Mike Driver
Acquired Stardust
d e v o n
No title available
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
Keni
YOU ARE THE REASON
Game of Thrones Daily
art blog(derogatory)
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
⁂
★
Today's Document
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
Cosimo Galluzzi
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
ellievsbear
Peter Solarz
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from South Korea
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Singapore
seen from Taiwan
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Indonesia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Romania
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
@lmdhawk
[Image ID: A post by @coela2616 from 1 day previously. "I am trying to operate under what I;m calling Pascal's Wager of Hope. If things are going to end terribly and I try anyway, I've lost nothing, but if things could end well and I do nothing, I've made a grievous error. All my effort right could be in vain, but but also could not be, and that possibility means that I should place my wager on hope."
The profile picture is just a "c" on a green background.
End Image ID]
they/them is not an all-inclusive pronoun that you can use to refer to anyone just because it is gender neutral.
the very basic sentiment of "don't misgender people" seems to go over even the heads of trans people and cis people alike when it comes to they/them pronouns.
not everyone wants to be called they/them. if someone strictly uses she/her or he/him or she/he or neopronouns etc. anything that is not they/them.... using they/them would still be misgendering. in the same way calling someone who doesn't use any other pronoun that pronoun would be misgendering.
You don't get a free pass to call people whatever pronouns you want to call them rather than the pronouns they use just because they them is a gender neutral pronoun.
also not all nonbinary people use strictly they/them pronouns or they/them pronouns at all.
i feel like this is very simple yet is misunderstood by a lot of people
They/them is a common pronoun used by non-binary people because it's the standard for *hypothetical* people or people who's gender was unknown or ambiguous. So referring to a person whose gender you're unsure of as "they" is a reasonable gender neutral option.
However: If you do know somebody's gender, because they are a public figure, have it listed in their bio, or you know them, and they use pronouns other than they, then it is, at minimum, exceptionally impolite to continue using the hypothetical pronoun for said person. Especially if said person specifically asks that you use another pronoun.
There are really two "they"s. "They" as in I don't know this persons gender or I have to circumlocute to keep them from being outed, and "they" as in they use they/them pronouns.
The first is rude for people you know, but because the second is so common as a secondary pronoun, people forget that.
actually fucking disgusting that glasses cost any money like if you actually think about it for more than a few seconds it is so unconscionably inhumane. this goes for things like insulin and mobility aids and hearing aids too ofc but fuck man, fucking glasses? the thing you need to fucking see? its genuinely sickening and inhumanly evil that those cost ANYTHING.
See the cost is an abstraction that represents the labor and resources required to manufacture a pair of glasses, which require materials like glass, metal and plastic, and specialists who know what they're doing. That necessity of material and labor is unavoidable.
The real inhumane thing is that the cost is born by the individuals needing the glasses and not maintained as a collective resource so that everybody can see.
The distinction is an important one if you're ever going to live in a world where any individual who needs glasses is able to obtain glasses without diminishing her own available resources.
Silly Game Time: WEIRD BATTLE OF THE BANDS! Fleetwood Mac & Cheese, a tribute band that does cover versions of Fleetwood Mac songs (classic rock of the 70s & 80s), except all the lyrics are about Italian food. VS Sharkira, a tribute singer that does cover versions of Shakira songs (Latin-American pop of the 90s and 2000s) except all the lyrics are about marine biology.
If you had to listen to one of these options for one whole hour, uninterrupted, which would you choose?
I think Fleetwood Mac & Cheese, but only because I think the pop would get to be a bit much for a whole hour, but I would listen to both all the time.
Silly Game Time: Coming up with a fitting name for an original character is one of the trickiest parts of character creation. Yet I think it's also one of the most fun challenges! So what do you think would be a good name for a character associated with water?
This could be based on literally anything, including just vibes. But ideas could come from mythology (gods and spirits and heroes and monsters from different cultures). Or history (figures who famously studied or thought about or worked on water). Or media (many different stories, games, and movies have characters, classes, and species who are connected with oceans, lakes, and rivers). Or simple word association derivatives (for example, with "fire" you could get "combustion", which could then give Combu, Ombust, Stion, Costio, etc.).
I think Ripple, or Splish, depending on the vibes you were going for.
