Land of Rock and Lightning @major-victory - Tumblr Blog

Sainte Esconde des Mystères, une confidence pour une prière

Sainte Esconde des Secrets, montre moi ce qui est caché

My comic La Langue des Vipères was released this week in bookstores in France, Belgium and Switzerland !

This beautiful trailer was created by my friends at Potto Collective : @lholmesharfang , Luc Armanet, @noctambuleur , @estellito , @nomnomsandwich , @shliten, Matthieu Chavane and Fanou Lefebvre

#comics #animation

cleaverqueer

petition to change LGBT to DFTQ (Dykes Faggots Trannies and Queers, naturally)

cleaverqueer

AMENDED

cleaverqueer

happy pride everyone

maudit

profeminist

RIP Marjane Satrapi, author of the amazing graphic novels Persepolis about living during the fundamentalist revolution in Iran in the 70’s and 80’s. She also created the animated movie based on the graphic novels, which is where these gifs come from.

Gifset source

missbliss12

Reblogging in honor of Marjane Satrapi, one of THE great graphic novelists. Her comic Persepolis was a crucial text for shaping my belief that comics can deeply explore identity, culture, politics, and history.

viralfrog

dragongirlbunny

#pvp soccer #video #funny #sports #soccer

depsidase

barkingbarghest

Here is an article from NPR about it (May 22, 2026):

Carolina Milanesi, an independent technology analyst, said Google is trying to make its cash cow business — search — richer and more personalized, and it will make shopping easier. But there is a risk that users may have fewer choices about what to click. "Right now it's: I ask a question, I get a bunch of answers and I feel that I'm in control as to which answer I take, or if I'm looking for something, which product I'm going to end up buying. That is going to be less so going forward," she said. Milanesi envisions AI-enabled search and agents proposing products to consumers — perhaps even those they have requested — but with less clarity or choice around where it's coming from. "If you're going to say: 'I want a pair of Jordans, go find them,' you're not necessarily sure what steps have been taken and whether the AI has used a source or a store that was paid for and therefore came up in the search results," she said, "or if AI actually went and did their due diligence and picked the best for me as a customer."

And here's one from Time magazine (May 20, 2026):

While Google already has “AI Mode,” the company will now power the whole search bar through its new Gemini 3.5 Flash model. Instead of the classic list of blue links, Google Search will now also generate a custom page with an AI-generated summary of what you’re searching about, which will then trigger a conversation with AI Mode on the main page, allowing users to ask follow-up questions—similar to the kind of layout you would see when opening ChatGPT.

And a little more from Time's article on how this may affect the websites that we are trying to search for:

When Google first started implementing AI-assisted results, news publishers warned of “catastrophic” impacts on the industry, much of which relies on Google search to drive users to their websites. Last year, news websites saw significant traffic declines as chatbots increasingly replaced Google search as the primary way to find sites and ask questions. Small businesses also noted drops in traffic to their sites from Google, which has traditionally delivered customers. Lily Ray, vice president of SEO strategy & research at Amsive, a digital marketing agency, warned as early as last year that Google’s planned changes to search are “going to have a devastating impact on the Internet.” “It will severely cut into the main source of revenue for most publishers and it will disincentivize content creators who rely on organic search traffic, which is millions of websites, maybe more,” she told Technology Magazine.

the-crying-bitch

cythraul

This is you reminder that, even in Google's own Chrome, you can set the default search to DuckDuckGo.

amateur-climber-pro-shitposter

Every year The Internet Archive hosts a competion to make art using newly public domain materials, and I've been losing my mind at this submission:

https://archive.org/details/555-milf-tar/

#video #funny #archive

fictionadventurer

One of my biggest literary pet peeves is when historical or history-inspired fiction pretends that "courting" is a synonym for "dating". Usually it's just a one-to-one word swap--in a modern context, these characters would be dating, but this is olden times, so they call it courting instead. Sometimes they'll pretend there's a shade of difference, and that courting is a more serious exploration of marriage or something. But I read a lot of fiction that was actually written during these historical eras, and the word "courting" is never used like that.

