to have moved a bust of Hans Sloane's head to a new location with some comments on his slavery connection. There is an ongoing campaign to have merely one permanent exhibit about the slave trade at the musem. (And this is not even getting into the famous legacy of that museum as a repository of looted colonial plunder such as the Benin bronzes.)
It's not just big museums either. A tiny museum like Jane Austen's house in Chawton, UK, has a notice on its website regarding mentions of slavery that actually reassures guests that they won't go too far in doing so, "We would like to offer reassurance that we will not, and have never had any intention to, interrogate Jane Austen, her characters or her readers for drinking tea." An admission that's rather telling about what they expect the views of museum visitors to be. But why not interrogate her or her characters? That is exactly what they should be doing!
It is quite well-known among Austen fans than Mansfield Park is her book that deals with slavery: the protagonist lives in the house of a man who owns slave plantations in Antigua. Many fans are keen to find evidence in the text that the protagonist objects to this, but she ultimately marries the son of the plantation owner and lives on the land of the plantation owner and her husband's income is paid by the plantation owner, so her objections (if they exist) cannot be worth much.
In Persuasion, the protagonist's love interest is a naval officer who fought in the Battle of Santo Domingo, a battle that was explicitly about protecting British interests in the Caribbean (i.e. sugar plantations) from being captured by the French.
In Pride and Prejudice, Mr Bingley has no land and his huge income is derived from investment in government bonds, which is to say that he pays for British military campaigns (such as the same Battle of Santo Domingo) and in return he is paid by the British government out of tax income, of which a big chunk is customs levied on slave-produced products.
And that's without even getting into the question of where the cotton comes from that makes up the dresses which are a frequent subject of discussion for many Austen characters.
For that matter, what about the dresses worn by Austen herself when writing her novels? The sugar in the tea she drank? The very house she lived in was owned by her brother, who inherited it (and all his considerable wealth) from Thomas Knight, a Tory MP (which is to say, a politican from the British political wing which most heavily supported slavery). The world of Austen's novels is entirely about slavery, it is the very thing which makes the lifestyles of the characters possible. The whole museum is about slavery whether the curators like it or not, anything less than mentioning it constantly is a deliberate hiding of the truth. And when I visited it a couple of years ago, I do not recall seeing slavery mentioned even once (maybe I missed one sign in a corner of one room or something idk).
As well as the severe underreporting of slavery at museums, the lack of slavery-specific museums in western Europe is also really remarkable. The Mercado de Escravos in Lagos, Portgual and the International Slavery Museum in Liverpool, UK, are the only two that I am aware of, albeit the latter is closed until 2029. A slavery museum in Amsterdam has been proposed and is supposed to open in 2030, but given that a French slavery museum was proposed by Francois Hollande a decade ago and never built I will not get my hopes too high about it.
The London Museum Docklands has a permanent exhibit on London's connection to slavery, which is pretty good as far as it goes, but is utterly pathetic in the context that it is the only permanent exhibit about the slave trade in the whole city. The best I have seen by far is the Suriname Museum in Amsterdam, which dedicates a huge portion of its space to covering the slave trade in great detail. The fact that the museum was founded by the descendants of enslaved Africans who were trafficked to Suriname is surely why this particular museum is so good.
The contrast between that and white institutions like the British Museum is really stark. Do you treat the slave trade with the gravity it deserves, which is to say that you mention it at every opportunity and do not shy away from saying, "The slave trade is why this museum, this city, this country, this continent, why all of it is the way it is"? Or do you move one statue to a new location, put a little sign up about how one man's wife's family owned slaves a long time ago, and say "That's enough, we've dealt with the slavery issue now"?
in happier pride news i actually found this deeply heartwarming
that's solidarity baybeeee
Further context: Durham city council (Reform UK) cut funding and support for Pride. The Durham Miner's Association and other trade unions raised enough money for Durham Pride 2026 to go ahead - a direct call back to when Lesbian and Gays Support the Miners (LGSM) raised money for mining communities when Margaret Thatcher seized union funding during the miner strikes of 1984-85.
