No title available
ellievsbear
No title available
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
ojovivo
h
shark vs the universe
Sade Olutola
Game of Thrones Daily
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
YOU ARE THE REASON
No title available
$LAYYYTER
⁂
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Keni
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
blake kathryn
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
if i look back, i am lost
seen from India
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from South Korea
seen from United States
seen from Switzerland
seen from United States
seen from Portugal
seen from United States
seen from Iraq
seen from United States
seen from Czechia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Iraq
seen from Greece
seen from Belgium
seen from Iraq
seen from United States
@haunted-smiles
when i say “aros can still date” i mean that as in “aros can do whatever the fuck they want and it doesn’t have to make sense to you”
but some of y’all say “aros can still date” to mean “aros are still able to fit your standards of an acceptable person despite their abnormality” and i do not fuck with that
affirmations for writers: i know how to write. i have seen sentences before, and i know how to make one. i can identify up to several words and their meanings. i am not afraid of semicolons.
She’s just so fun to draw 💐
🚌Presenting the BRAND-NEW season - Dimension 20: On a Bus!
DM'd by Katie Marovitch, and as players: Aabria Iyengar, Brennan Lee Mulligan, Jasmine Bhullar, and Mark Mercer!
Watch the full episode here
Hey friends!
Just wanted to thank everyone for being so lovely and supportive of D20: On a Bus!
It was a bit of a rocky shoot, but I’m really proud of the story we told! I’ve wanted to play with Jasmine, Brennan and Mark for SO LONG and it’s so lovely that I got to do so at Katie’s table. 💖
So here’s the thing: the first season (30 episodes! Can you believe it?!) is in the can, but speaking for myself I *know* the story of my character Bluey™️ and their friends getting from NoHo to LAX is far from over. And that’s where you come in:
If y’all help us prove to Sam that there’s audience excitement for the sequel, we can start filming TODAY.
So please like, share, repost, and tell your friends so we can get back ON A BUS!
Monstah.
[ko-fi] [my carrd] [support me on patreon][my discord server]
blorbo!!!!
“it’s unrealistic for all the characters to be queer” maybe your reality is just fucking boring. literally my entire friend group is queer, we travel in packs
something something self-perception vs the ordeal of being perceived
character development in the tags
5 minute fanart
Icecargo
There's this running sentiment that I've seen a few times recently that, in absence of being recruited and subsequently abused by Trent, Astrid would have been someone nice (read: "good") and in touch with her emotions, or something, instead of pursuing power and authority. It's an idea that seems to purport that Trent fully brainwashed her into being a completely different person acting entirely against her own volition, because surely if she was somehow fully cognizant of her "real" wants / feelings / had friends, she would simply walk away.
Except that she wouldn't, because she didn't.
We are told repeatedly by Caleb and reinforced by Astrid herself, that she is and always has been ambitious. If freedom from Trent was all that she was truly after, then she could have had an easy out once the Nein removed him from power. But instead she stays to take her place in the Assembly, because that was her goal all along.
In fact, Astrid's ambition would have made her more susceptible to Trent's manipulation, especially when she was younger. The way that Astrid and Eadwulf murder their parents is very personal and intimate - strangulation and poison at the dinner table. Neither of them flinch, and yet Bren's method is to not even show himself, but barricade his family in their home from the outside and then set it aflame. It was a comparatively anonymous act, but he was the one to break.
Trent's miscalculation here of course revolves around Bren's character. We can probably attribute him overlooking this because of Bren's clear aptitude, and then perhaps following the assumption (which has tbh proven time and time again throughout history) that a wizard capable of achieving great power will always go after it no matter the cost. Although Liam says that if Caleb had met Astrid and Eadwulf again much earlier in the campaign prior to forming strong bonds with the Nein, he likely would have gone back with them (juicy juicy AU fic of where this happens exist out there I'm certain, but also further illustrates that Caleb himself wasn't fully immune, obviously), part of the reason why Caleb's arc is so beautiful is precisely because of his journey to stand in contrast to this cliche.
It is further interesting, then, that when Caleb does come back into proximity of both Astrid and Trent, with no small amount of ability, that Trent still immediately fixates on him, even though he is better able to resist Trent's manipulations than ever before. Astrid has been at Trent's side for well over a decade at this point and is obviously a very capable wizard herself, seemingly loyal - even if Trent probably had doubts about the true depth of her loyalty to him, then at the very least loyal to the Empire - intelligent, and politically savvy; all things you would think would still make her a prime candidate for successor.