Two people do not decide that they are "courting". One person decides to "court" someone else. It's an action, not a stage in the relationship. A man decides to court a woman because he wants to encourage her to have romantic interest in him. He's trying to win her favor. It's not an exclusive relationship--a woman could be courted by multiple men at once. She'll spend time getting to know the guy who's interested in her, but they won't officially define their relationship as one where they only show romantic interest in each other. If they reach a point where they want it to be exclusive, that's when you propose.

There's no middle ground--either you're getting to know each other, or you're committed to marrying each other. This idea of a period where you kind of commit to each other until you decide you definitely want to get married is a modern one, and it occurs in eras where they use the word "dating" to describe it. The closest equivalent I can think of are times and places where they'd talk about a couple "stepping out together", but they're still not calling it "courting". Words have meaning, and the word "courting" has never meant that, so stop using it that way!

starfieldcanvas

the other mild historical disjoint i run into is when people talk about dating in the fifties like it automatically meant exclusivity. the whole reason we have the expression "going steady" is because the default was to or "go around with" or "go out with" multiple people. not in the sense of being in a stable polyamorous vee, but in the sense that archie is actively "seeing" both betty and veronica during the entire time the two girls are competing for his attention and they're both seeing other guys to make him jealous, and nobody involved considers this "cheating."

bizarrely, America has in many ways gotten more conservative about dating since World War II.

penrosesun

I ran into a truly wild cultural misunderstanding with my father some years ago, when I had to explain to him what “hookup culture” actually was, and that the thing he assumed it was was actually what we call “cruising culture”. His response was “how is that different from dating?” and when I explained how it was different, he said, and please note that this a direct quote: “That’s ridiculous! You can’t expect a woman to stop fooling around with other guys for anything less than a marriage proposal. I mean, she’s not a prostitute, you can’t buy her.” Now obviously there’s like… a lot to unpack there, but I think it’s pretty darn illustrative of a substantive cultural shift around the assumption of monogamy!

Also, following this, I asked my mom what her thoughts were on the matter, and she said that while she “wouldn’t put it in those terms” she broadly agreed, and thought that anyone expecting any sort of exclusivity when a marriage proposal wasn’t at least on the very immanent horizon was “nuts, honestly.” I hesitantly asked if she was including relationships with premarital sexual activity in that, and her response was “Of course. I mean, gosh, you know your Aunt Terri used to have a guy for every day of the week before she finally settled down.”

And this was when I learned, to my shock, that the oft-repeated story of how “Aunt Terri used to have a guy for every day of the week” didn’t just mean “Aunt Terri had a full dance card” but rather meant that Aunt Terri had a period of her life where she literally dated exactly seven guys at once, all of whom she was sleeping with (or, my mom was quick to disclaim, “well, fooling around with, I don’t know how far she actually went with any of them, but they were definitely all fooling around behind closed doors”), on a literal weekly rotation. Like, they had a schedule. A schedule that all seven of the guys knew.

America has gotten a lot more conservative about dating, actually.

#history

alexxuun

A mini PHM comic about Grace growing old. I wanted to explore two ideas: Rocky dealing with Grace’s dementia and Grace wanting to donate his body to science. I spend so much time on figuring out the dialogue (some part still feel clunky to me) but I hope it express my thoughts on where I think Grace’s life would go :)

Title is based on a song by M83

#project hail mary #comics #phm

lavenderhayes12

Everybody and their mothers understood why removing Sokka's misogyny in the ATLA live action was a bad idea and made the story worse but suddenly when they remove Sanji and Zoro's misogyny in OPLA it's a good thing?? Make it make sense

myrskytuuli

Sure, I'll make it make sense. Because comparing the two starts from a place of false parallelism.

In ATLA, Sokka's misogyny was present for 3 episodes in the very beginning of the show, and then used to deliver narrative carthasis in episode 4, in the form of Sokka's 180 turn into feminism. The tension of flexing the rubber band of Sokka's misogyny was brief, and the release of that tension then felt appropriatly sized, because it came so soon in the series. The the rest of the show continued slapping instant karmic punishments to characters who expressed misogynistic beliefs. (Anyone who underestimated Toph, Yue's bethored, the guys who catcalled Katara, etc, etc). The world of ATLA is such, that it bends itself to always prove the misogynist wrong. (of course atla also has it's weak points where it falters with this aim, but the express aim is clearly there) The audience is primed, so that they can ignore the flinch of hearing a misogynist micro (or macro) agression, because they can expect the cathrasis of a karmic punishment to follow.

