.

music student & musician, 23

[riverwindphotography]

When the forest sings...

(c) gif by riverwindphotography, May 2026

[srednod]

Georg Sturm, A walk with the dog on the sunny forest path, 1897

[stonesense]

"i'm soooo glad that this new female character finally proved that you can be feminine and powerful! because media usually doesn’t let strong female characters be feminine!” yeah that is so crazy btw what planet do you live on and how can i get there

[evenlesssentimentaltranslator]

"95% of representation of women is about women who conform to norms of femininity?! It was 96% last year!"

[niurd]

instagram.com/p/DYfHN3bgk7Q/

[longbonetheory]

HOW GRIM IT ALWAYS IS, ONE'S DETONATION

[residentevil-4]

the first person to introduce The Male Gaze as a concept to tiktok needs to be shot for inadvertently being the progenitor for videos like this

[currentlycryingaboutlancelot]

even with watching a movie from like the 90s it’s insane how much everyone looks like a Normal Person compared to anything filmed today

[currentlycryingaboutlancelot]

it’s something about the aggressively obvious 2020s makeup too on everyone in every movie no matter what the time period is. it’s the 19th century they do not have highlight!!!!

[currentlycryingaboutlancelot]

look at meg march in 1994 vs 2019. they both look great! however! emma watson is wearing very obvious lipstick, mascara, concealer under eyes heavy foundation etc etc. you can see this at a glance. i literally in making this comparison had to google if this was a promotional image that she took or actually a still from the movie because her makeup just looks like normal 2019 makeup that a girl from 2019 would wear!!! (not to mention her costume. different post.) then look at trini alvarado on the other left. obviously she’s wearing tons of makeup because she’s in a movie and she has tons of lights on her all the time but it doesn’t look she is!! you can see circles under her eyes!! she doesn’t have The Shine to her face that emma watson does. she looks so much more believable as a girl from the 1860s not because she’s a perfect representation but simply because she does not Obviously Have On Modern Makeup

[andantegrazioso-deactivated2018]

Cherry blossom covering the ground in Nara, Japan | CyberVlad750

[huariqueje]

Blue Plum Branch - Adriana van Zoest

Dutch , b. 1966 -

Pastel on cardboard , 21,5 x 28,5 cm

[marbleguard]

So if conservatives make laws that say "immoral sex acts are illegal" and use it to imprison kinksters, the next step is gay people because gay sex to them is immoral. Like, it's the one time a slippery slope is actually slippery. We have historical evidence of this happening!

I am afraid you may be unfixably stupid. To the extent that I’m not sure it’s worth my time explaining to you why this is so stupid. I hope you are a child and not an adult because this is 12 year old level logic and understanding of how laws work

[marbleguard]

What is hilarious about this ask is that for decades the argument against gay people was “if we socially accept two men / two women to be together, what is next?! Any taboo sexual act under the sun?” And anon is like yeah actually you’re right they are the same.

So that’s stupid point number one. Stupid point number two is that there was never any talk in my post about making rape play race play pedo play pet play between two adults illegal, because frankly how would that even be enforced. It was only about people having personal moral problems with the sexualization of such things. And anon here is like “you thinking race play is wrong is just like the STATE banning GAY SEX.”

Stupid point number 3 is that laws generally are not based on vague adjectives like “immoral” they have to define what they are talking about. Or else the court system would be overrun with every person’s personal interpretations of adjectives. If you have existed in the world I feel like you would know this.

beyond help I fear

[todayintokyo]

Ezo squirrel in Hokkaido, photographed by Emi Kikuchi

[collapsedsquid]

A German court has ruled that Google is directly liable for what its AI search overviews say. Previous case law shielding search engine operators from liability doesn't apply to AI overviews. The Regional Court of Munich hit Google with a temporary injunction barring the company from spreading false claims about two Munich-based publishers through its AI-generated search overviews (case no. 26 O 869/26). The court classified Google as a direct infringer because the "AI overview" is its own content, not just a list of search results. Google's AI overviews had falsely tied two publishing companies to scams, subscription traps, and shady business practices for certain search queries. According to the court, the AI mixed up information about other, genuinely sketchy companies with the plaintiffs and drew connections that didn't appear in any of the linked sources. The publishers sent Google a cease-and-desist letter, but Google didn't respond appropriately.

[michaelnordeman]

Reindeer/ren. Dalarna, Sweden (11 June 2021).

[metmuseum]

Night Hawk, from “The Comic Natural History of the Human Race”. 1851. Credit line: Gift of Lincoln Kirstein, 1964 https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/395473

[andantegrazioso-deactivated2018]

Waterlillies {details} | Henri Biva (23 January 1848 – 2 February 1929)

[dustinkcouch]

*explaining the backrooms to my grandmother*

see how your hallway looks like my childhood? that's called liminal. you are what's known as an "entity"

[baltering-beasts]

Let's judge with mama