Love Begins
i don't do bad sauce passes
wallacepolsom
h
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
Today's Document
★
⁂
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
DEAR READER
No title available
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
Claire Keane
No title available
AnasAbdin
Xuebing Du
$LAYYYTER
Origami Around
Not today Justin
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
seen from Ireland
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Canada
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from Ukraine
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from T1
seen from Türkiye
@glitchyworld324
I’m sure a ton of people already know how to do this, but I only learned recently, so I wanted to share one of my favorite thumbnailing tricks! Color matching is SUPER helpful to quickly map out potential color schemes :D
[EDIT] this is in Adobe Photoshop, sorry for forgetting to mention that!
Something from the Stream I just did. Wanted to try n draw water.. it hard..
In other news, Med is ok. Just in respawn.
Just imagine he falls like this.
Spider meem, Spider meem
Does whatever a Spider meem does
he drops in, from above
just like a, healing dove
he’s here to heal you “schweinhunds” up
Into The Spiderverse looking great
You know it
Kit Harington and Toothless’ Lost Audition Tapes | HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON: THE HIDDEN WORLD
peter in the soul stone after sam and bucky explain to him what the accords and the fight at the airport were really about and he realizes he was blackmailed into fighting for the wrong team:
Im sorry what? the wrong team? You gotta be fuckin kidding me
oK IVE REBLOGGED THIS ALREADY BUT I;M WAY TOO RILED UP SO HERE GOES:
The accords were about Steve thinking his Bucky was more important than the crimes that he had committed. Yes he was brainwashed, maybe, would not be responsible but in that case he would not be held accountable. Also he fuckin knew who murdered maria and Edward stark and he hid it. So don’t u tell me Steve had any kinda moral high ground there. That’s one.
Now, as for the accords themselves. Do you think, that if you have some kind of superhuman power, that puts you against the law? You know what else puts you against the law with that logic? Having lots of money. Having a gun. Having literally anything to work for your advantage. No, being more ‘’advanced’’ Does NOT make you less responsible and more capable of making decisions for yourself. Steve basically deciding ‘‘Fuck everything I’m done with this shit’‘ and throwing a temper tantrum against all governments of the world basically makes him a fuckin hypocrite. ‘‘I can’t let anyone decide what’s best’‘ Well who let you decide what is best? Why should you decide when you can fly in and fight in any battle you see?
….What movie did you watch?
The accords were about Steve thinking his Bucky was more important than the crimes that he had committed
Nope. Objectively wrong if you actually watch the movie. Steve was hesitant to sign the Sokovia Accords before Bucky was ever on anyone’s radar, based on the lack of agency, and the danger of the Avengers’ poweres being misused by outside parties. He even considered signing the accords after taking Bucky in, which would have been to Bucky’s advantage at the time. He didn’t, partly because he found out about how Wanda was being kept under house arrest with no rights, among other reasons.
Also he fuckin knew who murdered maria and Edward stark and he hid it.
Steve admits he didn’t know for sure that Bucky murdered them, and there’s a lot of evidence that’s true. There was a heavy implication that HYDRA had a hand in their murder, but no proof. Consider the lengths Zemo had to go to in order to find proof throughout the entirety of CA:CW. Steve had a hunch and an implication made by a malevolent nazi AI, that’s all. There was no evidence to hide. He didn’t tell Tony “hey, there’s a slight chance with no proof whatsoever that someone I knew murdered your parents”, and sure, that wasn’t the best move. But it’s not like he was rigging a trial.
Do you think, that if you have some kind of superhuman power, that puts you against the law?
If the law is criminalizing my very existence? Yes, that would put me very much against the law. Because I would like to keep living. The Sokovia Accords put huge restrictions on enhanced people and treated them like weapons. Like objects, not people. For people like Tony who can just take the armor off? Not a big deal. For the heroes whose powers are melded into their DNA? Kind of a problem.
Steve basically deciding ‘‘Fuck everything I’m done with this shit’‘ and throwing a temper tantrum against all governments of the world basically makes him a fuckin hypocrite.
Except that never happened. (And it’s deeply ironic to call Steve a hypocrite, when it’s Tony who breaks the Accords he already signed the second he finds them inconvenient, and proceeds to flaunt them by fostering an illegal protégé. More on that later.)
Steve repeatedly tries to communicate and compromise, but ultimately is forced into a situation where it’s either “allow extrajudicial murder of an innocent man” or act. Then, he tries to explain the situation about Zemo and the other Winter Soldiers, only to be ignored, and has to go off on his own to deal with the threat because no one will listen because it doesn’t fit the politically advantageous narrative Ross wants.