This works very well in the genre of escapist fantasy adventure. Shows like Succession, or Breaking Bad, or IWTV can present misogynist characters, who never learn or face any consequences, because the cathrasis of those shows comes from watching unpleasant people wallow in their self-inflicted miseries. They are shows about characters you love to hate.

Escapist fantasy adventure as a genre doesn't want to create characters you love to hate. It wants to create characters you love to love.

One Piece is an escapist fantasy adventure. It wants to create characters we love to love. So, it also has to ask the question of: How much can we pull on the rubber-band of discomfort before delivering any kind of cathrasis to the audience. The complaints that animanga One Piece faces, comes from the fact that for a lot of people, the answer is not this much.

Complaints about ATLA liveaction removing Sokka's *Suki teaches him about feminism* moment, and complaints about animanga One Piece having characters dropping misogynistic microagressions casually all over the place, come from the exact same emotion. 'I wanted to see a moment of fantasy-wish-fulfillment where a man changes how he behaves, and I was not delivered that emotional cathrasis.'

This has nothing to do with whether any of the misogyny of the characters makes sense in universe.

Different people will find different character flaws more or less bearable, and it's always a tight-rope you have to walk on. But creators do have a choice in what flaws they expect the audience to find interesting and where the line of so-insufferable-I'm-picking-a-different-show lies. I think for OPLA crew, the choices would have been

Leave it as it is, rubbing that *discomfort without any comfort* button way too roughly for a HUGE chunks of the new audience.

Create an entirely new storyline about Sanji and Zoro facing consequences and *changing their ways*. And I would be willing to bet actual money that the fans of the animanga would have been even more pissed if OPLA had started soloing with the storyline like that.

Just sand down the sexist corners, as the show did. And from these three options, I fully belive they picked the right one by pikcing this.

This turned into a pretty long rant, but it does bother me that it is often the case that misogyny is seen as *bigotry light* and the onus of accepting that media has misogyny in it, is put on the female audiences. I have a feeling that we as as society are much more accepting that making a character a racist is going to need helluva strong narrative justification, because the discomfort that choie like that causes in an audience is expected to be very high. But often it seems that the discomfort misogyny is expected to cause in an audience is.... much less. I don't like that assumption.

justgivemeabookplease

Shrek 2, while a cinematic masterpiece, is also an interesting look at queerness and comp het.

Fiona is married so it's time to reunite with her parents. But instead of marrying a prince, she's married to an ogre. Not just that, but she's also an ogre. (Yes everyone knew she would sometimes be an ogre but that was when she was a child, she didn't know she would be an ogre for the rest of her life, and besides once she met the right prince she would stop being an ogre. She was supposed to stop being an ogre.)

But okay they're both ogres. We can still ask about when they'll have children because even if they're ogres they can still have kids, right? That's what married princes and princesses do so naturally that's what everyone does. Even if ogres might not be great parents (I've heard that ogres eat their young, is that something you people do?) it's still something that should be discussed.

And okay you can stay in Fiona's childhood bedroom filled with all the reminders that hey, everyone thought she was just a princess and princesses marry princes. Her toys left out from the last time she played with them. The prince slays the ogre. The princess offers a token of gratitude for slaying the ogre. Fiona wrote Mrs. Fiona Charming a million times in her diary because what else was she supposed to grow up to be?

And Harold you have to fix this, your country can't be ruled by ogres. You were unfit to rule when you were a frog but I changed you, I made you better, I made you a prince. You know how this works. Think of your daughter's safety.