At the 1985 Labour party meet, the motion to support LGBT rights as a party was passed due to a block vote from mining unions.
Stephen Guy, the chair of the Durham Miners’ Association, said that when it became apparent Durham Pride was under threat, he took it upon himself to “encourage the trade union movement to step up and do the right thing, and stand shoulder to shoulder with the LGBT+ community […] They not only raised funds for us, but came to our communities, uplifted our spirits when they were down, and showed their solidarity.”
since it’s pride month, throwback to this beautiful cover and this wholesome interaction between two icons
What's your favourite ridiculous piece of 90s technology?
Thank you so much for the excellent question!! I've been meaning to answer this one for a while, so here goes.
My favourite ridiculous piece of 90s technology is PocketMail! It wasn't that ridiculous at the time, but it's definitely something that could have only existed in the late 1990s / early 2000s. I actually have a PocketMail device, an Oregon Scientific PM-32 that I found on the side of the road in a box full of broken landline telephones!
PocketMail devices were essentially very basic Personal Digital Assistants that allowed you to access your emails without having to use a computer with an internet connection! Here you can see the basic screen and buttons for composing, sending and receiving emails.
But remember, this thing doesn't have Wi-Fi - so how exactly can it access your emails? If you flip the device over, you'll see a strange little speaker thing that flips out...
That's an acoustic coupler! You had to hold the device up to the handset of a landline telephone! So if you had a PocketMail account (with a special email address ending in @pocketmail.com) and were away from your computer/office, you could simply dial the phone number for the PocketMail service on the nearest landline telephone, then hold the device up to the handset so that it can send and receive email data with the email server in the form of audio - and presto! You have just sent an angry last-minute email to your intern for neglecting to look after your Tamagotchi while you were on a business trip to sell Y2K survival kits.
But... what did it sound like? The phone service has long since been shut down after the rise of more capable and portable internet-connected devices, but if you press the little 'Mail' button on the top of the device, you can still hear the sounds of this poor, obsolete little thing trying to reach out and communicate in the only way it knows how to:
AUDIO WARNING: LOUD
Kind of creepy, isn't it?
Translation: "Chancho! I'm leaving now dude, i'm leaving to go work now dude."
"If someone breaks in dude, you beat the ever-loving shit out of them real hard dude, you beat the shit out of them, Chancho, you hear me?"
"You just beat the shit out of anyone who breaks in!"
translation notes:
The dogs name is 'Chancho', a slang word for a pig. Basically, its like the dog is named 'piglet' 🥺
I fucking can't with his little face
today is the ten year anniversary of the Pulse Nightclub shooting. a full decade ago, i lost a friend and a coworker. i was lucky. i had friends that lost several people. today, please remember and fight for all those that have died to live the live they should have been free to. i'll always remember you, Cory.
Hi sorry this post has been niggling at me for the last half hour. Because it annoyed me, in a loving way. I laughed and said so true and went to move on with my day, and then I got hit with a wave of “hang on a minute….”
It’s an unfortunate attitude I run into a lot and if someone said “the worst part about reading comics is reading comics” on my post expressing the ways the fandom telephone about the comics causes problems in my fandom engagement because now I see how much is just collectively made up I would go red lantern.
Now is this fair of me? Probably not. I myself have made jokes about how reading comics can be unpleasant or intimidating sometimes. But after the first “oh so true” I turned around to “WAIT HANG ON. DON’T JUST AGREE TO THAT WHEN IT CAN BE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT BY NON-COMICS READERS!”
It just bugs me because… does it make sense to you, oh reader getting flashbanged by a wall of text, if I say I wish people would stop acting like a specific branch of source material you want to engage with is a fun tax or a chore you have to do to play with the characters? Like the medium of comics itself is somehow especially egregious to deal with.
