Anthony van Dyck — William II, Prince of Orange, and his Bride, Mary Stuart (detail). 1641
noise dept.
Fieri Frames
h
Not today Justin
Claire Keane
Doug Jones
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
occasionally subtle
TMBGareOK. The Official They Might Be Giants tumblr
untitled

Product Placement
Fai_Ryy
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

No title available
The Bright Sessions
The Bowery Presents
Game of Thrones Daily
taylor price

ellievsbear

seen from United States
seen from Colombia
seen from Türkiye

seen from Austria

seen from Brunei
seen from Portugal
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Spain

seen from Iraq
seen from Singapore

seen from Canada

seen from United Kingdom
seen from India
seen from Bangladesh

seen from United States

seen from United States
@lovelypaperdoll
Anthony van Dyck — William II, Prince of Orange, and his Bride, Mary Stuart (detail). 1641
oh no they’re going to start calling democrats the same thing they’ve been calling democrats for 20 years now
"Here’s a trick I learned during the Obama presidency for handling certain types of political labels. Take, as an example, the Tea Party claim that Obama is a Communist. Don’t take the word of the person making the claim (Tea Partiers). Don’t rely on the rebuttal of the target (Obama), because that will just be dismissed. Go to the group itself (Communists) and ask them. Ask an actual Communist if Obama is a comrade and see how they answer. Watch as they laugh at you, then explain in great detail how they wish there was a Communist in the White House, but here’s a long and exhaustive list of why that just isn’t so. Now apply this logic to the claim that Hillary is pretty much the same as a Republican. Ask an actual Republican if they think Hillary Clinton is one of them. Watch them laugh, and then explain in the same exhausting detail why that just isn’t so. Some of them might concede that she’s better than Trump, but that’s not the same thing. Finally, go ask a White Supremacist if Trump is one of them. As they excitedly explain how Trump is the guy they’ve been waiting for all these years, and how he’s really empowered their movement, use this to guide how you will be voting in November."
Source: a 2016 facebook posts by Craig Enan, since then deleted (OG link here)
op disabled reblogs but I think the point still stands
reminder that the books themselves also suck ass actually. there's an entire plotline endorsing slavery. the one character who advocates to end slavery is bullied and made fun of. the one slave who doesnt like being enslaved is bullied and treated as an outcast. the bankers are the picture of racist stereotypes of jewish people. the one asian character is named fckn Cho Chang. the worldbuilding SUCKS. fuck harry potter and fuck rowling. stop giving her your money.
your golden crown of sorrow
IRIS VAN HERPEN Couture Fall/Winter 2027 pls help me get out of debt donating to: ko-fi.com/fashionrunways or dinahlance-shop.fourthwall.com
Something for Moomin Day :-)
prints and stickers | IG | Patreon
why be radically exclusionary abt queerness when you could be radically inclusionary instead. let's inflate the numbers. let's become the majority. the sky's the limit
"we can't let just ANYONE call themselves queer!!" what are you talking about. I'm steepling my fingers and gleefully cackling every time we Get Another One and you should be too. lock in.
Fuck yeah, let's make this little raft we're surviving on big as hell. If I bring my bit of driftwood and you bring yours and we let as many people join in as want to, we might end up with a functional boat.
I heard someone say 'queer is that which accepts queerness' a few weeks ago and I've been thinking about it ever since.
Back when I was active on AVEN (I have no idea what it's like now), we had two definitions of asexual -- an external definition and an internal definition. The external definition, the one that's on the wiki and the press material and that everyone uses when talking about asexuality, was of course "an asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction". The internal definition, the one we kept in mind when talking to each other, was "an asexual is someone who calls themself asexual".
The reason for this was very simple and very practical. In the very early AVEN and immediately pre-AVEN days, back before my time when the disparate ace communities were first finding each other and creating a public online network, there was a fair lot of exclusionist discourse. There are a lot of ways to be asexual, and the early community of course fell prey to the usual infighting about whether someone with a libido counts as asexual, whether someone who chooses to have sex can be asexual (usual tiring Purity Brigade Bullshit), whether someone without a libido counts as asexual (after all, if you have no sex drive, are you sure it's a matter of sexual orientation?), whether ace people count as lgbtq, all the usual nonsense. This worked out the way it pretty much always does -- the inclusionists "win", because exclusionists always break off into smaller and smaller communities so the largest group is, of course, the one where all different kinds of people stick together and welcome each other. And that was AVEN.
And when you're trying to have a strong community and somebody shows up at the gates saying, "hi, I think I'm asexual", it's a fucking horrible idea to start doubting their credentials. They saw the public definition and started calling themselves asexual; they're here, and now they're under the internal definition. An asexual is somebody who calls themself asexual. Sometimes, these people would be frustrated allosexuals, or people choosing to swear off sex, who might not fit the external definition of the term. We made sure that everyone knew the external definition, and there were always conversations about asexuality and how it affected our lives, if they asked us directly what we thought then we'd say "only you can know for sure" and then give our thoughts on the matter for as long as they asked for them, and other than that it wasn't anyone else's fucking business or anyone's place to judge. If people weren't nasty and didn't create problems, they could stay and call themselves whatever they wanted.