Shrek goes to the Fairy Godmother and oh honey, ogres don't live happily ever after. It's just not done. It hasn't happened in all of fairy tale history. You have to change the both of you to be happy. You have to present as a prince and a princess. It will be better. You'll fit in better that way. You'll be accepted that way.

fitzchivalry

#shrek

charlesoberonn

#video #funny #geoguessr

calebwittebane

are we serious

#video #funny #animals #cats

zoesupreme

we're for real gonna be telling stories about this man for centuries

zoesupreme

yall I feel like I'm floating right now

#basketball #goddamn #sports

squarebracket-trickster

"Readers have SHORT attention spans! The average reader takes just TWO sentences to decide whether to put a book down! You have to HOOK them in the FIRST sentence! GRAB them by throat and don't let them BREATHE—"

... have... have we considered that perhaps the average reader just, like, knows what they like in a book? I mean... first sentences are famous for establishing things like *checks notes*... genre, tone, POV, pacing, character, voice, uhhh... writing style...

The average reader is putting your book down because they discovered it's in first person (or not in first person). The average reader put your book down because they wanted a cozy read, or they're sick of cozy reads, or romance, or grimdark, or assassin princesses, or vampires, or or or. The average reader put your book down because they just didn't like your writing style—no, not because it was boring... they just, get this, didn't like it.

The average critical reader put your book down because it had six grammatical mistakes in the first two sentences.

The average reader will read quite a ways if the premise intrigues them, they like the genre, the writing style doesn't get on their nerves, and the characters pop off the page. In fact, they'll probably read the whole book, so long as it delivers on its plot promises and doesn't drag in the middle section.

The average reader will, however, stop reading after just two sentences if it's clear by the second sentence that the only thing they'll like about this book is the opening line.

squarebracket-trickster

Idk, I just think like, painting a demographic of people who, you know, pick up full length books to read for fun, as having short attention spans doesn't make too much sense. At least not as much sense as the alternative: words tell people things; namely, the contents of this book.

In general, though, I think we jump to blame short attention spans too often when there is a far more logical explanation. "It takes 0.06 seconds for viewers to scroll past a post." Yes, that is typically how long it takes me to discern whether this post is about something I'm interested in. There's a trillion posts out there, probably a billion books, of course we've gotten fast at sorting through content. That's not an attention span issue. That's just efficiency.

urlocalllama

if I could ask God anything and get the real, genuine answer, I'd ask him why He commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. He knew He was going to stop him. He knew that He'd never truly ask him to do it. He knew that if he went through with it then His promise would be frustrated.

The thing is... the story has led parents to think it's okay to sacrifice their children, metaphorically and sometimes literally, for a false sense of moral superiority. How many LGBT+ children have been sacrificed in the supposed name of Christianity? How many autistic children? How many orphaned children? How many abused children?

Maybe it was the right lesson for Abraham, especially about how it paralleled Christ's atonement. But it's not a story that has translated well into modern times.

relatablemormonmoments

do you want the Jewish answer? It was to challenge him to think critically about commandments from g-d (and translating to religion as an institution, rulings from religious leaders and scripture), and it's a challenge he failed. He was supposed to, theoretically, fight g-d and say "no, by no means am I going to do this. I don't care that you created everything, that is my child and my world, and I'm not going to do it just because you said so."

Instead, Abraham royally screws up, traumatises his son, and in doing so, loses his son, loses g-d's will and favor, and in the Tanakh we never really hear from Abraham again after this point, because he failed.

It's a story about someone blindly following in faith, and losing the most important things to them because they never stopped to think "Wait, did I hear this right? And if I did hear this right, am I so sure that this is something I want to follow?"

Isaac was Abraham's only son at the time, and the child he had fought so hard to have. Him following an order blindly without thinking of the consequences is not supposed to be a good thing (It just kind of benefits the feudal society that eventually embraced Christianity, which is why the understanding was changed in Christian worldviews.)

standard-text-editor

The notion that this is "the Jewish answer" is so funny, because 1. no it isn't, and 2. in the text, God explicitly praises and rewards Abraham for being willing to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22:16-18). In the text, it's a test of loyalty that Abraham explicitly passed.

More to the point, though, the academic view, which, if it's not a consensus, is at least very widely held, is that in the oldest version of the story, Abraham did sacrifice Isaac, and the story we have in Genesis today is a later reworking after child sacrifice became unacceptable. The smoking gun here is mainly that when Abraham returns to his servants afterwards, in Gen 22:19, there is no mention of Isaac returning with him, even though when they were going up the mountain it is consistently said that they both went. (This is, incidentally, also the view of a number of medieval rabbinical commentators, including the Yalqut Reubeni, which has Isaac recuperating in Heaven for three years after being stabbed and then returning to Earth.)