Silly Game Time: Everybody's getting ice cream! (Or a dairy-free substitute like sorbet if your dietary restrictions so require.) What flavor will you choose?
Either Strawberry or Chocolate chip cookie dough, probably. Though if they had KGB (which is a flavor that a local place in Cape Cod offers that I've never seen anywhere else) then that.
Just so we’re all clear:
Things that you SHOULD NOT deadname
Trans women
Trans men
Non binary people
Any other trans identity that doesn’t fit into those three
Cis people who changed their name
Anyone who goes by a different name then the one their parents gave them regardless of how “good” of a person they are, or your personal feeling towards them
Things that you SHOULD deadname
• Sears Tower
National Airport
Gulf of Mexico
Department of Defense
The Tappan Zee Bridge
it’s always so strange to see a real estate listing where the house is like a creepy decrepit shack on the outside and fairly nice and move in ready on the inside. when it’s the other way around, you think maybe they wanted to give it curb appeal to sell it but when it looks awful on the outside and livable on the inside you’re like. was that a deliberate choice.
I mean the inside of the house is the part you actually have to live in, so it makes sense that you would want it to be nice. The outside? Who cares, it's not like *you* have to look at it. And then you have to go sell your house and you can't be arsed to make the out side look nice at this point.
incredible to get a "you're not allowed to critique someone getting off to incest because that's the same as accusing them of being real life perpetrators/supports of incest" comment right as i was listening to this popaganda podcast episode talking about white people thinking antebellum balls are just teehee innocent play pretend
has anybody told the ppl who dress up like plantation owners that if they make it a sex thing it's not racist anymore
even if you have the greatest faith in those people that they don't support in real life slavery they're still playacting at being slaveowners which is like you know. bad and worthy of criticism
I feel like "creating a cultural revival of a historical practice without understanding or actively trying to bury and/or promote the ugly social context behind it" is not the same thing as "writing about topics you know are taboo because it makes you horny".
Also, "critiquing" taboo based erotica is almost always tied in with call for censorship, rather than constructive criticism about the social forces that shape why people find it compelling and the unexamined prejudices that might be worth examining, so people get very defensive very quickly. Because censorship has a way of spreading to nuanced portrayals that actually depict it as taboo, and people talking about lived experience and also to adjacent things, which is always queer people. Always.
So yes, it is worthy of criticism, whether it's a sex thing or not. But that needs to be more nuanced than just "It's bad stop doing it."
why are yall always so quick to take someone saying "i think you're a creep if you jerk off to incest porn" and decide this means the government is going to make talking about incest illegal. especially because on what fucking planet do you think the government is going to make talking about incest ever at all illegal. queer people experience censorship because we're queer, regardless of topic.
and i just want to know what the cutoff is for what counts as "burying the ugly social context behind something". does incest not have an ugly social context? does it not have a history steeped in white supremacist sexual abuse?
also like again this is usa centric because this is where i live, but the censorship of queer people in this country does not have anything to do with incest whatsoever. at all. and the other, arguably more virulent, form of censorship in this country is to bury the history of slavery and Black americans, but you're going to sit here and cry about incest becoming illegal to talk about? are you serious? can you people please stop tying sexual abuse to queer identity the same way conservatives do and claiming it's progressive because you're doing it as a queer person
Okay, sure the censorship of queer people has never needed an excuse, I'll concede that. But there is a growing call for censorship on topics like incest and pedophilia *from queer people*. The call is coming from inside the house. And of course putting the infrastructure for censorship into place, it gets broadened out, and so every time a post about not censoring particular platforms has people in the notes saying: "So you're defending pedophiles?", people get more and more conditioned to lash out at criticism of any purely fictional sex thing as being the beginning of something that goes down that path, because it's become a pro-censorship dog whistle.
(Side note: I misread your post, so the paragraph that went here is not actually relevant and I deleted it. Figured I should clarify that in case anyone saw that I had edited it.)
More to the point, people do not control what makes them horny, and a lot of kink is trauma response (though people should not be required to disclose said trauma to be "allowed" to enjoy certain things), so it really boils down to repression or finding safe, fictional outlets that don't hurt anyone.