It begs the question of what Trent found wanting in her, that he would decide to so blatantly favor Caleb, someone he arguably cannot actually control, over someone he has personally cultivated for years.
It's obvious that during the dinner, Trent is working many scummy manipulations on Caleb. But by proclaiming "nothing would make me happier" to have Caleb kill him and take over, he is simultaneously twisting a knife at Astrid, firmly shunting her into second place, if such a place exists at all, as far as he's concerned. We can probably assume that Astrid's ambition to actually do precisely that aren't entirely a secret from Trent (frankly he'd be very foolish to not expect it of people he manipulated into murdering their parents as children), and he would also be very aware that he still outclasses her in terms of raw power. Astrid, or even Astrid and Eadwulf together, aren't strong enough to take him out on their own, so it behooves Trent to prevent any possible alliances from forming by trying to drive a wedge between her and Caleb. The goal of this might not even necessarily be to prevent his own demise, but set up a familiar "test": if one takes out the other, then he'll know who is really worthy of being his successor.
Of course this isn't what happens, because Caleb's reappearance in her life has already begun a shift in Astrid. When we first see her "on screen" in episode 89, it's pretty clear she's got a front up and is touting the party line / is in the sauce, so to speak, and as "genuinely mournful" as she is, she still seems to firmly believe that the suffering they endured was for a reason. Even so, she heavily hints to Caleb that she isn't so unfailingly loyal to Trent that she wouldn't try to usurp him.
There's definitely something a little 'off' about the whole interaction - on a meta level, this might be largely because she's a brand new character to Matt that he's still getting a feel for, and on a narrative one, someone she once loved very much and has been either catatonic or missing for a decade suddenly showed up at her house - but something has definitely shifted by the time we see her again, and in other scenes in subsequent episodes. Ultimately, she's very clearly conflicted about the position she's in: Caleb and the Nein can be the convenient means to an end that she wants, but it could also mean sacrificing him - because if they can't defeat Trent, it's not worth risking her own life to stand with them. It's clear that she still carries many deep feelings for Caleb, and as much as she doesn't want him to die (perhaps especially not by Trent's hand), she's not quite willing to die herself.
This is why she helps Caleb get the medallions, why she (allegedly) cries in the alley, why she and Eadwulf warn Caleb ("we're not doing it for you, we're doing it for him") about Trent coming after them, why she lets him complete the scroll in Yussa's tower. She needs Caleb to help take Trent out, but it has to happen at the most optimal moment, otherwise there's no point - this is why she doesn't help the Nein in the final fight until it's clear they have a chance of winning it.
There's a lot we don't know about where Astrid's true hatred and resentment of Trent stems. Certainly the myriad abuses all three of them suffered, and the unknown extent of that which followed when it was just her and Eadwulf left, but apparently it's been "years" that she's dreamed of ultimately killing him. The amount of rage and anger in her when she is prevented from actually doing it is frankly one of the most profound moments in all of C2. She has the person who has caused her and the two people she probably cares for most in the world immeasurable pain and trauma finally subdued and at their collective mercy, and yet is told "no, you can't kill him, we want him to go to trial"...by one of those people.
It's a betrayal, in a way, and perhaps more than any other moment, clearly demarcates the differences and fractures that exist between her and Caleb as they currently are. Astrid further underscores it by specifically putting Eadwulf away from Caleb (and Eadwulf looking back is one of the tiniest but such important little glimpse we get into his feelings) and simply leaving.
It's a terribly bitter moment; she's more or less gotten almost everything she's wanted for a very long time, but gets to derive no real satisfaction from it. She walks away, furious, resentful. But after a time, they do come back - and my personal theory is that Eadwulf convinced her to do so. Obviously they see enough value in Caleb and Beau's plan to spend the exhausting hours recounting their experiences, as perhaps if this is the only way to allegedly ensure that Trent gets locked up for good and getting any kind of justice (revenge), they don't necessarily have much to lose if they're careful not to jeopardize their political positions with the rest of the Assembly.
And of course, naturally, still, Ludinus offers the job to Caleb first.
(Obviously there are narrative and meta reasons for this, but it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that it wouldn't have further twisted the bitter knife in Astrid just a little bit yet).
