Show & Tell
No title available

Origami Around
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year

izzy's playlists!
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

⁂

Discoholic 🪩
Game of Thrones Daily
will byers stan first human second

blake kathryn
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
styofa doing anything
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
One Nice Bug Per Day
Jules of Nature

ellievsbear

JBB: An Artblog!

No title available
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Türkiye

seen from France

seen from Germany
seen from Egypt
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 United States
seen from United States
seen from Poland
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States
seen from Ireland
seen from United Kingdom
@milonti
Parrot caught singing let the bodies hit the floor
I was so done when it whispered…I would shit bricks if I heard that when I got up to get a drink in the middle of the night…
“Let the bodies hit the….FLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR!!!”
oh my god he’s so into it
metal
The Avatar Gaang by tasia.m.s on Instagram:
Aang ☀️ Katara 🌊 Sokka ❄️ Toph ⛰ Suki 🌾 Zuko 🔥
together forever never apart
maybe in distance but never in heart ♡
Now that i think about it, if avengers and the mcu took place in the 90s who would eddie murphy play? like there is no way he’d play a supporting character esp to a white guy in the 90s….hmmm he’d probably audition and try hard for t’challa, but they’d probably give him blue marvel…but that character didn’t exist in the 90s…and there is no way he’d play Hiemdall lmao.
I literally just passed this when I was on imgur
pacrim fandom headcount
i know we constantly joke about the pacific rim fandom being like 12 people and a handful of pebbles but i do legit want to know how many people are out there so uhhhh. reblog this if you like pacific rim
Dead Poets Society (1989, Peter Weir)
Confession:
I’ve never read Ayn Rand.
I hear so much flagrant shit about her books. The gist I got was she hates poor people and blames poor people for being poor or something?
But there’s gotta be more to it than that. I remember Borders having Atlas Shrugged on fucking display for a while.
So SOMEONE is buying into her bullshit.
The thing is, her books aren’t explicitly about how awful poor people is. Her books are about how awesome her self-reliant True Individual heroes are, which is part of what makes them appealing to so many people who are young and impressionable.
It’s the implications of the philosophy that is being advanced in her books (and which she articulates in her non-fiction books) that leads to the “screw poor people” stuff.
And the thing is, the books aren’t even good at showing the thing they supposedly show. They all are supposed to be teaching us great truths about human nature, but they ignore what human nature is and show what Rand thinks it should be. It’s like reading some alien’s fan fiction, written based on garbled descriptions and wild imaginings about what human life is like.
For instance, the Fountainhead’s protagonist is Howard Roark, the only architect in the world who is a True Individual who Doesn’t Follow The Crowd and Thinks For Himself.
But his individualism and supposed great creative genius consists of… making the most boring buildings imaginable and then insisting that this is the only correct way to do it and anybody who disagrees or deviates from his vision is objectively wrong.
His approach allows for no creativity, no individual expression, no decorative flourishes, nothing cultural or artistic. He looks at a site, and then comes up with the most utilitarian building possible to suit the practical needs of the project given the site. His design is presented as being the objectively (or Objectively) correct design, and anyone else’s design is judged by how much it deviates from the single correct answer.
So if 100 architects all submit different plans, they’e all sheep for not having the courage to see the one logically right answer.The more their answers vary, the more they are sheep.
And she writes the story in such a way that all the art and expression in architecture for thousands of years is a corruption that leaves people feeling hollow and empty. Think about the most soaring and inspiring religious art in architecture. The most beautiful buildings. In her story, the idea that these places inspire anything but conformity in the viewer is a lie we’ve been forced to believe, but looking at Howard Roark’s cracker box buildings makes our spirits soar.
This might just be written off as bad storytelling, but it reflects how she lived her life. Rand led a circle of “free-thinking intellectuals” where one’s free-thinkingness was measured in terms of one’s agreement with the group; i.e., with her.
Did you see that ridiculous letter to Cat Fancy going around where Rand talks about how she doesn’t feel anything about cats, she reasons that they have objective value? That’s not her being silly (on purpose) or suggesting “My dear person, you don’t understand how much I like cats.” As part of her deep-seated belief that she is an objectively rational human being, she convinced herself that all of her tastes and feelings are deeply rational conclusions.