Steve’s main disagreements with the Accords are not “I can’t do whatever I want” but “I don’t want to be at the whim of potentially corrupt institutions who will use me as a weapon for their own agendas” – a very real concern given what had happened with HYDRA/SHIELD, and frankly with everything the US government has done since WWII.
Steve’s argument was never “we don’t need any kind of oversight” but “surrendering ALL responsibility in the way these documents demand is equally irresponsible.” And he balks at the dehumanizing attitude and disregard for human rights. Because when that comes into play, it looks a lot less like the Accords are about protecting people, and a lot more like governments are looking to force enhanced people into being tools in their arsenals.
Considering the folks promoting the Accords also:
Support extrajudicial execution (kill order on sight of a man without trial, just because he was scary to them)
Mock the idea of giving Bucky a trial (in violation of human rights)
Lock up the Avengers in superhero guantanamo with no legal recourse, and again, no human rights
Refer to people as weapons and engages in dehumanization of powered persons (I guess they’re okay with the no human rights thing if they stop considering people human?)
… that makes me think that concern is pretty justified.
The Sokovia Accords also require any enhanced person who uses their powers to work for the government or face being locked up indefinitely without trial. They require the person to be registered and have their DNA on file with their government. They cannot leave their country’s borders without UN approval. Anyone with innate powers is forced to wear a tracking bracelet at all times (see Agents of SHIELD.)
This means that, according to the Accords, Peter Parker being Spider-man is in violation in multiple counts (not registered with the government, not wearing a government tracker, acting under an assumed name, being a vigilante, operating overseas without UN approval when he went to Germany) and can legally be made to disappear in the RAFT at any point with no trial. Ever.
Tony also deliberately did not tell Peter about what this would entail for him. When we see Peter’s video journal in Homecoming from the events of CA:CW, he says he was told “Cap went crazy or something” – when Steve tries to tell him there’s more going on that he understands during CA:CW, Peter says that Tony told him he would say that, and that Cap is dangerous – ensuring Peter wouldn’t listen to the other side and potentially find himself with qualms about the situation.
Also, when Tony plans a press conference at the end of Homecoming, he doesn’t tell Peter anything about the Accords. He doesn’t tell him he would have to sign them, and would no longer have the ability to be Friendly-Neighborhood Spider-man anymore without government oversight of his every move, or that he would be required to give up his secret identity and be outed. There is no warning there, at all.
The idea of the Accords is that: With Great Power Comes Great Government Control of You. With Great Power You Are Not Allowed Agency. With Great Power Comes You Being Someone Else’s Instrument. Never With Great Power Comes Great (Personal) Responsibility.
For Peter’s entire philosophy, modus operandi, and character? That’s about as wrong a side as it can get.
absolutely slaughtered
Whoa 0.0
Deleted scene from Venom “Ride to Hospital”
Could this man be anymore gorgeous? 🔥🔥🔥
some fucking resources for all ur writing fuckin needs
body language masterlist
a translator that doesn’t eat ass like google translate does
a reverse dictionary for when ur brain freezes
550 words to say instead of fuckin said
638 character traits for when ur brain freezes again
some more body language help
REBLOG TO SAVE A WRITER
i love you
Eddie: I think me and Venom have very strong connection and love for each other.
Venom: I love you bitch! Best bitch I’ll ever know!
Anne & Dan:….
Eddie:
Eddie: who was I kissing?
Anne: ….mostly me
Venom: wEll aCtually iT waS mOstLy mE
Okay…
On one hand,
On the other, PLEASE don’t shoehorn in a convoluted reason for Venom and Spider-Man to fight for the entire movie. We get enough of them fighting in literally EVERY OTHER MEDIUM.
Venom and Eddie didn’t bond over a mutual hatred towards Spider-Man in this movie. Their bond is much more natural here, so there’s no need for them to be suddenly driven by a toxic obsession over Spider-Man like their comic counterparts.
In other words…
LET VENOM AND SPIDEY TEAM UP FOR A CHANGE, YOU COWARDS!!!