All of this is to illustrate that yes, Astrid and Eadwulf did suffer abuse under Trent, but it's a mistake to use that as the sole explanation for their actions and motivations as fictional characters, or to use it as a way to give them an avenue to being "good" people underneath it all - ie, removing the teeth from their roles as antagonists.
Which is to say: people often have an especially hard time when characters exist in a shifting grey area of morality - especially women. Astrid (and Eadwulf) has always occupied this space within the narrative because of her dual proximity to Caleb ("good") and Trent ("bad"), but it would be a mistake to believe that her character arc is simply her choosing between the two of them and what they allegedly represent. At no point does Astrid ever explicitly agree with Caleb about stopping the Volstrucker program as it exists, and we've never gotten any clue in the subsequent story years later whether or not she actually did anything directly to dismantle it. We can infer that in absence of Trent it might have ceased perhaps at least in part, yet for as important as that is for Caleb, and even as much anger and rage Astrid obviously has towards Trent, she has been pretty much reticent on the subject in canon material so far, to the point that it seems unlikely it's a primary motivation for her to take over Trent's seat. Perhaps after several years of close proximity to Caleb (because Liam has not mentioned her multiple times post C2 proper for them to not be talking on the regular), she did do something about it, but exactly what and how much is all speculation.
(Sidebar: further to the last parenthesis above, Caleb was absolutely the one to hide Astrid in Chastity's Nook during the events of C3, and Essek saying "Bren sends his regards" was in fact a signal to her that he is an ally, and if he said it like a threat, it's because he's a catty bitch (affectionate), which further plays out in their subsequent interaction).
As I (and many other people) have said in the past, we shouldn't be afraid to let villainous / antagonist characters be bad ("problematic"), and we shouldn't be afraid to enjoy them because of the role they occupy in a story. Astrid is compelling precisely because you (the audience, the Nein) didn't know which way she was going to go in those pivotal moments, whether she is friend or foe; she's compelling because she doesn't immediately fall in line with Caleb's plan to imprison rather than kill Trent. All of those layers of tension and conflict are what make the story juicy and interesting. Trent is a motherfucker and makes my skin crawl, but he is a fantastic villain. Astrid doesn't "need" to have a full redemption arc for any reason, and especially not to justify her continued proximity to Caleb.
I always feel it's very remiss of discussions that involve Astrid and Caleb to not include Eadwulf - I've mentioned him several times by proximity, but not so much about his position in all of this specifically, which is an unfortunate symptom of the fact that we simply don't get a lot of exposure to him by comparison, and he's never the focus of the scenes that he's in. It is my hope that the animated series will be able to correct for some of this and build him out a little more, much in the way we got to see him in Caleb's origin comic. The two moments there that always stick out in my memory are him and Bren being the first ones to initiate physical intimacy, and him striking Bren and leaving him to stop him from attacking Astrid - it's such an incredible parallel with the moment that Astrid pulls him away and he looks back at Caleb. There are so many other little hints, like his raven feather necklace, the way he speaks in front of Trent at the dinner (being a dutiful soldier), his encouragement of Fjord, that seed all of these little nuances that are lovely on their own, but still leave me hungry for a fuller picture. In my mind, he's a necessary anchor between Astrid and Bren, and eventually singularly for Astrid, who probably needs him more than he does her, in some ways. I like to think they love each other more than anyone else in the world, but to speculate further is getting deep into headcanon territory (not inherently bad, just not the point of this post). Of the people who would "just leave", Eadwulf by his own admission said he'd be fine with that - so perhaps he did stay solely for Astrid, and maybe once Trent was ousted, he did leave, for a time. But it's likely he would have found his way back.
Anyway: love a problematic fictional woman.
Kitty Kitty was begging me to turn the sink on, but I was running so hard on autopilot that I didn't register that she wanted the sink to be Just A Little On, and I ended up turning it on full blast while her head was right under the faucet. Luckily she, like me, only possesses 3 brain cells, so she didn't consider getting upset, and instead just stared at me while purring as her forehead became increasingly drenched and I realized what I had done.
artistic rendition
why does one of these gummi worms have LEGS
he’s evolving??!???!
update: there were THREE with legs in this bag and one of them was three colors instead of two. why are my gummi worms mutating
good evening to everyone EXCEPT the user who tagged this post with ‘those are his nipples’
Little sweeties.
the day the last post about essek being a smol bean sweater-wearing tea-nursing housewife hotboi is posted i will float free from the tethers binding my mortal soul to this fucking rock and ascend into the outer stratosphere, knowing that my mission here on earth is complete. this will not happen so my second plan is DRONE STRIKE
Your looking at this all wrong.