I personally think it's more likely the whole episode was written to explain why Abraham had a firstborn son who went on to live and do things instead of being sacrificed as was expected of Israelites at the time. There are a number of passages that indicate the sacrifice of firstborns was a thing you had to do, including Exodus 22:29-30:

מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּתֶּן־לִּי׃ məlēʔātəkā wədīmʕăkā lōʔ təʔaḥēr bəkôr bānekā titten-llî. You shall not delay to make offerings from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. כֵּן־תַּעֲשֶׂה לְשֹׁרְךָ לְצֹאנֶךָ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים יִהְיֶה עִם־אִמּוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי תִּתְּנוֹ־לִי׃ kēn-taʕăśe ləšōrəkā ləṣōʔnekā šibʕat yāmîm yīhəye ʕīm-ʔīmmô bayyôm haššəmînî tīttənô-lî. You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.

(I include verse 30 to show that this is indeed about sacrifice and not, like, priestly service, unless you want to believe oxen and sheep can be priests.)

This is part of the Covenant Code, which is generally regarded as the earliest prescriptive/legislative text in the Bible.

People eventually stopped loving child sacrifice, though, and you get mechanisms for getting out of it pretty quickly, by redeeming your firstborn instead (i.e. by making some substitute sacrifice; Exo 13:15 et al.) and/or by counting the religious service of the Levites as balancing it out (either altogether or one for one with any excess firstborns still having to be redeemed; Num 3, 8). Jeremiah has God saying that the practice of child sacrifice that existed among the Israelites is actually something he did not command (Jer 7:31), but that also confirms that child sacrifice is something that did happen at least as far as the author of Jeremiah believed, and Ezekiel, who explains the commandment to sacrifice firstborn as deliberately cruel punishment on God's part ("in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the Lord"; Eze 20:23-26), also presupposes that this was a thing that happened. By extension, the fact that it didn't happen with Abraham's firstborn is then something that would need addressing, and the binding of Isaac is just that: Abraham actually was going to sacrifice Isaac as per normal, but God intervened.

And FWIW, child sacrifice really wasn't that unusual in the region (the Phoenicians seem to have done it until quite late), and in a time when infant mortality was extremely high anyway, if you believe in gods that can be appealed to through sacrifice, it makes sense that you might sacrifice the first one in order to secure the divine intervention that will enable the subsequent ones to survive. This logic also seems to be present in what God says to Abraham afterwards (Gen 22:16-17):

וַיֹּאמֶר בִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי נְאֻם־יְהוָה כִּי יַעַן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת־בִּנְךָ אֶת־יְחִידֶךָ׃ wayyōʔmer bî nišbaʕtî nəʔūm-YHWH kî yaʕan ʔăšer ʕāśîtā ʔet-haddābār hazze wəlōʔ ḥāśaktā ʔet-bīnəkā ʔet-yəḥîdekā. By myself I have sworn, says the Lord: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, כִּי־בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת־זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם וְכַחוֹל אֲשֶׁר עַל־שְׂפַת הַיָּם kî-bārēk ʔăbārekəkā wəharbā ʔarbe ʔet-zarʕăkā kəkôkəbê haššāmayīm wəkaḥôl ʔăšer ʕal-śəpat hayyām [...] I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. [...]

You sacrificed/were willing to sacrifice your firstborn, therefore your subsequent offspring will be plentiful and live. The fact that this logic is laid out here like this with no mention of Isaac surviving is also part of the reason so many people think the sacrifice did actually happen in the oldest version of the story.

But regardless of which of these views is right—Abraham did sacrifice Isaac and the story was changed when child sacrifice became distasteful, or the story exists to explain why Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac when he should have—I think the more important point is probably that you shouldn't to try to find spiritual guidance or moral prescriptions in stories that were written in social contexts that are wildly alien to yours for reasons you don't know anything about.

#christianity #judaism #history