The statement "if you don't draw for several years, you will lose your skills" sounds really obvious and inarguable but that doesn't change it from being a pissoff when it happens to you.
🪼
noise dept.

Discoholic 🪩

titsay
Claire Keane
hello vonnie
almost home
NASA

izzy's playlists!
AnasAbdin

ellievsbear
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
occasionally subtle

Janaina Medeiros

JBB: An Artblog!
sheepfilms
will byers stan first human second
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

pixel skylines
Sade Olutola
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Spain

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Germany

seen from Canada
seen from Malaysia

seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Bangladesh

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Germany

seen from Malaysia

seen from Canada
@its-laundry-day
The statement "if you don't draw for several years, you will lose your skills" sounds really obvious and inarguable but that doesn't change it from being a pissoff when it happens to you.
getting teary eyed thinking about gerda gottlieb's paintings of her wife after she transitioned
thing is, for a lot of these paintings it wasn’t “after” lily elbe’s transition. there was no after to it. the one op posted was painted in 1928. this was 2 years before lily legally changed her name and began undergoing revolutionary gender affirming procedures. unfortunately she died due to complications of an experimental uterine transplant in 1931.
up until that point, during the day lily continued to dress in masculine clothing and even attended galleries showing gottlieb’s paintings of her. which was kind of iconic. she got to stand in a room full of people who were marveling her beauty, not knowing she was right next to them. it must have been such a cute little secret for them as a couple.
here’s gerda and lilly together
not to mention that for most people there is no real “after” to a transition. especially for these trans historical figures who had to balance identity and safety at all times.
i think having a wife paint these portraits must have felt really amazing for lily. to be able to see herself through the eyes of someone who loved her. i’m very much seconding op on the getting teary eyed.
here are some of my favorite gottleib lily paintings
The crazy thing is, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, if you asked me on any given day "Would like to see a picture of some genitals?" my answer would be "😰 No, that's... No, thank you. I'm okay, actually." I have nothing but the utmost respect for people who do engage with the penis side of the internet, but personally, I've spent the better part of two decades doing all I can NOT to have pictures of dick and balls or sexy bikini babe buttcheeks blasted onto my retinas constantly. And yet... to be denied the penis? To have a jumped up pile of javascript tell me, a grown adult with an air fryer and an outstanding council tax bill, that I cannot be trusted to withstand the sight of a bare nipple unless I let it scan my drivers' license? I will move heaven and earth to see that fucking nipple, friend. I will walk a thousand miles barefoot on hot coals before I give you big brother bitches my passport number. A thousand miles through the desert with five VPNs just to press my face up against the glass and see the last uncensored picture of two My Little Pony Characters sixty-nining each other, and I don't even want! to look at it! But I will! I must! for the sake of our fucking democracy!
Thinking about a girl I grew up with who spun her dog's fur into yarn, then knitted gloves out of the yarn and how all the other kids made fun of her mercilessly for it.
And how she's now used those gloves for over thirty winters and each time she puts them on, she gets to pet her beloved dog's fur even though Ginger is long gone. And how even though her bones have long since been swallowed by the earth, Ginger is still protecting her owner from the cold.
Just an ancient pact, passed down from the earliest dogs that slept beside humans to keep us warm, continuing on for decades after one of their deaths.
A reminder that darker fiction has a right to exist and explore themes that people are uncomfortable with. Yes, even if it's romanticized. Yes, even if you personally don't like it.
Authors have always written about things that they don't agree with morally, and I hope to god they always will, despite how shitty people treat them for doing that now.
I fear a lot of people learned to take good care of library books as children and instead of internalizing "leave shared community items as you found them as much as possible, because other people will use them too" they internalized "printing and binding a book imbues it with sacred energy and if you dog-ear a mass-market paperback you're desecrating the entire concept of written language"
the use of AI lately has made me feel so hopeless, i translated pages of an unfinished fanzine of mine so i can remember why i love art...i hope it can resonate with anyone feeling the same way
this recent trend of teenagers using genAI chatbots to talk to fictional characters is fucking grim. what you should be doing is roleplaying on private messages with your friends until the lines between you & the characters begin to blur & you develop some very complex & confusing feelings for each other that culminate in a massive fallout you dont have the tools to process nor understand
