Kiana Khansmith
No title available
izzy's playlists!
taylor price
roma★
todays bird
YOU ARE THE REASON
h
No title available
Sade Olutola
Color Me Curious
Doug Jones
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
No title available
gracie abrams
🪼
PR's Tumblrdome
sheepfilms
official daine visual archive
Show & Tell
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Bangladesh
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@livingbythewords
If you love literature, check out my Etsy store with thingies and gifts for fans of classic American authors, especially Southern Gothic masters!
I'm hoping to promote great literature and more in form of t-shirts, art and cozy candles. I'll be adding more items to the store with time!
https://www.etsy.com/shop/LiteraryCornerStore
Brendon Burton, Everywhere at the End of Time
@headspace-hotel 😁😁
Can you imagine the heat?? Badass af
How could you forget all the cool heavy metal ladies!? The metal scene of Botswana is NOT just a boys club
Botswana Metal aesthetic is something I never knew I needed until it was shown to me.
11/16/15 tornado in Pampa, TX
“If a society puts half its children into short skirts and warns them not to move in ways that reveal their panties, while putting the other half into jeans and overalls and encouraging them to climb trees, play ball, and participate in other vigorous outdoor games; if later, during adolescence, the children who have been wearing trousers are urged to “eat like growing boys,” while the children in skirts are warned to watch their weight and not get fat; if the half in jeans runs around in sneakers or boots, while the half in skirts totters about on spike heels, then these two groups of people will be biologically as well as socially different. Their muscles will be different, as will their reflexes, posture, arms, legs and feet, hand-eye coordination, and so on. Similarly, people who spend eight hours a day in an office working at a typewriter or a visual display terminal will be biologically different from those who work on construction jobs. There is no way to sort the biological and social components that produce these differences. We cannot sort nature from nurture when we confront group differences in societies in which people from different races, classes, and sexes do not have equal access to resources and power, and therefore live in different environments. Sex-typed generalizations, such as that men are heavier, taller, or stronger than women, obscure the diversity among women and among men and the extensive overlaps between them… Most women and men fall within the same range of heights, weights, and strengths, three variables that depend a great deal on how we have grown up and live. We all know that first-generation Americans, on average, are taller than their immigrant parents and that men who do physical labor, on average, are stronger than male college professors. But we forget to look for the obvious reasons for differences when confronted with assertions like ‘Men are stronger than women.’ We should be asking: ‘Which men?’ and ‘What do they do?’ There may be biologically based average differences between women and men, but these are interwoven with a host of social differences from which we cannot disentangle them.”
— Ruth Hubbard, “The Political Nature of ‘Human Nature’“ (via gothhabiba)
Yes.
Here, have a study (x) showing that mothers underestimate their daughter’s physical capacity from as young as 11 months old (though in reality it’s identical to that of their son’s at the same age). And if you think that parents acting on those expectations won’t alter their children’s development, then I have a sloped bridge to sell you.
opened as the royal palacio motel, 1963. route 66 in tucumcari, n. mex. january 2026
© tag christof
red dead and beyond
bed bath redemption
you can't come to my birthday party? aw dang, (remembers it's bad to guilt trip people) this doesn't matter to me at all (remembers to demonstrate that i am affected by you to affirm your positive presence in my life) but while you're away i will die (remembers not to guilt trip again) unpreventably. unrelated to you. don't worry about it. (remembers to express care through actions and not just words) you're in the will.
Theo very obviously had to sent to hell becuase he was dangerous, not only becuase he stole tracy and josh's powers but also becuase of his mindset at that time.
Theo would anything to prove that he is not a "faliure" and when his plan to get scott's alpha spark failed, he killed scott out of emotion, carelessly dug his claws in lydia which resulted in her being catatonic and left her to die at the nemeton.
These actions are done without any proper thinking or planning, its just theo acting on his impulses and lashing out. Which is what he would have done if kira hadn't sent him to hell. He would have killed them all becuase not only has his second plan to steal the beast's power failed but he now has no back-up plan,no allies and was humilated by scott with his plan to blindside him with deucalion.
What's interesting to me is that people often miss the fact that Theo's "hell" was not as much of some external punishment imposed on him in a traditional sense, as the situation where he was forced to confront his trauma and his internal fears.
Tara pulling his heart out was not real in a physical sense; it was an embodiment of his deepest wound, the root of everything that shaped him. That's why it was so effective in terms of his character development. If he had just been "punished for his sins", as in sent to some external place, it would have done nothing for him except exacerbate his feelings towards the pack. It was the facing of his deepest, most painful truth about himself that helped him understand what it really was that drove him.
And Scott saw that right away, while others were not able to. He saw in Theo's face that he's "been there" and came back a different person. It was not naivete or recklessness. He saw that Theo faced the truth about himself, and that he is not a threat for the pack anymore, not because he was punished by some external force, but because he did the hardest, most difficult thing possible and it really opened his eyes.