My contribution to this meme
Because I’m standing firm with this I decided to update it to be a little more specific since some people aren’t getting the hint.
im only saying this once
the only acceptable jobs for spider-man
broke high schooler
broke college student
freelance photographer
high school teacher
unpaid intern
pizza delivery guy
research assistant for doomed scientific project
guy who stands on street and spins sign for quiznos
being spider-man
and thats IT i dont want any of this “hes a genius tech ceo making millions” SHIT. Spider-man is BROKE and he missed rent this month and he has a tiny apartment and thats how its MEANT TO BE. he doesnt make money because he is our Friendly Neighbourhood Spider-man and not fucking Tony Stark.
how about dog walker while in spiderman costume
you. you get it
im imagining “being spider-man” as his full-time gig and i just
he has a patreon. the description is just the words “I’m Spider-Man” and all he ever posts is specifically-requested selfies from people who want to be sure its really him. pinned to the top of the page is a picture from the top of the empire state building (not the observation deck, the real top) of his spider-gloved hand holding a bagel that is on fire, with 34th street in the background
reblog if you hate nazis and don’t think they should speak on college campuses
reblog if you hate nazis and don’t think they should speak.
Reblog if you hate nazis.
Look at what yall mother fuckers did. Now my dad is probably gonna ask me if im eating fucking detergent to be cool and im gonna have to say “no Dad im not that fucking stupid” fuck yall.
Not to be rude but this isn’t caused by memes on tungl.hell its caused by the “challenge” trend on YouTube and there’s a new one every few months, always dangerous. Shit, kids have been challenging each other to do dangerous shit before we were able to record it.
It’s peer pressure mixed with a desire for attention and shit like that gets views. It’s bad, it’s dangerous, but don’t spread misinformation and put blame where it shouldn’t be bc I guarantee you 6 months from now there will be another horrifying and dangerous challenge on YouTube.
The concept of doing something dangerous for views and because you’ve been “challenged” by peers needs to be addressed in a serious way, so don’t pawn it off on silly memes and forget about the issue later.
Like, I’m not joking,
YouTube challenges like the cinnamon one sound more innocent but “dry cinnamon coats the throat and mouth, which can lead to gagging, vomiting and inhalation of the powder into the lungs. Between January and March 2012, U.S. poison control centers received more than 120 emergency calls related to the “game.” Some suffered lung scarring, ephysema, and — in one case — a collapsed lung.” (source)
Salt and ice challenge is another that sounds more innocent, but “when combined with salt, ice actually becomes colder than the standard freezing temperature for water, exposing the body to extreme cold. Several participants, one as young as 12, sustained second- and third-degree burns; amputation is also a risk.” (source)
Kylie Jenner Lip challenge sounds bad and is bad. It “involves grabbing a shot glass and putting your lips inside it and then sucking as hard as you can. It artificially plumps your lips and the results are startling and dangerous. Experts say the shot glass can break under the pressure, resulting in broken blood vessels, requiring stitches, and other issues when undergoing this challenge.” (source)
The choking challenge, obviously very dangerous. “To get a high or faint, kids either choke other kids, press hard on their chests, or hyperventilate. Obviously, this is very risky, and it has resulted in death.” (source)
Car surfing challenge, also obviously dangerous. “ In this challenge, a teen “surfs” on the roof, bumper, or hood of a car. This game has led to multiple deaths and many horrible injuries.” (source)
The eyeballing challenge, you guessed it, dangerous. “Teens take a shot of hard liquor…into their eye socket. This can cause cornea scarring, swelling, irritation, and plenty of other issues.” (source) Also see “butt chugging” which is very similar.
And the fire challenge where “teens put flammable liquid on themselves and then light a match. Hazards are obvious and range from serious second and third-degree burns, all the way up to death.” (source)
I mean, shit, did you hear about the Blue Whale Challenge? “ Over the course of 50 days, an anonymous “administrator” assigns self-harm tasks, like cutting, until the 50th day, when the participant is supposed to commit suicide. It is rumored to have begun in Russia, and there were reports that suicides were tied to the trend, but those are unverified and likely not true. Apps related to the Blue Whale Challenge were said to appear and were then removed. The biggest concern is teens who are at risk and may be susceptible to trends and media about suicide, because even if the challenge began as an isolated incident or hoax, it could become real.” (source)
Be careful with the links, some of them show graphic injuries.
These aren’t isolated incidents, these pop up routinely. These are just a small sampling gathered from the first 3 articles that come up when you google “dangerous youtube challenges” and it’s not hard to find for yourself. I remember these being popular, knew people who did them.
Like, I’m not trying to be an asshole, but the tide pod challenge is part of a larger, specific problem that deserves to be addressed and to be honest its irresponsible to suggest that “forbidden fruit” memes have led kids to do this on their own.
It’s like the 100th post I’ve seen saying, “way to go guys, your meme broke the kids! they think the pods are ok to eat!” These kids aren’t stupid, they know tide pods are dangerous to eat. It says so on the box, and it’s common sense. But their brains are still developing and their risk/reward ratio is skewed and the possibility of getting views and subscriptions to them IS WORTH THE RISK. Additionally, being bullied for not trying it seems WORSE than eating the pod. No teen wants to seem lame, and you’ll do things you don’t want to if it makes you cooler or everyone else is.