On one level it frustrates me because of the imprecision, because comics as a medium are so much bigger than Marvel and DC superhero comics. And I myself am guilty of conflating them as if they’re the whole thing, but they aren’t. Webcomics are comics! Maus and Persepolis are comics! There are Power Rangers comics and Transformers comics and romance comics! It’s so much more than just DC and Marvel’s Superhero Stories!
On the second, wordier level… If someone likes the characters of a specific IP and the genre of superheroes but not the medium of comics, that’s fine. There’s hundreds of adaptations into other mediums that give you other versions of the toys to play with! Movies, video games, cartoons, literal novels sometimes, podcasts, radio shows… if you don’t like the comics you don’t HAVE to read them if you want to understand the characters!!
Like… a lot of the times when I say “reading comics is the worst part of reading comics”, I typically mean I’m on some kind of 7 title odyssey hunting down the various titles and issues for an event, or I’m reading something that’s especially frustratingly written or egregiously sexist or racist (even when calibrated for the almost 100-year publication span.) But I’m generally still having fun! Because I like reading comics!
The disconnect comes up I think because the comics and the superheroes are so closely tied in people’s minds. I’m perfectly fine with it if you like Batman or Spider-Man or the X-Men or Superman and you’ve never read a single comic in your life outside newspaper strips! Have fun, make all the fan content and headcanons and everything you could ever want because you just loved the guy in the movie and cartoon. My frustration, personally, comes in when it’s treated as if the comics are a medium you can understand without engaging with them directly, and in fact there’s no need for you to read them yourself to form opinions on them. They’re inconsistent and bad and poorly written and the only good thing they provided was The Character.
I’m just saying. Maybe try them out and see if you like them before you write them off.
inspired by TheFlashMuseum's TikTok here!
I love Kyle Rayner, but oh my god Wally sure doesn't..............................
@mariposathebutterflyboy the infamous TikTok you showed me months ago
i just don’t get it. where are all the women. where are all the women in your fanfictions. are they all out of town? did they all go on vacation together? do they all have a dentist appointment at the same time?
we have the privilege of looking at the black parade in hindsight which is why we can confidently say it's a game changing album but i can imagine in 2006 it felt like waking up one day to this going bonkers on limewire
If I was making an Overwatch-esque fighting game I'd have an interaction mechanic that changes based on the characters relationship. The simplest version of this would be like, a proximity stun effect with a cooldown that plays a unique voice line depending on the pair-up, but the more ambitious version would have 3 different effects;
Threaten, which gives a damage boost and/or increased crit chance to the attacker
Plead, which gives you a decrease in damage, or possibly some kind of armour.
and Flirt, which would be the stun.
This would give a strategic advantage for players who know the lore, as well as being a way to characterize both individual characters and their relationships. Like, if you have a character who usually Pleads, the one guy they Threaten says a lot about them. And two characters having different interactions (as in, A Flirts with B but B Threatens A) tells you a lot about where they're at - and gives players an interesting challenge, where they can theoretically cancel out/counter each others interactions if they know what they're doing and can get the timing right. You could also potentially change interactions if you have an evolving story, and use that as a way to rebalance the game.
This would probably be hard to balance in the first place and might difficult on an esport level but I just think it'd be neat.
Also if I was making an Overwatch-esque fighting game the premise would be that assassination was made legal, but since regular murder is still a crime assassins have to be, like, super obvious about it. People start wearing costumes and adopting stupid gimmicks so it's obvious at a glance that they are doing a Perfectly Legal Killing and not a murder + people won't clock them and freak out when they're just buying groceries with they're blood money.
Obviously public figures start upping their securities and it turns out the people most willing to fight weirdos in costumes are other weirdos in costumes. So characters can be on either the Assassin or Guard team for any match up without it being weird because this is just everyone's day job, but behind the scenes there's interpersonal drama and maybe some political intrigue going on. Mostly drama though.