The Death of the Digital Ecosystem: Why Decoupling Notes Destroys Tumblr
@staff
For years, the total note count on a post served as a universal metric of a piece of content's impact. Whether a user liked the original post or a reblog fifteen branches deep, that engagement flowed back to the source. This ensured that the original artist, writer, or editor received the full credit for the viral success of their work.
Under this new system, engagement is trapped within the specific reblog a user happens to see on their dashboard. If a massive, high-traffic blog reblogs a piece of art from a small creator, every like and reblog that occurs through that larger account stays with them. The original creator is left with a stagnant note count on their own dashboard while their work generates thousands of interactions for someone else.
Erasure of Creator Visibility
Instead of seeing one post with 10,000 notes, a creator may now have to hunt through dozens of different reblog chains to find where the conversation is actually happening.
If the notes no longer flow back to the original post, the creator loses the ability to see who is enjoying their work, what the tags say, and how the community is responding.
On a platform where engagement often dictates visibility, splitting that engagement into tiny, unlinked fractions makes it significantly harder for original works to gain momentum compared to the high-reach blogs that reblog them.
Incentivizing the "Big Blog" Monopoly
This system rewards accounts that have already established a large following at the direct expense of the smaller accounts that actually produce the content. It transforms reblogging from a method of sharing into a method of acquisition.
When a reblog functions as its own independent post with its own note count, the incentive to click through to the original source disappears. The platform is transitioning from a collaborative ecosystem into a standard social media feed where the person who posts the content last—not the person who made it—reaps the rewards.
Impact on Collaborative Conversations
Tumblr’s unique culture is built on the reblog chain: a chronological, evolving conversation. By allowing users to like or reblog "any part" of the chain as an independent entity, the platform is breaking the narrative thread.
If engagement is siloed into specific branches, the incentive to add to a conversation is replaced by an incentive to simply own a piece of the engagement. This change doesn't encourage conversation. It encourages the commodification of individual posts within a chain, making it harder for the original voice to ever be heard over the noise of the rebloggers.
The Disincentive to Create
Perhaps the most damaging aspect of this update is the psychological toll on the creative community. When the platform actively diverts credit and engagement away from the source, it destroys the motivation to share original work at all.
For many, the reward for posting is seeing how far their work travels. If that travel is now invisible or attributed to others, the labor of creating becomes thankless.
This system makes creators want to share nothing. If the platform is built to harvest a creator's effort for the benefit of curator blogs, the logical response is to stop providing the raw material. I am one leaning into this category. Without us creators, the curator blogs have nothing to curate.
By making it harder to protect and track one's own work, the platform is effectively telling creators that their presence is secondary to the conversations happening around their work: conversations they may no longer even be able to find.
And if I'm meant to be alone, please take away my desire to be loved.
k.b. // unknown
!!!!!
we were talking about the criminalization of homosexuality in class and my professor (who as far as i know isn't in any way queer) said something i quite enjoyed in that. well the exchange was more or less this: a student asked a question (doesn't really matter what exactly just know that i was rolling my eyes So hard internally) and the prof looked at the student and was like (i'm paraphrasing here this conversation was not in english) Do you have any queer friends? and the student went Uhhhh in a manner that made it clear the answer was probably no and the prof said Actually statistically speaking you most likely do. If I had to divide this room into two groups the way to do it would not be "people with queer friends" and "people without queer friends" it would be "people whose queer friends are out to them" and "people whose queer friends aren't". And if you're in the latter category you should consider why that is--if maybe your behavior is indicating to the queer people around you that you're not safe to come out to. to come back to your question if you really want to know about queerness there's a very simple way of doing that: you make yourself a person queer people feel comfortable talking to about their experiences and then you fucking listen to them when they do (the fuck is not paraphrased) (there was a fuck involved) (frankly king shit)
