Claire Keane
No title available

ellievsbear

#extradirty
almost home
d e v o n

Love Begins

@theartofmadeline
Xuebing Du
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
occasionally subtle
Not today Justin
Game of Thrones Daily
Monterey Bay Aquarium
YOU ARE THE REASON
No title available
hello vonnie

gracie abrams
Stranger Things

seen from Malaysia

seen from China
seen from Netherlands

seen from Germany

seen from Morocco
seen from Germany

seen from Netherlands

seen from Türkiye
seen from Venezuela

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from China

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Vietnam
seen from Germany
seen from Philippines

seen from Malaysia
seen from Israel
@goluxexmachina
Viking dresses by Savelyeva Ekaterina
Another visual demonstration that historical clothing wasn’t dingy and monochrome.
All of these colours can be obtained from vegetable dyes, producing different shades depending on what mordant (colour fixative - alum, different metal filings, different vinegars) was used. See here and here for examples.
BRING THIS FASHION BACK.
Not clothes, but this was a palette developed by the National Museum of Denmark based on paint residue from archaeological finds for the purpose of painting a reconstructed hall.
Apparently, they can tell from the chemical composition that the colours wouldn’t be mixed with black or white to mute them, but be used in their brightest form. Bright yellow and red was achieved with expensive dyes (orpiment and cinnabar) and was thus fashionable. (Source in Danish)
@athingofvikings
What is a man? An ecstatic little pile of pigments.
^reblogging for that comment
Forever reminder that the ancient world was colorful everywhere, and every attempt to brownwash it in modern fiction is sheer laziness.
i got these knockoff boots online and instead of the brand name on the tag they have the name of an apparently nonexistent martin scorsese movie??? what the fuck
THE ORIGINAL? ON MY DASH
this post led to a series of events that had martin scorsese himself reacting to his alleged movie goncharov and it has less than 400k notes almost 3 years later?
Blackout poetry exists on a dual axis from "banal" to "insightful" on the input side and "kind of deep" to "incredibly fucking dumb" on the output side, and while taking something banal and producing something kind of deep is well and fine, for my money taking something insightful and rendering it incredibly fucking dumb is where the real art is.
#i stuck the word 'banal' in there twice specifically so that 'anal' would be low hanging fruit#but i genuinely did not anticipate 'banana' --@prokopetz
sometimes when I’m being especially self deprecating and convinced no one likes me I have to tell myself “you’re being goob. you are being goob right now”
"You're being Goob right now." <- Litany against social self-sabotage.
We don’t say “I love you” in Finland.
And I think that’s beautiful.
What do you say?
we don’t
@tunnaa-unnaa
#can you confirm?
Confirmed: we really don’t.
In English it’s normal to say “I love” for many things you consider super enjoyable (food, music, cats etc.) or of people, but in Finnish “minä rakastan” is quite exclusively for your romantic partner. I hear it more commonly used sarcastically (”Oh I just LOVE it when people don’t clean after themselves”) than in a serious context, and even then it’s very rare.
And even when we do want to say “I love/minä rakastan” it’s ridiculously awkward and just sounds wrong. It is more likely to say “you are loved/olet rakas” because that just sounds better and can be used by friends and family too.
But none of this actually tells us why they do not say “I love you” nor what they say instead.
we literally don’t say it because we don’t like the way it sounds in Finnish, and either we don’t say it at all or use the English version.
It’s kind of difficult to explain. Like, the words for “I love you” are so uncomfortably formal, in a sense. It doesn’t roll out of the mouth in the slightest.
Linguistics isn’t my forté, but I’ll try to expand on this;
Words really do have more meaning and weight in Finnish than they do in English. Finnish words are precise to another level. You mean exactly what you say. There are no take-backs. I am not kidding. There are synonyms, but even synonyms come with heavy connotation on what the tone of a word is. There are words that come with decades worth of baggage for you to even begin to understand how deeply ingrained their meanings are. We are talking almost N-word levels of ingrained meaning and connotation. When a newspaper journalist makes a mistake and tries to do a take-back, you could never sound as fake is it sounds to a Finnish speaker. You know exactly what you said and meant.