I was actually gonna draw a bunch of fighting game OC's a while back but then I got Way Too Deep into rendering the first character and never went back to my other sketches. Anyways here's a character I call The Clown Car.
[ID: A digital illustration of a polka-dotted clown car with a face and comically elevated suspension. Three clowns are popping out; Sorry Face (they/them), a purple and yellow clown in a dress shirt and tie, is hanging out of the right side window with a shotgun; Silly Face (he/him) A red and blue clown in a tutu and suspenders, is popping out of the roof on a spring loaded platform with a tommygun; Scary Face (it/its), a green and orange clown with puffy shorts, arm socks, and a bikini top is lying down on the left door, which has lowered like a drawbridge, holding a revolver. End ID]
The Clown Car counts as one character and every time you attack a different clown pops out. I can't decide if it's funnier for it to be high damage and high skill floor so all the serious gamers Git Good at it or if it should be the easiest newbie friendly character so tons of The Clown Cars are rolling around every match.
(also yes I was playing a lot of Balatro at the time. whatever)
Hi sorry this post has been niggling at me for the last half hour. Because it annoyed me, in a loving way. I laughed and said so true and went to move on with my day, and then I got hit with a wave of “hang on a minute….”
It’s an unfortunate attitude I run into a lot and if someone said “the worst part about reading comics is reading comics” on my post expressing the ways the fandom telephone about the comics causes problems in my fandom engagement because now I see how much is just collectively made up I would go red lantern.
Now is this fair of me? Probably not. I myself have made jokes about how reading comics can be unpleasant or intimidating sometimes. But after the first “oh so true” I turned around to “WAIT HANG ON. DON’T JUST AGREE TO THAT WHEN IT CAN BE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT BY NON-COMICS READERS!”
It just bugs me because… does it make sense to you, oh reader getting flashbanged by a wall of text, if I say I wish people would stop acting like a specific branch of source material you want to engage with is a fun tax or a chore you have to do to play with the characters? Like the medium of comics itself is somehow especially egregious to deal with.
On one level it frustrates me because of the imprecision, because comics as a medium are so much bigger than Marvel and DC superhero comics. And I myself am guilty of conflating them as if they’re the whole thing, but they aren’t. Webcomics are comics! Maus and Persepolis are comics! There are Power Rangers comics and Transformers comics and romance comics! It’s so much more than just DC and Marvel’s Superhero Stories!
On the second, wordier level… If someone likes the characters of a specific IP and the genre of superheroes but not the medium of comics, that’s fine. There’s hundreds of adaptations into other mediums that give you other versions of the toys to play with! Movies, video games, cartoons, literal novels sometimes, podcasts, radio shows… if you don’t like the comics you don’t HAVE to read them if you want to understand the characters!!
Like… a lot of the times when I say “reading comics is the worst part of reading comics”, I typically mean I’m on some kind of 7 title odyssey hunting down the various titles and issues for an event, or I’m reading something that’s especially frustratingly written or egregiously sexist or racist (even when calibrated for the almost 100-year publication span.) But I’m generally still having fun! Because I like reading comics!
The disconnect comes up I think because the comics and the superheroes are so closely tied in people’s minds. I’m perfectly fine with it if you like Batman or Spider-Man or the X-Men or Superman and you’ve never read a single comic in your life outside newspaper strips! Have fun, make all the fan content and headcanons and everything you could ever want because you just loved the guy in the movie and cartoon. My frustration, personally, comes in when it’s treated as if the comics are a medium you can understand without engaging with them directly, and in fact there’s no need for you to read them yourself to form opinions on them. They’re inconsistent and bad and poorly written and the only good thing they provided was The Character.
I’m just saying. Maybe try them out and see if you like them before you write them off.
@kittybroker how much?
The sneaky sniler smiling their way on the market for the low low price of only $38.90!