reblog if you too are bi and confused or support others’ right to be bi and confused
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
🪼
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Three Goblin Art
Not today Justin

tannertan36
No title available
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
tumblr dot com

titsay
Game of Thrones Daily
RMH
occasionally subtle

if i look back, i am lost

ellievsbear

blake kathryn
Keni
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Show & Tell
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
seen from Argentina

seen from Germany

seen from France
seen from Australia
seen from United States

seen from Finland

seen from Malaysia
seen from Argentina

seen from Morocco
seen from Morocco

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
seen from United States
@oftirnanog
reblog if you too are bi and confused or support others’ right to be bi and confused
when two musicians sing into the same microphone and lean in very close to each other… like omg are you guys gonna kiss now to relieve the homoerotic tension?😳
THIS IS NOT ABOUT ONE DIRECTION I DON’T KNOW WHO THIS “HARRY” PERSON IS GO WATCH BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN AND CLARENCE CLEMONS KISS ON STAGE RIGHT NOW
op is the only valid person i’ve ever met. everyone else needs to come to the light
Okay, but this is really important: Bruce Springsteen occupied this really weird place in music history. His songs were all from this pessimistic, nihilistic view of an America that had let him down:
Just like the anti-Vietnam War protest songs that we associate with the 1960s, or the early nihilism that spawned punk music in the 1970s. But he didn’t *sound* like a punk anarchist; he sounded like a country rock singer. When he released Born in the U.S.A. people completely misinterpreted (or possibly ignored) the lyrics in favor of the tone of the music.
Politicians used his music to promote their ‘Murica Yes! brand, and he had to literally explain that that was not what he was about. He’s over here asking when we’re going to have jobs and heathcare, not stanning the politicians who weren’t helping the people.
It was also kind of a big deal that he had an integrated band, because even as late as the 1980s music was still kind of segregated and MTV was straight up racist. They refused to play and promote black artists and then claimed that were no black artists in the first place. Michael Jackson’s record company had to threaten a boycott of their white artists to get MTV to play his Thriller video.
Plus, the first black/white interracial kiss on TV was in 1968 (OG Star Trek). Also it took us until the 70s to get sympathetic gay characters on screen, and the 90s to get gay characters to kiss onscreen. And all of those firsts were met with outrage.
So keep that in mind when you see Bruce Springsteen not just playing with an interracial band, but engaging in an interracial, gay kiss on stage repeatedly.
Passages from American Popular Music by Larry Starr and Christopher Waterman
I used to think that Bruce and Clarence kissing onstage was exuberance, showmanship, and telling racist homophobes to fuck off. Like, they picked up a certain kind of audience and went “Racist homophobes? Not in our house!” And started the kissing then but then I actually looked it up and
https://www.gq.com/story/this-fucked-me-up-bruce-springsteen-singing-about-clarence-clemons
It was a story where… we remade the city. We remade the city, shaping it into the kind of place where our friendship and our love for one another wouldn’t have been such an exceptional thing. - Bruce Springsteen
It wasn’t about showmanship or rejecting bigots or anything it was just. Damn right that was one of the loves of his life and damn right he was going to kiss him onstage
It gets me a little that Bruce has had a divorce, that he’s been married twice, but he loved Clarence for the rest of Clarence’s life and will presumably love him the rest of his own
Clemons said in one interview. “Bruce and I looked at each other and didn’t say anything, we just knew. We knew we were the missing links in each other’s lives. He was what I’d been searching for.” In another version of the story, Clemons says “He looked at me, and I looked at him, and we fell in love.”
I’m having some emotions about it!
“He was elemental in my life,“ Springsteen adds, “and losing him was like losing the rain.”
Not just! I love you pure and deep and true but! I am going to love you like that in front of the whole damn world!
We have fewer narratives about taking risks and making statements for platonic love rather than romantic and supposedly it would be easier to downplay this onstage than romance and! They refused! They fucking refused! In front of hundreds of thousands of people, over the course of years! In the spotlight, in word and deed, I love you!
God I’m not okay about it
Now I’m mad that this is not among any of the things I was ever told about this artist.
I knew about this in general (& via all those fabulous photos), but this just adds even more beautiful context <3
Just to add to the pile: this was the cover of Springsteen’s break-through album Born to Run, in 1975:
I mean, will you LOOK at this:
This was the pic chosen for the album cover from an extensive photoshoot, too. A few others:
There’s a lot more online if you search. They’re all pretty amazing. But the photographer is right, the one chosen for the album cover just pops.
@ goodgoodgoodco
https://wigreenfire.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Big-Tech-Unchecked-Toolkit_final_rev19Dec25-resized.pdf
Link to the pdf of the tool kit
Love you guys, stay safe!
every platonic mel/langdon allegation infuses them with the power of mulder and scully. just so you know.
STEMI with me Mel!
excerpts from erin in the morning's article on the ioc's ban on transgender women and sex testing policy
month starting on a monday we have no excuse guys lets get to work and lock the fuck in
yk its actually very chic and avant garde to start on tuesday the second
many claim theres nothing more subversive and revolutionary than starting on wednesday the third
[Image transcription:
By alix e. harrow (alixeharrow.bsky.social)
gently: it's fine if you don't love explicit sex scenes in fiction but it would be cool if you could talk about it without sounding indistinguishable from moms for liberty
End image transcription.]
I watched Shiny Happy People when I had Amazon Prime for free, you know, the show about the Duggars, and...
You should not be quoting Michelle Duggar. If you are repeating beliefs that IBLP has, you need to look at what you're doing.
Another fun fact: if you don’t like sex scenes but still want to read the story, you can in fact skim or skip the sex scenes!!
Tuusulanjärvi, Finland, 1930′s
girl help they're taking my fave's extremely thin veneer of swaggering overconfidence at face value
The Pitt S3 is the day Emma Nolan finds out that Dr. Langdon's wife isn't Dr. King.