So if you want to walk about the underlying historical and social issues around incest and how fetishizing is harmful to the collective psyche or disrespects victims then fine. But people will probably call you out for kinkshaming.
i think you need to talk to people about this who have never set foot on tumblr. walk into a real life meeting of queer people and tell them you're worried about censorship of incest and pedophile porn. let's see how that goes.
and isn't it so convenient that the only victims you people care about are the ones who can sexualize their abuse. it's apparently impossible to consider one might be able to eventually go actually maybe that's not good for me, or even, gasp! not do it in the first place. everything is healthy and natural as long as you get off to it i guess!
lastly fucking hilarious to say i'll be "called out" for kinkshaming as if that's on the same level as actual bigotry like racism oh my goddddddd there is no hope for y'all
I mean...we are on an online platform, so yeah, i kind of assumed you were talking about online censorship. Rules for engagement in in person places are: Don't bring up kink in casual conversation unless you're sure everyone around you is cool with that sort of talk and as soon as someones uncomfortable, you change the subject. This is because in meatspace people can't just disengage. Online, they can, so the ethics of talking about kink are different.
Though I actually did offhandedly mention once about how I was mildly annoyed by people calling for the censorship of pedophilic stories in person once, and the other person actually agreed with me. Now one instance doesn't mean all the time, but I have a feeling that I could probably make people see my case.
You want to talk about the US government making things illegal to talk about? Because there are laws floating around on both federal and state levels about keeping "sexually explicit" material out of schools. You want to know what they meant by "sexually explicit material"? Self-help books about body changes during puberty and any story that has a queer character. So yeah, censorship is a thing that people in meatspace should be worried about. And thing about censorship, is that you can't just have a little. If you create broad categories of books to be censored, then people will find a way to make things they don't like for into those categories. Most queer people, at least those I've spoken with, can get on board with that (side note, yes I did forget to finish this paragraph and had to go back and fix it).
As for people who experienced incestuous sexual assault? That should not happen to anyone in real life. Every one of them deserved better. And they deserve to get a chance to understand and learn their own coping mechanisms. And if those don't include reading about sexualized versions of their own trauma, then they have the agency to not engage with that type of story.
These are real human people who have their own lives doing all sorts of other things to move past their trauma as best they can and I'm not going to patronize anyone by assuming that they do not have control over what kinds of things they read. The mere existence of these stories do not hurt anyone, and the assertion that they do becomes the bedrock of censorship.
Now if you want to criticize people for enjoying fictional stories, fine, I guess, but I just find it odd that you juxtaposed niche erotica that is often aware of it's taboo nature and is spread among consenting adults outside of the public eye with a broader cultural movement of people taking an aesthetic and being blithely unaware of the way it's truncating our history and playing into racism on society wide scale. They aren't really the same issue
incredible to get a "you're not allowed to critique someone getting off to incest because that's the same as accusing them of being real life perpetrators/supports of incest" comment right as i was listening to this popaganda podcast episode talking about white people thinking antebellum balls are just teehee innocent play pretend
has anybody told the ppl who dress up like plantation owners that if they make it a sex thing it's not racist anymore
even if you have the greatest faith in those people that they don't support in real life slavery they're still playacting at being slaveowners which is like you know. bad and worthy of criticism
I feel like "creating a cultural revival of a historical practice without understanding or actively trying to bury and/or promote the ugly social context behind it" is not the same thing as "writing about topics you know are taboo because it makes you horny".
Also, "critiquing" taboo based erotica is almost always tied in with call for censorship, rather than constructive criticism about the social forces that shape why people find it compelling and the unexamined prejudices that might be worth examining, so people get very defensive very quickly. Because censorship has a way of spreading to nuanced portrayals that actually depict it as taboo, and people talking about lived experience and also to adjacent things, which is always queer people. Always.