So in her fable about individualism and the human spirit, the architectural flourishes that she finds silly and gaudy aren’t just not to her taste, they are objectively wrong and a sign of how oppressed the human spirit has become.
She even conducted her romantic affairs in this manner. When she essentially left her husband for a younger man (though I believe they stayed marry), she explained it to him that it was the rationally correct decision to make and if he didn’t agree then his whole life as an intellectual had been a lie. When her younger beau eventually dumped her, she made a similar declaration about him.
So this is the background of Ayn Rand: a woman who is as ruled by prejudice, superstition, and emotion as anyone else on the planet, but is so invested in the idea of being rational and objective that she convinced that whatever passion moves her must be the utter expression of pure reason.
And this woman has—as so many do—a deep suspicion of the idea that other people are getting something for nothing, and this suspicion leads to resentment. More understandably, she has a suspicion of anything that smacks of communism or government-backed redistribution from being a firsthand witness to the excesses of the USSR.
But rather than thinking about her feelings and where they come from, or examining her conclusions, she simply concludes that everything she feels is itself pure reason, and then articulates a philosophy around it.
And this gives us Atlas Shrugged, which is again about the triumph of the individual, but again in a very twisted way.
She takes the idea that all human beings are entitled to the fruits of their labor and posits that the only human beings who really labor are the people at the top of the capitalism food chain.
Reading the story, it’s apparent that she sees the world as a kind of steampunk AU where people who singlehandedly create unique and unreproducible technological breakthroughs are the drivers of the economy, not people who work and buy things, not venture capitalists and people who have inherited gobs of money and power.
True Individuals in Atlas Shrugged are people who are clever and brave and selfish (which is considered a virtue in her writing) enough that they should be rich and ruling the world, and the fact that they don’t is another sign of how corrupt the world is. This is why it resonates with so many people (and the particular people it does) so deeply: it tells them that they should be in charge, they should be rich, they should have everything, and the fact that they don’t is because of Moochers, Looters, and Takers (everyone else.)
Selfishness is a virtue, altruism is a sin, and anything done for the benefit of society rather than oneself is “looting” and the reason that the well-deserving supermen of the world are left with nothing to show for their awesomeness.
The title “Atlas Shrugged” refers to the idea that the titan Atlas who holds up the sky (or in many popular depictions, the world) suffers and toils silently for the benefit of the whole world with no reward might one day have enough of it and put his burden down, see how the world gets along without him.
Which sounds like a rallying cry for labor, right? But this, again, in Rand’s mind and in her bizarre AU fantasy that she calls a philosophical thesis statement, this description does not apply to the mass of human laborers whose work forms the backbone of our life. Those people are takers. Whatever they get is by definition more than they deserve.
John Galt, the “hero” of Atlas Shrugged, is a randpunk inventor who organizes a “strike” of all the other True Individuals, and the wheels of society grind to a halt without their benevolent greed. This is why Tea Partiers and the like talk about “going Galt” or wave signs around that say “Who is John Galt?” (which is Tea Partier for wearing a Guy Fawkes mask). The irony of ironies is that most of these people are working class, which means that they would not be seen as Atlas in her work but as Atlas’s burden.
But as long as they prefer to see themselves as the Bold Individuals Who Would Dare (if not for that darned government and immigrants and homosexuals and communists and witches), they’ll never realize that.
Sorry to the less-interested among my dash for reblogging such a long post, but Rand’s psychology (it’s…not really a philosophy, and my philosophy prof is the only other person I’ve ever seen pick apart her premises & reasoning so thoroughly) rarely gets examined in-depth, and I find it fascinating when it is…also, “randpunk” as a genre name. I kinda wish it existed. So we all knew what to avoid, but still.
(I am reminded of this xkcd comic)
This is the greatest drag of Ayn Rand I’ve ever seen BLESS