Though we often say that “Finnish is spoken as it is written”, we mean pronunciation. No one speaks written Finnish. Why? Because written Finnish is extremely formal and rigid. There are vast differences between the spoken and written variants of Finnish. Written Finnish is the standardized, default written format of Finnish. Most published books, like those in school and in shelves are written in that format. That way every Finnish-speaker can understand, even though most dialects can be understood by everyone regardless. It’s the one we are taught in school. Written language was sort of developed separately from the spoken language, and that shows. It doesn’t quite behave like the spoken language. Spoken Finnish often drops entire words, syllables, vowels, you name it. Meaning and direction of conversation is provided by the speaker and what is spoken, many things can be left unsaid. That’s partly why Finnish personal pronouns are genderless. Since Finnish is an agglutinative language, words bend tremendously and allow for new, understandable words to be created on whim. A lot of dialects affect consonants and vowels, yet it still remains perfectly understandable. Figure that one out. The way written Finnish behaves sounds incredibly odd in many cases. Written Finnish is clunky. Personal pronouns sound out of place when following the proper format. It doesn’t allow for letters or words to drop. The order of words also seems very stiff when compared to the spoken language. It has some inconsistencies. Very business-y. Because of that, it’s usage is strictly on non-spoken formats. Hence it’s specifically called the written Finnish. No one talks written Finnish. To perhaps illustrate how rigid written Finnish is, news are read either in local dialect or in plain Finnish (selkosuomi). It’s our language’s equivalent of plain English. It’s on the formal end, but you can actually speak it and not sound like an alien invader. Trust me, we’ll know. The best way to compare this is if an English-speaking native heard Middle-English. That is how different the tones and verbs behave and sound between spoken and written Finnish. No one talks like that. I cannot re-iterate that enough. It’s very grating to the ears. Personally, I find Finnish audio-books unpleasant to listen to for that same reason written Finnish is not spoken.
So now that you know these two basic concepts of Finnish language, I can explain why we don’t say “I love you”.
Saying “I love you” in Finnish sounds weird, because “Minä rakastan sinua” is written Finnish.
No one speaks written Finnish.
It’s not meant to be said.
Therefore, the words for “I love you” are never spoken in that particular format.
Even though that is the literal translation, it sounds like “It is I that loves you”. The nearest you might hear is where you drop the “I” from “I love you”, which, actually, still translates to “I love you”, because of how Finnish verbs and conjugation works. “Rakastan sinua” instead of “Minä rakastan sinua” sounds better, because it drops the formal “I”, bringing it a little closer to a spoken format. The word “you”, “sinua” is still in it’s formal version here, but since that is something you cannot exclude, you have to say “Rakastan sinua” or resort to a spoken variant of “you”, so it becomes “Rakastan sua”. To which one would reply the equivalent of “So do I” or ”I too (love) you” “Minäkin (rakastan) sinua”, where the word “love” can be dropped out because the meaning is carried from the previous sentence.
However, It’s still rarer to use.
Instead of “I love you”, we usually say that “You are loved” or “you are dear (to my heart)”, “olet rakas”, because that’s how our language and culture works.
English does not have words for “rakas” that could bring the heart-felt implications like Finnish does. Connotation is everything. Closest you can translate to is “dear” but it’s a very hollow in comparison to “rakas”. It comes with heavy romantic, endearing and sickly sweet connotations. That’s why it’s often supplemented with additional words if you don’t mean it as a declaration of undying romantic love. But the heaviness still remains.
Like, if a friend calls me “rakas ystävä”, “a dear/loved friend”, that is a huge fucking deal. The implications of that level of endearment means that it’s ride or die.
By all means, when a Finnish person says that they love you, it means a hell of a lot more than it does in English. Personally, I find the heaviness of those words intimidating, in a sense.
It’s like a declaration of war but with roses and cuddles.
Finnish is like a heavy, carved boulder. You move it only with precise intention. English is like conveniently small pebbles, easy to throw around all willy-nilly. Effortless. You can’t take “I love you” back, but it sounds lighter and gets the meaning across. Me saying that in Finnish takes years of careful planning, support structures, proper tones and a future intent. It’s almost more accurate to say that in Finnish, you carve a whole new boulder for every single person you say it to. Hence, you usually don’t say it.
It’s also a cultural thing. I’m under the impression that Japanese words and meanings for “I love you” are also very complex for English speakers, due to linguistic and cultural differences.
There are many ways to tell someone that you love, care and cherish them, ranging from platonic to romantic, we just don’t say it in the same clear-cut format as English speakers do.
And to us, love is more about “show, don’t tell.” -R
I was struggling to fully grasp this until I got to “It is I that loves you.” I think I understand now.
This is the 85 year old creator of Roger Rabbit:
someone is mad i turned on the light
"Leave me to my dark bidding"
"What u bidding on"
"gengar plush on ebay"
Cat pillow that's all back no face
Vinnie's North Sydney Australia
it's like one of those time out dolls but for cats
I both kinda hate and kinda love that "this peace is what all true warriors strive for" is from fucking Zelda CD-i
It's unironically such a great response to anybody who venerates war and/or says that modern people are "too soft".
And the full quote starts with "mah boy".
The King from Zelda CD being wiser than America's current government here <3