So yes, it is worthy of criticism, whether it's a sex thing or not. But that needs to be more nuanced than just "It's bad stop doing it."
why are yall always so quick to take someone saying "i think you're a creep if you jerk off to incest porn" and decide this means the government is going to make talking about incest illegal. especially because on what fucking planet do you think the government is going to make talking about incest ever at all illegal. queer people experience censorship because we're queer, regardless of topic.
and i just want to know what the cutoff is for what counts as "burying the ugly social context behind something". does incest not have an ugly social context? does it not have a history steeped in white supremacist sexual abuse?
also like again this is usa centric because this is where i live, but the censorship of queer people in this country does not have anything to do with incest whatsoever. at all. and the other, arguably more virulent, form of censorship in this country is to bury the history of slavery and Black americans, but you're going to sit here and cry about incest becoming illegal to talk about? are you serious? can you people please stop tying sexual abuse to queer identity the same way conservatives do and claiming it's progressive because you're doing it as a queer person
Okay, sure the censorship of queer people has never needed an excuse, I'll concede that. But there is a growing call for censorship on topics like incest and pedophilia *from queer people*. The call is coming from inside the house. And of course putting the infrastructure for censorship into place, it gets broadened out, and so every time a post about not censoring particular platforms has people in the notes saying: "So you're defending pedophiles?", people get more and more conditioned to lash out at criticism of any purely fictional sex thing as being the beginning of something that goes down that path, because it's become a pro-censorship dog whistle.
(Side note: I misread your post, so the paragraph that went here is not actually relevant and I deleted it. Figured I should clarify that in case anyone saw that I had edited it.)
More to the point, people do not control what makes them horny, and a lot of kink is trauma response (though people should not be required to disclose said trauma to be "allowed" to enjoy certain things), so it really boils down to repression or finding safe, fictional outlets that don't hurt anyone.
So if you want to walk about the underlying historical and social issues around incest and how fetishizing is harmful to the collective psyche or disrespects victims then fine. But people will probably call you out for kinkshaming.
A lot of transphobia has this underlying assumption that people who transition are a random sample from their AGAB. Like, if you imagine a world where you took all the 10-year-old "boys" in your country and randomly selected 1% of them to go on to transition later in life, then that world would be essentially the same as this one.
And that assumption is useful to transphobes because it means they can uncritically extend properties of the AGAB group to the subset who transitions. E.g. they will say AMAB kids are likely to have behaved like X or experienced Y in their youth, therefore trans women are likely to have behaved like X or experienced Y in their youth. And they can say this without ever checking if it's true about trans women, because if everyone knows it's true of cis boys, they will assume that extension to trans women.
But like, if you took down the details of every 30-year-old trans woman right now, then went back in time 20 years, and studied that group of 10-year-olds, you would find they already had properties that differed from the 10-year-old-AMAB average in 2006. Perhaps they would be a little quieter, perhaps they would have a couple more female friends, perhaps they'd have fewer friends in general, perhaps they would have more anxiety, perhaps they would have more depression. Perhaps none of these and something else, idk.
But, the point is, people don't just decide to transition *at random*, there is a whole history of life experience in each trans girl leading up to that realisation "I am trans" and that decision "I should do something about it", and that common history of all these kids would be reflected in some group average differences from the AGAB cohort even long before that realisation took place.
And this is what makes "male socialisation" rhetoric so frustrating. Because the very fact of having all the life history that led up to your realisation that you were trans, the life history that *caused* that realisation, that very history marks you as someone with an atypical social experience compared to your AGAB average.
Literally if you had to select the 1% of AMAB people *least* likely to have had a typical "male socialisation", it would be the ones who come out of that experience thinking "you know what, I'm actually a different gender to all these men". And yet it's trans women who are tarred with the brush of "male socialisation" more than any other group.
[image ID: comment from user revolution-girlstylenow: “the biggest problem with terf-style socialization theory is that if it were true, trans people, gay people, and all forms of gender nonconformity would not exist. none of us were socialized to be queer, right? if socialization worked the same way on everyone, everyone would perfectly live up to the expectations set for their gender within their society. feminism wouldn't even exist because everyone would accept their place in the patriarchy like they were socialized to. of course, the reality is that who you are and who you want to be is going to have a huge impact on how your social experience affects you” End ID.]