Clearly you are now an immortal whose only Job is to spread the word of Smol Bean Essek.
Clearly this is the lords work and heavy be your responsibility
Any conspiracy theory about people going missing in National Parks is automatically silly to me. Like "Why are National Parks such a hotbed of disappearances???" because they're full of idiots. You've got thousands of people who've never pissed outdoors in their life wandering around the woods/desert/mountain with zero experience and zero gear and zero understanding that this place can kill them. You don't see as many disappearances in wild areas because people don't go to them unless they have some background knowledge. Whereas you get tour buses full of old folks and suburban families shuttling people into National Parks 365 days a year. If you took the same amount of buffoons and dropped them in the actual wilderness the disappearances would be significantly higher than at the parks. Use your brain.
Some fun stuff from the notes:
park ranger who has seen people spread bacon grease on their campsite in the hopes of seeing a bear
British person who is appalled that North American national parks kill people
people who lure bison calves away from their mothers to photograph them
a lot of it involves bison
a LOT of it involves people trying to swim in the yellowstone thermal vents
woman who tried to retrieve her dropped cell phone from a pit toilet and FELL IN
Lots of people reminding me that caves are a problem too. I know, I just try to forget that caves exist because I hate them.
Guys who tried to hike the entire length of Florida in flip flops
Someone who approached a bear cub because they thought it was a raccoon
Someone who works at an unspecified national monument and says dead bodies keep turning up at the picnic area (Hello???)
A few Alaskans laughing at everyone
Scottish person who wishes their parks were as effective at killing tourists as ours are
A few NPS staffmembers saying the NPS is far, far too incompetent to wage any sort of large scale conspiracy about disappearances
Several death threats against David Paulides
People accusing me of being Bigfoot (I plead the fifth)
A group who got on a raft in a river assuming it would loop back around... like at a waterpark
Person recalling a time they saw a hiker "saved by monkeys" but did not elaborate on that
BISON
I met a girl last semester who volunteered at a national park for several years and she told a story of the time a facility that rehabilitates bear cubs had a lady pull up with a Black Bear in the back seat of her car because she had hit the bear with her car and drove an hour to the rehab facility with the bear in the car with her. They had to make a post that was like "PLEASE DO NOT BRING BEARS TO US. BEARS WILL KILL YOU"
Anyone who would like to have these points emphasized to them should look up a couple of books that I read cover to cover and really enjoyed* (for certain definitions of "enjoyed"):
"Off the Wall: Death in Yosemite"
and
"Over the Edge: Death in the Grand Canyon"
Both are by Michael P. Ghiglieri, along with others more specialized in those parks. They are both just basically "here is every single death (and quite a few disappearances) recorded in the park, and a sometimes brief, sometimes longer write-up about the circumstances of each". They're hefty books, but still, in the 100+ years that these parks have existed, it's a finite number, you know? And they're both VERY readable.
I happened to read them both after visiting Yosemite, but before going to the Grand Canyon; so that when I took a trip to the latter, I made sure to drill into my friends' heads "DO NOT EVER leave one person out of your sight", because the main takeaway from those books is, "And they were never seen again, and their body was never found." One of your hiking companions might sit down on a trailside rock to rest for a little bit and tell you to go on, they'll catch up, it's only a half a mile to the end of the trail... do not fall for this. It won't hurt you to sit or stand with them for a while until they're ready to go again.
But mostly the phrase that I made sure stuck in everyone's head was, "Do you have enough water? No, you don't -- here, take some more." Especially in the desert southwest parks (where we went during summer), but this goes for most parks if you're hiking in warm weather.
Because another salient example was that when we arrived at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon and were walking into the visitor center, there was a big sign on a stand right beside the door, and it said (to paraphrase), "Are you in good enough shape to run a marathon?" It went on to report that, not that long before, a woman who had run the Boston Marathon was visiting the GC and went for a hike with a friend. Like MANY PEOPLE, they underestimated the distances (especially common in the desert parks, where you can see for a long way and you are bad at estimating how far away some of the things you can see actually are), and underestimated how much water to take with them, and underestimated how warm out it really was. They hiked for too long and didn't drink enough, and started to experience heat exhaustion. The marathon runner went into heat stroke sooner, IIRC. She sat down in the shade, while her friend tried to hike out to find help. The friend did make it out and survived. The marathon runner died.