She doesn't know in retrospect when this impression came about. She knows no one told her this, it was just a series of unfortunate instances and phrasings.
Like one day in her first month, Langdon interrupted a conversation with a "Sorry, I actually need to check in with my wife about something before midday." and then walked off, and started talking to Dr. King. But at that point she had already thought they were a couple for several weeks and now that she's dissecting the memories, nothing actually happened to suggest it, it's not like they're touchy or anything, it just... it was the impression she got at some point.
And in S3, Mel asks where Dr. Langdon is, and Emma ducks into the break room when she spots him and says "Dr. Langdon, your wife is looking for you." And all the blood drains from his face. "She is?"
"Yes, I don't think it's an emergency," Emma assures him quickly, and he's rushing out the door, looking around the hub. Emma was heading that was as well, so when she catches up with him he asks where his wife is. And Emma, poor Emma, points at Dr. King at one of the computers.
Can we also have a bet subplot? "How long will it take Emma to know Mel and Langdon are not married? (Yet)" 🤭
I will never understand how some ppl have such little imagination that they can’t even suspend their disbelief long enough to watch a musical without asking why the characters are singing
No IDs, but these tags got me in a huff:
So ok look. The point is not the flared leg by itself. These cannot be yoga pants. These are, and you have to understand this if you are too young to have worn them, BLUE JEANS. And this was the last years before all jeans were 70% spandex.
They were denim, and they weren't bell bottoms. They hung loose from the knee in a way that would make a wizard envious. We all walked around like we were wearing hakama. And they dragged on the ground. That was important. Ragged cuffs. If your jeans weren't so long that they had ratty cuffs, they were embarrassingly short.
And the thing about denim is that it's a twill weave and it's cotton. So not only does it hold a lot of water, it wicks. Walking around in these suckers on a wet day could get you wet to the knees even if you never stepped in a puddle.
Then you'd go inside and take off your shoes and try to avoid letting your freezing, wet, filthy pant legs touch your skin.
Yoga pants. Hmf.
people in cold climates would have a tide line of white marks around their knees (if they were normal height) in the winter.
From wicking up road salt.
The visceral memory of that time is something that never leaves you. Everyone's jeans were many inches higher in the back than the front because you kept stepping on the hem and ripping it off. Your lower legs were so very cold. Every new pair of jeans literally enveloped your entire foot, they were so so long re: leg-to-waist ratio. Walking on a rainy day was a legitimate workout. You have no idea.
every morning i wake up and make the worst possible time management decisions anyone has ever made
She got the idea for the study while walking with her advisor at Stanford to discuss her thesis topic, and the paper she eventually published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 2014 is sharp enough that it should have ended the seated meeting on the day it came out.
She ran 4 experiments on 176 people. Same person tested twice. Once sitting, once walking. The creativity tasks were the standard ones psychologists have used for decades to measure how good a brain is at generating novel useful ideas.
81% of participants in the first experiment produced more creative ideas while walking than while sitting. In the second experiment, 88%. In the third, 100%. Every single person walked into a more creative version of themselves. On average, people generated 60% more novel useful ideas the moment their legs started moving.
The skeptical question is the obvious one. Maybe it was the fresh air. Maybe it was the scenery passing by. Maybe it was the change of environment doing the work, not the walking itself.
Oppezzo killed every one of those explanations with one experimental decision. She put people on a treadmill facing a blank wall. No scenery. No fresh air. No environmental change. Just legs moving in place while staring at white drywall. The 60% boost held.
Then she ran the experiment that closed the case completely. She took participants outside in two conditions. Half of them walked through a Stanford courtyard. The other half were pushed through the exact same courtyard in a wheelchair. Same outdoor stimulation. Same scenery passing at the same speed. The only difference was whether the legs were moving.
The walkers produced dramatically more novel high-quality ideas than the wheelchair group. The outdoors did almost nothing on its own. The walking did everything.
She also tested the opposite kind of thinking. Convergent thinking. The kind where there is one right answer and you have to narrow down to it. Word puzzles where 3 words share a hidden fourth word that connects them. The seated participants did slightly better on these. Walkers got slightly worse.
Walking is not a general intelligence enhancer. It does one specific thing. It opens up the divergent search inside your brain. The part that generates options. The part that produces unexpected connections. The part that takes a problem and finds five ways into it instead of one.
When you need to converge on the single right answer, sit down. When you need to find the answer in the first place, get up.
The mechanism is now well understood. Walking selectively activates what neuroscientists call the default mode network, the system inside your brain that runs when you are not consciously focused on anything. The DMN is where mind-wandering happens. Where memories cross-reference each other. Where ideas that have been sitting in separate folders inside your head finally bump into each other.
When you sit at a desk and force yourself to concentrate, you suppress the DMN. When you walk at a natural pace, the executive part of your brain gets just busy enough handling the walking that the DMN comes online and starts doing the work that focus was blocking.
The most useful finding in the entire paper is the one almost nobody quotes. The boost did not turn off the moment people stopped walking. Participants who walked first and then sat back down stayed elevated. Their next round of seated creativity work was still significantly better than people who had been sitting the whole time. The rest lingered for at least several minutes after the legs stopped moving.
You do not need to do creative work while walking. You need to walk before the creative work. The brain holds the state.
Edited down a long tweet. (x)
one of the biggest tragedies of early 2010s tumblr is that the devil (bbc sherlock) took root as the face of johnlock when the guy ritchie films were RIGHT there
like come ON