The US would be vastly improved by just replacing 90% of elected officials with characters from terrible CD-i games
A STATEMENT OF FACT <3
potato battery? no. potato usually fried by itself. potato starchy enough to go in oil without batter
Potato battery? no, it only threatened you, which is assault
yes. good. fried potato taste very good with a salt
Potato battery?
No
Potato CAT-tery
Why do you think the Avatar: The Last Airbender (2025) is so hated by the fanbase while One Piece (2023) is generally had positive reviews from the fanbase? Both of the original series (Avatar: The Last Airbender 2005 and One Piece 1999) can both be found on Netflix to watch, both are animated series (one an American cartoon and the other is an anime), both have books/ written media on them (Comics and Manga), both have a a loyal fanbase and both of the live action remakes where created/ produced by Netflix so why is 2025 Avatar: The Last Airbender hated while 2023 One Piece is loved/ enjoyed?
Fascinating question! Thank you for it!
I'm going to have to preface my answer, however, by saying that I've only watched one of these four shows (Avatar 2005) (plus, I refuse to watch live-action adaptations of animated media as a matter personal conviction; there is nothing that a live-action adaptation can do better than animation, and I'm so tired of society at large acting like live-action is somehow elevated in prestive ... in fact, quite frankly, I'll take the position that animation is a superior artform to live-action, with the sole exception of theatre). My opinion is secondhand. So it must be taken with about 2005 grains of salt.
Ultimately, I think it boils down to one simple distinction: The makers of One Piece 2023 ... sincerely love and respect One Piece 1999. While the makers of Avater 2025 ... actually don't even like Avatar 2005 all that much. At most, they just like the aesthetic of magic martial arts.
One Piece 2023 is basically a bunch of One Piece geeks [affectionate, admiring] getting together to arrange for the most faithful cosplay their resources can allow. From what I understand, all changes from the original source's story are purely due to time constraints--they're not *changing* the story so much as *condensing* it, and even that is extremely careful and thoughtful.
As for Avatar 2025, well ... I remember them announcing that their show was going to be something like "Avatar, but Game of Thrones". Which really does tell you all you need to know about their attitude towards the source material. They went in thinking they could do Avater *better* than the original show. They went in thinking they could *improve* it by making it gritty and dark and more adult. That doesn't indicate love or respect to me.
No, from what I understand, all they've done is make it less deep, less smart, less sincere, and less satisfying than the overtly "kid's show" version ever was. Because make no mistake, Avatar 2005 was a masterpiece in storytelling (its flaws notwithstanding); every episode did a ton of lifting for character development, worldbuilding, and philosophical message (with some of it being extremely subtle and/or nuanced).
Like ... One Piece 2023 is cosplay by fans. They're sincerely having fun with it, so they don't care if the look silly in the process. Their passion is obvious and their enthusias is infectious.
Avatar 2025 is like Jared Leto playing the Joker. It's just pretentious and crass, all while thinking that it's sooooo very edgy, waaaaay too cool and smart for the source material or the fans. Nobody likes being around that sorta energy.
sorry to be brave on the internet but I think food labels should list every single ingredient and that there should be harsher penalties for mislabeling and deceptive labeling
addition from @turtlesandfrogs:
We have these:
Yeah, that's exactly what the complaint was about.
Even in a post-capitalist, post-consumerist world, you still need to produce goods, as a result of this, you need factories because it is more effective to have a few people making a lot of clothes in a factory than every woman being forced to sit down and spin wool all day.
The issue with factories is poor wages, unsafe working conditions and environmental impact, all of which can be fixed through things like regulatory bodies and unions, the issue is not the fact that goods are no longer all made at home
you can have a guild-owned, guild-run, sustainable and ethical small- to mid-size clothing factory. or laundromat. or kitchen. all of these once-domestic tasks can become industrialized without the capitalism and greed.
the factory isn't evil. it's a building full of machines and materials.
Now that everyone is discussing Nolan's Odyssey movie, I feel like it's a good time to let non-Italians know that the production dumped plastic props into the Italian sea. Weirdly enough I could not find any article in English about it but it's a fucking problem nonetheless.
I might translate this article later today. This one was the most complete one, even in Italian news it's not talked about that much.
Non è la prima volta che la produzione solleva un vespaio in Sicilia. A Lipari una squadra di sub sarebbe però già impegnata a bonificare i
They dumped plastic skeletons in environmentally protected areas, against the literal contracts they had to sign to get the permits to film in environmentally protected areas. Like they not only did a bad ecological thing that freaked out some divers, they literally broke environmental protection laws and their contract with the Italian government