Why I rejected the show that I used to love and be obsessed with for years - a creator's perspective
I used to be in love with The Walking Dead. Deep, deep love that quickly evolved into a borderline obsession. Don't worry, it was healthy - I didn't lose contact with reality, didn't become delusional, didn't contact creators demanding they should do this or that, because I am a fan. No. I just really loved this series. I invested my whole heart, time and energy into watching it over and over and over, analyzing the characters and their arcs, the plot, the storytelling, making moodboards, listening to the soundtrack. Quietly, for myself. This series gave me life. It meant the world to me.
Until it betrayed me in the cruelest, worst way possible.
I'm sure everybody who ever watched it knows exactly what moment it was. Yes, it was THAT moment. THAT character. THAT episode. It traumatized me so much that it took me years to get over it, and sometimes it still feels like the wound that will never really close.
Everyone who knows me either personally or from my posts and writings here, knows also that while I usually put a lot of emotional engagement into everything that I watch, I have also a deeply analytical mind and I love to dissect different ways creators of the show decide to build a story and show it to the world. What kind of choices they make, what message they are trying to convey, how their choices influence the real world. Because it's never "just entertainment", even in its most shallow form. Every movie, every book, every TV show tells us something about us, their creators and the world. It starts with deciding what kind of audience they want to appeal to and ends with how what they created influenced that audience in very real and very plausible ways.
First two seasons were created by Frank Darabont, one of the most consistent and talented writers and directors in Hollywood. His adaptations of The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile are enough proof of his values, ethics and the quality of his work. So when he decided to do a zombie story, it was a clear signal to the audience - this is going to be serious. It won't be just about zombies eating people. The core of the story will be people - their moral dilemmas, their choices made under extreme conditions, the cost of survival in the world that brutal and dark. And I was delighted. This was exactly the kind of story that I loved. And it was entertaining as well. It brought amazing, well-developed characters, great worldbuilding, great plot. So I fell in love with it instantly.
With the departure of Frank Darabont, after two seasons the quality of the series started declining. First slowly, then more and more visibly. I still watched. Still loved. It was with introducing of Negan and what came with it when I said enough. The cold-blooded murdering two characters that were the quiet heart of the show, and doing it in the worst possible way.
I want to say it very clearly - it was not about the level of violence and brutality. Come on. I watched six seasons of blood and gore without flinching. I am a fan of splatter and horror movies. One of my favorite series is Saw. One of my favorite characters of all time is Hannibal Lecter. I can handle violence just fine. What I can't handle is the glamorization of moral emptiness, especially when it follows the destruction of characters who embodied hard-earned dignity.
Abraham and Glenn's deaths were not just brutal and violent. They were meaning-annihilating. The story didn't say "it's tragic". It said, implicitly, that nothing you build inside yourself actually protects you. When a story kills characters like Abraham and Glenn in that way, it doesn’t just remove them. It invalidates the internal labor they represent.
Negan as a character is truly intolerable to me, not because of taste, prudishness, or inability to handle the violence. It's moral recoil. He is not terrifying because he is complex (he is not; he is one of the worst-written and most cartoonish villains I have ever seen onscreen). He is insufferable because he is performative. He is someone who externalizes cruelty, aestheticizes dominance, and turns violence into spectacle. And the story rewards him for it. And this is the real betrayal.
The series demands from me as and audience to lean in, to contextualize him, to forgive. This is the where I draw the line. Not because of the violence.
Any feeble attempts from the creators to "humanize" him later are fake and dishonest to me. Not because I'm allergic to nuance. There is no nuance with this particular character. The story demands empathy without accountability from me. Understanding non-existent complexity without any real cost. Redemption when there was a vast disproportion.
The real wound was not their deaths. The real wound was that the show violated its own moral contract with me as an audience. The creators implicitly said: "These men's quiet integrity is expendable. But this man's theatrical cruelty deserves endless attention."
For someone wired like me, this is not only unacceptable, but truly unbearable. My whole body of work as a writer is build around opposite beliefs: that restrain matters, that pain deserves care, that dignity is not boring. So yes, it was torture, and yes, it took years to recover. Because I wasn't just hurt as a viewer. It hurt me as an author watching the line being crossed.
Anyone who says things like "It's a zombie apocalypse story, what did you expect?" or "It's a dark world, deal with it" is missing the point entirely. The world of the story being dark is not an argument. It's an abdication of authorial responsibility. There is a vast difference between depicting a dark world and endorsing a worldview about humanity.
I am not obligated to accept Robert Kirkman’s view of humanity any more than I am obligated to accept Hobbes, Nietzsche, or any other bleak metaphysics just because they’re confidently asserted. A worldview being loud does not make it true. What I'm objecting to is not darkness—it’s contempt for the audience’s moral intelligence. When a story rewards theatrical cruelty, domination and spectacle while punishing restraint, dignity and moral steadiness, it's not just "a dark world". it's a belief system being rehearsed.