Like the YouTube “challenge” trend is something that needs to be discussed and addressed and prevented, and pinning it on silly memes and moving on with your life won’t help any kids.
Train Sunset Collection
2014 - 2015
by Me
(Don’t remove my caption)
I see…
HEY FRIENDS HISTORICAL REMINDER: ‘WHAT’S IN THIS DRINK’ ISN’T TALKING ABOUT DRUGS, HE IS NOT TRYING TO ROOFIE HER
THE SONG IS TALKING ABOUT ALCOHOL
but still a pushy song
historical reminder that the reason pina coladas and pink squirrels are known as “girly drinks” is because they mask the taste of alcohol and men were know to give women these drinks without informing them that they were alcoholic. It takes a couple of drinks to realize you’ve been consuming alcohol and by then you’re more susceptible to suggestion, making it easier for him to convince you to stick around and have a third drink. When this song was written in 1944 most women didn’t drink regularly, meaning they had a low tolerance and it would only take 2-3 drinks to get her drunk enough that she wouldn’t be able to put up much of a fight. This was the 1940s version of being roofied
No no no it was not.
“Hey what’s in this drink” was a stock joke at the time, and the punchline was invariably that there’s actually pretty much nothing in the drink, not even a significant amount of alcohol.
See, this woman is staying late, unchaperoned, at a dude’s house. In the 1940’s, that’s the kind of thing Good Girls aren’t supposed to do – and she wants people to think she’s a good girl. The woman in the song says outright, multiple times, that what other people will think of her staying is what she’s really concerned about: “the neighbors might think,” “my maiden aunt’s mind is vicious,” “there’s bound to be talk tomorrow.“ But she’s having a really good time, and she wants to stay, and so she is excusing her uncharacteristically bold behavior (either to the guy or to herself) by blaming it on the drink – unaware that the drink is actually really weak, maybe not even alcoholic at all. That’s the joke. That is the standard joke that’s going on when a woman in media from the early-to-mid 20th century says “hey, what’s in this drink?“ It is not a joke about how she’s drunk and about to be raped. It’s a joke about how she’s perfectly sober and about to have awesome consensual sex and use the drink for plausible deniability because she’s living in a society where women aren't supposed to have sexual agency.
Basically, the song only makes sense in the context of a society in which women are expected to reject men’s advances whether they actually want to or not, and therefore it’s normal and expected for a lady’s gentleman companion to pressure her despite her protests, because he knows she would have to say that whether or not she meant it, and if she really wants to stay she won’t be able to justify doing so unless he offers her an excuse other than “I’m staying because I want to.” (That’s the main theme of the man’s lines in the song, suggesting excuses she can use when people ask later why she spent the night at his house: it was so cold out, there were no cabs available, he simply insisted because he was concerned about my safety in such awful weather, it was perfectly innocent and definitely not about sex at all!) In this particular case, he’s pretty clearly right, because unlike in Blurred Lines, the woman actually has a voice, and she’s using it to give all the culturally-understood signals that she actually does want to stay but can’t say so. She states explicitly that she’s resisting because she’s supposedto, not because she wants to: “I ought to say no no no…" She states explicitly that she’s just putting up a token resistance so she’ll be able to claim later that she did what’s expected of a decent woman in this situation: “at least I’m gonna say that I tried.” And at the end of the song they’re singing together, in harmony, because they’re both on the same page and they have been all along.
So it’s not actually a song about rape - in fact it’s a song about a woman finding a way to exercise sexual agency in a patriarchal society designed to stop her from doing so. But it’s also, at the same time, one of the best illustrations of rape culture that pop culture has ever produced. It’s a song about a society where women aren’t allowed to say yes…which happens to mean it’s also a society where women don’t have a clear and unambiguous way to say no.
Reblogging for that last bit because this is what I rant about to Kellie every time this discourse happens on my blog but I’m too lazy to type it out. SO thank you to @dangerwaffle for not being as lazy as me. This song has a cultural context, and a historical context, and it’s worth talking about how fucked up that context is, but you have to get WHICH context it is right first.
I see the Annual Discourse has been reblogged, it is Christmas in fact an deed
broke: tracking christmas by calendar date
joke: tracking christmas by christmas song google searches
woke: tracking christmas by baby it’s cold outside discourse
currently losing it over this b-roll footage of john mulaney recording for into the spider-verse
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