The point being: even if you are young and very in shape and athletic, you can still make some very unwise decisions when you head out on a hike into the wilderness. Most people who visit the parks are NOT nearly that in shape or athletic, and they are often making bad decisions, too. Bright Angel trail is the most well-known trail from the South Rim of the GC down to the river. It's 7.8 miles down. (Another sign we saw frequently in GC: "Down is Optional; Up is Mandatory".) There is a park ranger who is stationed to hang around the first few hundred feet of the trail, where it finally just goes below the rim, and their sole purpose is to stop tourists who are descending the trail wearing flip-flops and carrying one (1) 12 oz. bottle of water.
Another anecdote: on the same trip, at the end, two of us went to Mesa Verde NP in Colorado. When we arrived, there were signs posted on basically every building door with a photo of an older man, who had gone missing only the week before. Obviously, the signs were to alert people to watch for anything unusual that might help find the guy (who by that point was probably no longer alive; and in fact it would turn out, he definitely wasn't).
This was Dave Stehling, who was 51. He was there with his wife and elderly parents. They all stayed around the visitor center, while he decided to go on a short, paved quarter-mile hike to a look-out. (Mesa Verde mostly consists of the mesa top, and most trails to see the cliff dwellings and other sights drop down into the canyons. The park is a maze of deep canyons and steep drops from the mesa.) He did not take water with him, although the temps were 90-100 F that day. His wife described him as a little directionally challenged sometimes; but he was on a very short and clear path near the visitor center. An extremely easy hike. Witnesses placed him as having diverted onto the longer (2.8 mile) Petroglyph trail; either he took a wrong turn, or he decided he wanted to see the petroglyphs. Even that longer trail should only have taken a hour to walk.
He disappeared. Despite a massive search (made difficult by the terrain), his body was not discovered for 6 more years. He was the subject of theories about paranormal activity by David Paulides (the guy behind Missing411, who is the source of a LOT of conspiracy theories about people going missing/dying in the national parks/public lands and the NPS covering it up; most of his theories involve Bigfoot, and/or portals to other dimensions, sometimes both). And yes, Stehling's disappearance seems to defy logic. How could you go missing on a short trail, where there is a very finite area into which you might have fallen, and not be discovered by a huge search and rescue effort?
But I've read enough about this kind of thing by now to have read statements by people who work in SAR. And one of the take-aways is that until you experience it firsthand, it's hard to appreciate how difficult it actually is to locate a person who is lost in the wilderness. There are multiple stories about volunteers who played the role of the victim in SAR training -- who would just go out and lay down in the woods and be still and quiet, while a search team tries to find them. And they consistently report the searchers walking past them within touching distance, but not seeing them. (Usually, that has to do with underbrush, but it's also just a testament to how much a body can blend in with its surroundings even if you would *think* it would not; even if you'd think the clothes or something would stand out.)
Stehling's body was found a little over 4 miles away from where he'd disappeared. It seems like he had fallen, probably sustained injuries, but tried to hike out of the canyon he'd fallen into by following it downwards. (I'm not sure that an autopsy was ever released, which is why I don't know if he sustained injuries or not; but in a fall like that, it does seem very likely.) He might have been unconscious during the height of the searching, hidden in dense, scrubby vegetation. In June, he would have had to hike further to finally hit running water. But in the temperatures they were getting at that time, he almost certainly succumbed to hyperthermia.
All of this is just to emphasize what's said in the posts above and in the replies or other posts. A lot of tourists visit the national parks, and they think the word "park" means that it's a tame, safe environment. So many people express shock at the idea that the environment and landscape can hurt them, even though the NPS does post warnings all over the place. They don't take the idea of hiking seriously, and often don't have the right supplies or equipment. They don't realize that even the shortest, friendliest-looking trail can have hazards. They think a running stream looks inviting and they'll just dip their feet in to cool off, and don't realize how fast the current is running or how slippery the rocks are. One of the shortest, flattest, best-paved trails in Yosemite (from the ring road to Mirror Lake) has a sign right by the road warning people that there may be mountain lions around, and not to allow children to run ahead, or trail behind.