Also: socialization is not some kind of one and done thing that only happens in childhood. Getting to live as your true gender and be around people who interact with you as your true gender and get used to being in gendered spaces are experiences that shape you as well, even if you start as an adult. Socialization is ongoing, and extending a little grace to newly transitioned trans women goes a long way. (Over and above just extending grace to everyone because there are a lot of reasons why people don't pick up on expected gendered social cues, including disability and differing cultural backgrounds and really, having different socialization doesn't make a person dangerous.)
incredible to get a "you're not allowed to critique someone getting off to incest because that's the same as accusing them of being real life perpetrators/supports of incest" comment right as i was listening to this popaganda podcast episode talking about white people thinking antebellum balls are just teehee innocent play pretend
has anybody told the ppl who dress up like plantation owners that if they make it a sex thing it's not racist anymore
even if you have the greatest faith in those people that they don't support in real life slavery they're still playacting at being slaveowners which is like you know. bad and worthy of criticism
I feel like "creating a cultural revival of a historical practice without understanding or actively trying to bury and/or promote the ugly social context behind it" is not the same thing as "writing about topics you know are taboo because it makes you horny".
Also, "critiquing" taboo based erotica is almost always tied in with call for censorship, rather than constructive criticism about the social forces that shape why people find it compelling and the unexamined prejudices that might be worth examining, so people get very defensive very quickly. Because censorship has a way of spreading to nuanced portrayals that actually depict it as taboo, and people talking about lived experience and also to adjacent things, which is always queer people. Always.
So yes, it is worthy of criticism, whether it's a sex thing or not. But that needs to be more nuanced than just "It's bad stop doing it."
Midcentury fact: people in the 1970s were happier because conversation pits allowed gatherings closer to the earths center and therefore encouraged psychic healing. They also had many narcotic drugs
Well, yes, but the median family income was just under $14K and the average cost of a house was $42, 525, so about 3, 3.5x the average family income.
The median salary for 2025 was 62K and the average house price was $431K. This is almost 7 times as much. meaning that the average person/household is paying twice as much for the same average house. and that's just one metric for overall affordability of...stuff.
Also the corporate tax rate was twice as high (I checked the IRS data) and I feel like that might have been at least partly responsible for the whole affordability thing.
Though we absolutely should bring back conversation pits along with higher corporate tax rates.
Insect. Like a bee. Doing a weird pose
It's obviously(to me) a representation of the pain of childbirth. Like borderline seems intentional.
[Image ID note: It says "Silly Game Time: Describe what this inkblot looks like to you. Be as imaginative as you can!" The inkblot is...(and keep in mind, I am rather biased, but I want to offer at least a rough idea) left-right symmetrical with two unattached splots in the lower corners which are roughly kidney shaped on top with thin trails running down in a lighter grey, then completely while along the top and just below that, two long thin shapes each coming down from an inch down and half way along, which run along but don't quite touch the main shape in the middle, which starts just below and between the two long thin ones, and starts as two ovals fused into each other with a small hole in the middle, and then out of the bottom of each a trail that goes down for a little before intersecting with these bigger almost-rectangles that are not quite vertical and angled toward the top corners, with each having a short line from the bottom-most corner with a splotch at the bottom, and in the space between the two rectangles is a lighter gray shape that looks sort of like a butterfly or a human pelvic bone.
End Image ID]
[Image ID: A post by phones with six ones ( @phones111111) "this actually is the cyberpunk i expected". Followed by two pictures, the left of a dog shaped robotic entity moving along a street at night with glowing green eyes and a blue glow on it's back, and the right picture of two people in police uniforms that are dark blue with a neon yellow vest pattern, on on the phone looking down at the robot, and one crouched down next to the robot with a flashlight. Under that is the original post to which Phone with Six Ones is reacting. "This is not the cyberpunk we expected. In Moscow, police detained a robotic dog that worked as a drug courier, it carried an advertisement for a store with illegal substances and the substances themselves in containers, After the cops arrived, the robot suddenly turned off all the signal lights and went into self-defense mode, destroying internal information including the geodata of the route."
Phone with Six Ones' profile picture is of a femminine looking east-Asian person with long hair wearing a black boatneck top, with a blank background.
End Image ID]
One thing I will say about using the term "self care" to get around using the work masturbation on TikTok and other short video platforms is that it's an actual fucking euphemism instead of baby talk.
I simply don’t think that’s true
solarpunk is a yogurt marketing campaign
Solarpunk is an artistic movement that has philosophical tenants of seeking change for the betterment of society, which, unfortunately, often involves politics, but has been appropriated by advertisers, like most movements before it.