thinking about how when you experience a lot of shame in your formative years (indirectly, directly, as abuse or just as an extant part of your environment) it becomes really difficult to be perceived by other people in general. the mere concept of someone watching me do anything, whether it's a totally normal activity or something unfamiliar of embarrassing, whether I'm working in an excel spreadsheet or being horny on main, it just makes my skin crawl and my brain turn to static because I cannot convince myself that it's okay to be seen and experienced. because to exist is to be ashamed and embarrassed of myself, whether I'm failing at something or not, because my instinctive reaction to anyone commenting on ANYTHING I'm doing is to crawl into a hole and die. it's such a bizarre and dehumanizing feeling to just not be able to exist without constantly thinking about how you are being Perceived. ceaseless watcher give me a god damn break.
sorry to put your tags on blast on this insane breach containment post I have since muted, but you're right and you should say it.
It is defeatable. Go for the throat.
[ID: tags reading "#wow it took me A LONG TIME to kill this reflex #i'm 40 now. it is defeatable. go for the throat." /end ID]
one of the best academic paper titles
for those who don't speak academia: "according to our MRI machine, dead fish can recognise human emotions. this suggests we probably should look at the results of our MRI machine a bit more carefully"
I hope everyone realises how incredibly important this dead fish study is. This was SO fucking important.
I still don’t understand
So basically, in the psych and social science fields, researchers would (I don't know if they still do this, I've been out of science for awhile) sling around MRIs like microbiolosts sling around metagenomic analyses. MRIs can measure a lot but people would use them to measure 'activity' in the brain which is like... it's basically the machine doing a fuckload of statistics on brain images of your blood vessels while you do or think about stuff. So you throw a dude in the machine and take a scan, then give him a piece of chocolate cake and throw him back in and the pleasure centres light up. Bam! Eating chocolate makes you happy, proven with MRI! Simple!
These tests get used for all kinds of stuff, and they get used by a lot of people who don't actually know what they're doing, how to interpret the data, or whether there's any real link between what they're measuring and what they're claiming. It's why you see shit going around like "men think of women as objects because when they look at a woman, the same part of their brain is active as when they look at a tool!" and "if you play Mozart for your baby for twenty minutes then their imagination improves, we imaged the brain to prove it!" and "we found where God is in the brain! Christians have more brain activity in this region than atheists!"
There are numerous problems with this kind of science, but the most pressing issue is the validity of the scans themselves. As I said, there's a fair bit of stats to turn an MRI image into 'brain activity', and then you do even more stats on that to get your results. Bennett et. al.'s work ran one of these sorts of experiments, with one difference -- they used a dead salmon instead of living human subjects. And they got positive results. The same sort of experiment, the same methodology, the same results that people were bandying about as positive results. According to the methodology in common use, dead salmon can distinguish human facial expressions. Meaning one of two things:
Dead salmon can recognise human facial expressions. OR
Everyone else's results are garbage also, none of you have data for any of this junk.
I cannot overstate just how many papers were completely fucking destroyed by this experiment. Entire careers of particularly lazy scientists were built on these sorts of experiments. A decent chunk of modern experimental neuropsychology was resting on it. Which shows that science is like everything else -- the best advances are motivated by spite.
This may sound preachy, but if you’re in your teens or 20s please take care to develop the habit of speaking positively about people behind their backs. Gossip is unavoidable, and yes it does allow people to bond, and yes some people deserve to be shit talked. But I think being negative about things is literally just nature, whereas trying to be positive about things and people is a quality you have to be very intentional about . If this does not apply to you, good for you. But for most people I think it does. Im not lauding toxic positivity so much as saying that if there’s space to speak positively about someone behind their back, it’s better to take that route.
I love when they're like CHECK INTO YOUR MEDICAL APPOINTMENT BY FILLING OUT THIS DETAILED MEDICAL QUESTIONNAIRE . OK GREAT NOW WE WILL IGNORE THAT AND THE NURSE WILL ASK YOU AGAIN. OK GREAT NOW THE NURSE LEAVES AND THE DOCTOR COMES IN AND YOU HAVE TO TELL THE DOCTOR ALSO. THE DOCTOR WRITES IT DOWN BUT THEY WONT REMEMBER AT YOUR NEXT APPOINTMENT AND YOU'LL HAVE TO DO THIS ALL OVER AGAIN. YOU HAVE FIFTEEN MINUTES BTW :)
girl I am Medically Complex it takes more than 15 minutes just to give my medical history much less list all my medications!!!!! what if you just READ THE FORMS YOU MADE ME FILL OUT