This is a pretty decent criticism of Rand actually, a better one than my one philosophy professor gave. I don’t think it’s a bad idea to still read the books tbh just because they’re currently politically relevant. Though frankly actual Objectivists who have read the books and understand them are a veryyyy very small number so maybe don’t bother reading them idk I see some people going “oh, so this philosophy is why so many working class Republicans voted for Trump” but that is wildly overestimating how many people uhhhhh read books.
True. Mom had us read them because of this.
Alex Hirsch is a treasure
This is my first coding assignment for my software engineering class that started today. It’s going to be a really good semester.
UPDATE: I got my grade back and
“100″
Since this post has gotten some attention, I feel like it’s worth mentioning that this was just the first half of the assignment.
The second half, which we weren’t made aware of until the day we were meant to turn this one in, was to trade USB drives with the person sitting next to us and MODIFY their “unreadable” code without getting any help from them.
This was to teach us two things:
1) In this field, you’ll spend more time working with code written by other people than you will writing original code from a blank slate. The people who wrote the original code will probably not be around to help you. Learning to read code is IMPORTANT, even if it seems unreadable.
2) There is a strong brotherhood/sisterhood among programmers and software engineers. Respect that bond when you’re writing code and documentation. In my professor’s words: “When you write code, pretend that the person who will have to maintain it after you’re gone is a homicidal maniac who knows where you live.”
This class and professor are incredible.
AHHHHHH I need this in my life.
If anyone wants to send me obfuscated code to fix I would be fucking delighted.
@the-real-seebs this looks like a job for the Obfuscated C Contest
@nethdoesstuff
THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC ASSIGNMENT AND INCREDIBLY SIMILAR TO THE LAST JOB I HAD
via Japanese Schoolgirls Perform Superhuman Energy Attacks
proposal to rename executive dysfunction as ‘Bitch Toddler Dysfunction’ since it’s exactly like living with a horrible contrary small child who refuses to cooperate for fun and smacks things out of your hands but unlike a real toddler this one lives in your frontal lobe and if it says you’re not allowed to do laundry you’re unable to do anything about it
me: hey look I know you don’t really like doing homework but this one is just looking at pictures, okay? Do you wanna look at some pictures? We can have a hot cocoa while we do it and!! if we finish this before 4pm we can watch some TV!! How does that sound? :^)
the horrendous little goblin child who has both hands firmly on the levers on my brains control panel that make me move around and do things: *makes fart noises while I’m talking and hammers the button labeled ‘NAPTIME’ until I pass out*
“This video is brought to you by Square Space, the pocket dimension where all objects are reduced to two-dimensional shapes of four equal sides with right angles. Visit our website to find out if Square Space would make a good prison for your enemies and those who dare oppose you.
This video is brought to you by Tunnel Bear. Its burrows span the world. The Tunnel Bear is below you now, counting your footsteps, remembering what makes you cry. It pays more attention to your emotions than you do. Visit our website to learn whether its motives are benevolent.
This video is brought to you by the last Russian czarina, hidden in her techno-bunker of silicon and tungsten, surrounded by her candy-colored server towers and issuing edicts to faithful monarchist admins online. She will never see the open sun until it shines upon her empire.
This video is brought to you by Dollar Shave Club. Our business is based on paid membership and the distribution of blades among our members, but we are not a “knife cult.” Please stop asking for official chants. We will distribute them if they become necessary for our business.”
-QuietPineTrees
accurate
Shameeka
Keisha
Tara
Shonda
Sabrina
Crysta
Daronda
Theresa
Felicia
Tenisha
Sha’Von
Monica
Mo’Nique
Christina
Yolanda
...well this is not the reference i expected to recognize today.
is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what
That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING
What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?
It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot.
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.
I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?
And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.
Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.
We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine.
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks:
Also:
He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.
You can see her butthole for chrissakes
I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine. He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE.
This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.