Many of these people who didn't fit the strict definition eventually left after receiving support and discovering more about themselves. Some stopped IDing as ace but became allies to the community. Some people who came in with the most "I'm a heterosexual girl who is angry at my boyfriend" intro posts you've ever seen in your life discovered that they were in fact ace and that the messages that society had taught them about sex and romance were simply not for them -- these are people who, in a gatekept community, would have been incorrectly ousted immediately.
And then there were people -- a LOT of people -- who found themselves in grey areas. People who said "okay, this community makes sense to me and is useful to me and I have so much in common with a lot of you, but not EXACTLY like you. However, what I experience may not be the strict default definition but it's an awful lot like these other members on the forum." And they formed sub-communities. The grey aces. The demisexuals. The aromantics and greyromantics. Through these dialogues, between subgroups who in a more exclusionary community would be arguing about who the "real" asexuals are and splintering off into their own communities away from all those stupid cishet fakers, we developed language to describe our similarities and differences. The sexual/romantic/aesthetic attraction model came out of these dialogues and it became so massively important to our understanding of asexuality that basically everyone in the ace/aro community describes themselves by it, as do a large number of people outside the community. The community made massive leaps ahead in just a decade or two by, well, being a community. By being a place where anybody who called the place home, and didn't bully other people in the home, was right. By being somewhere where anybody who saw "asexual: someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction" and thought "that sounds like a term with some use for me" was allowed to use it.
An asexual is somebody who does not experience sexual attraction.
An asexual is somebody who calls themselves asexual.
These definitions are not in conflict -- they are both, in concert, fundamentally necessary for a safe and vibrant community where we can protect, support, and learn about each other and ourselves.
And that is absolutely not exclusive to asexual communities.
‘bread is bad for you’ ‘rice is bad for you’ sorry im not subscribing to the idea that staple grains that have been integral to cultures for centuries are evil. i love you carbs
all the “peer pressure is bad” education we give kids is practically useless because all it cares about is telling them that Drugs Are Evil rather than the much more useful lesson of ‘the person who responds to you saying you don’t drink by telling you they’ll find a way to get you to is also going to be shitty about all your other boundaries’.
god forbid you teach kids that their consent should be respected rather than about the inherent immorality of all the sinful actions of their peers
Japanese students Lisa and Mituoka on the street in Harajuku wearing colorful retro-inspired styles with vintage fashion, floral prints, flower glasses, and neon accents. Full Looks
Love Letter' by Rebeca Fleur
Fishpond Mosaic designed by artist Gary Drostle
@copperbadge I feel like this is something you would appreciate.
Oh, that is lovely. And I always appreciate an artist attribution too!
Here's the artist's website.
He's been doing mosaics like this for a while. (I followed up on the one in the top illustration some while ago, when I first ran into it online. I think I remember discovering that the town in Surrey where it originally appeared has removed it: no idea why.)
All k9 dogs are abused hands down if you post any pro k9 stuff on my dash you’re unfollowed I don’t care if we’ve been mutuals for years, you can claim to be anti-cop or a leftist or whatever but if you post k9 dogs with like “a good doggo! A good boy!” fuck off, if I lose followers over this then good riddance
It’s ALSO worth saying that police dogs serve a significant role in worsening police brutality. A dog trained to attack a human will maim them. A cop looses a police dog on someone, and that person is expected to peacefully cooperate while a dog is trying to tear their limbs off. It is very easy for those massive wounds to get infected. It is an absurd amount of violence. And beyond the initial attack, the fact that a “poor sweet innocent doggo” did this is used to excuse that brutality in court. Especially if the victim, panicking in the moment, lashed out at the dog. As this website has demonstrated many times, majority-white juries have more sympathies for injured dogs than the people of color who are most often victims of police brutality. So they’re not just systemic animal abuse, they’re also a tool for increased police brutality and to excuse
Today, ACLU California Action released a new, first-of-its-kind report examining the outdated and dangerous police practice of using attack
Reporting by The Marshall Project and our media partners exposes the damage police dogs inflict across the U.S.
hope you dont mind if i add some relevant links. the Marshall project in particular has a lot of other articles about k9s that i recommend clicking through.
i think a lot of (white) people just really don't realize how fucking terrifying and dangerous these animals are and while i understand the animal welfare angle, i think any discussion about police dogs should be focused first and foremost on their role as living weapons
yes, there are some aninal welfare concerns but even if the dogs were treated like royalty they would still need to be abolished
Red Glass Goldfish Jar 清 (Qing Period)