And yeah: BISON. And bears. Just yesterday I opened my weather.com app on my phone and on the front page is a video story about some tourists who dragged two black bear cubs out of a tree so they could pose with them to take photos. (This was NOT in a national or state park, but is still an example of people being idiots about interacting with wildlife.) The cubs got away quickly, and authorities "decided not to press charges because the cubs were released quickly". (They should have pressed charged, ffs.) These people will likely never appreciate how lucky they were that the mother bear did not show up.
You really don't need Bigfoot to explain weird disappearances, or paradoxical undressing (something that regularly happens as hypothermia sets in). You don't need holes between dimensions to explain how someone wasn't found by SAR, but their body was later discovered in an area that had been searched previously.
All you need to know is that in 2023, across all of the properties in the national park system, there were 325.5 million visits; an increase of 13 million over 2022 alone. The total population of the United States is 333.3 million. I wish we had a way to estimate how many of those millions were unprepared for the wilderness, but who took risks they shouldn't have anyway. I'd be willing to bet that number is pretty high.
You can't have *nearly the population of the U.S.* venturing out into the wilderness and not expect some of them to die or go missing. Honestly, the surprisingly thing is that it's as relatively rare an occurrence as it is -- deaths and disappearances in the parks still make national headlines.
pulls up a chair and sits down. So small potatoes example compared to the above, deeply important, super true *nightmare litany*. But.
I grew up literally smack dab in the middle of the north-northern californian redwoods. And genuinely, I recommend if you have any ability to go and see them, you should. Its one of the most beautiful places in the world. Just please don't stop dead in the middle of a road that goes through the redwoods to take a photo, and don't drive 30 miles under the speed limit because Trees Pretty locals use those roads. Stop and pull over somewhere to enjoy the view.
But if you do stop and pull over. If you go to one of the beautiful national redwood tree parks. I need you to listen to me.
There's going to be signs saying to stay on the trail and you need to listen to them because otherwise you're going to fall into a potentially ten foot hole full of sharp sticks.
"What the fuck" you may immediately think. Well. Heres the thing.
Redwoods generate something called 'duft' from the bark being shed off. It's kind of a reddish fiberous substance, and tends to coat the ground a lot. It's light on its own.
The forests also sometimes have large dips and holes in even fairly flat looking terrain.
Redwoods also shed branches sometimes.
Hole fills with branches, which are often p sharp from having broken off trees during storms.
Redwood duft coats top of branches, but doesnt fill up the hole underneath.
Sometimes you even get clover growing on the duft over an absolutely deadly hole.
So in closing: Please take nature seriously and the signs arent just there to keep you from trampling the delicate ferns. But also leave the dag ferns alone.
Another good book to read is Ranger Confidential: Living, Working, and Dying in the National Parks by Andrea Lankford. She was a ranger in Yosemite and Grand Canyon among others, and she has a LOT of stories of people who got into trouble doing something stupid (the people illegally BASE jumping off El Capitan haunt me to this day).
I just visited Joshua Tree NP and every other sign was about proper hydration. The trails weren't rated on difficultly in terms of terrain or elevation but on how much water you should bring. My absolute favorite example was that every restroom stall I went in had an official poster (on NPS stationary in their standard fonts/formats) telling you how to assess your hydration levels based on the shade of your pee. Deserts are not a joke.
It also occurs to me that we should have called them national wilderness areas or something other than park because I really do think the word "park" gives people the absolute wrong impression of what these places are.
the first time I met my sister in law, we almost got rammed by a bison in a drive through park because some IDIOT stopped in the middle of the road to gawk despite clearly posted signs warning visitors that bison are Not Friendly.
The near-death experience did make me quite fond of her pretty immediately, though! (once my fiancee explained to my city girl ass how much danger we were actually in lmao)
I feel like everyone has just forgotten you can imagine stuff. "I used ai to make a video of a breakdancing cat" dude you can literally just imagine that. Just close your eyes and the video is in your head
Louder for the people in the back back!
help help help
cinematic parallels
Having to clean the shower is so fucking annoying. It’s clean in there. That’s where I go to get clean. It’s clean dude trust me. Stop fucking growing bacteria and stuff man this is the clean locale. You’re embarrassing me in front of the sink