I’m not obligated to accept a story’s worldview just because it’s set in a dark genre. Darkness doesn’t cancel authorial responsibility. And I choose stories that don’t confuse cruelty with depth.
Writing advice from my uni teachers:
If your dialog feels flat, rewrite the scene pretending the characters cannot at any cost say exactly what they mean. No one says “I’m mad” but they can say it in 100 other ways.
Wrote a chapter but you dislike it? Rewrite it again from memory. That way you’re only remembering the main parts and can fill in extra details. My teacher who was a playwright literally writes every single script twice because of this.
Don’t overuse metaphors, or they lose their potency. Limit yourself.
Before you write your novel, write a page of anything from your characters POV so you can get their voice right. Do this for every main character introduced.
This is legit good writing advice, especially the first bullet point! In playwriting class we did a bit where every bit of dialogue had to be an accusatory question and it was glorious.
me: ooh new book idea!! let's poke it and see if it twitches
me, emerging battered and bruised from my room two days later: I have 20 000 words
People ignore Isaac’s flaws because of his abusive household, they want to absolve him of all his sins and infantilize him because they feel sorry for him instead of taking a look at how this clearly hyper-masculine abusive home has contributed to his character flaws
There is this mentally of 'if I get burned, I will burn down the world" basically meaning that you can hurt anyone you want becuase you suffered and it is somehow justified.
This is so rampant in this fandom. It kills of any discussion or questioning of how someone got to that conclusion, why are they this way to begin with and any room for growth becuase why would they change if they are already 'correct'?
Also it is just boring like okay lets say that isaac trying to beat up scott who saved him episodes ago,trying to lydia over rejection and his homicidal tendencies are all somehow justified becuase Isaac was abused so what now? What are we going to talk about? Are we just going to talk about derek being "the father he never had" and nothing else?
Its like teen wolf fans dodge character development or any deep thought about a character that isn't just throwing then in a trope.
What's ironic is the fact that this interpretation actually flattens Isaac and ignores his character development instead of doing him a service.
On the other side of the coin there is a crowd who chants ad nauseam "being abused doesn't excuse anyone", which is equally unbearable.
People are complicated, and between these two extremities sits a whole territory, occupied by characters that are well-written without reducing them to one or the other.
Also, Derek is by no means "the father Isaac never had". He is someone who saw his trauma and decided to use it for his own personal gain, which was harming others. That's truly vile, and in a way ever worse than what his father did.
People ignore Isaac’s flaws because of his abusive household, they want to absolve him of all his sins and infantilize him because they feel sorry for him instead of taking a look at how this clearly hyper-masculine abusive home has contributed to his character flaws
There is this mentally of 'if I get burned, I will burn down the world" basically meaning that you can hurt anyone you want becuase you suffered and it is somehow justified.
This is so rampant in this fandom. It kills of any discussion or questioning of how someone got to that conclusion, why are they this way to begin with and any room for growth becuase why would they change if they are already 'correct'?
Also it is just boring like okay lets say that isaac trying to beat up scott who saved him episodes ago,trying to lydia over rejection and his homicidal tendencies are all somehow justified becuase Isaac was abused so what now? What are we going to talk about? Are we just going to talk about derek being "the father he never had" and nothing else?
Its like teen wolf fans dodge character development or any deep thought about a character that isn't just throwing then in a trope.
What's ironic is the fact that this interpretation actually flattens Isaac and ignores his character development instead of doing him a service.
On the other side of the coin there is a crowd who chants ad nauseam "being abused doesn't excuse anyone", which is equally unbearable.
People are complicated, and between these two extremities sits a whole territory, occupied by characters that are well-written without reducing them to one or the other.
A quiet note after reading.
What stood out wasn’t the terminology, but the insistence on responsibility.
Across these pages, “magick” isn’t treated as spectacle or escape. It’s framed as intentional change, rooted first in the subjective world. Perception, will, focus. Not belief as fantasy, but belief as orientation.
There’s a repeated refusal to outsource agency. No bowing. No surrendering of authorship. Symbols are tools, not authorities. Ritual isn’t a shortcut, it’s a container for attention. If nothing changes within the subjective universe, nothing meaningful follows in the objective one.
I also noticed the warning beneath the surface: collecting ideas without practice becomes its own form of avoidance. Knowledge can sharpen the will, but it can also anesthetize it if it’s never embodied.
What lingers for me is this distinction between influence and alignment. Lesser change moves things around us. Greater change reorganizes how we see, choose, and persist. The work isn’t about commanding reality. It’s about refining the self that meets it.
No theatrics. No guarantees.
Just the quiet demand to become accountable for where energy is placed — and why.
