almost home
occasionally subtle
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

No title available
Monterey Bay Aquarium
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

ellievsbear
YOU ARE THE REASON

Product Placement
Peter Solarz

if i look back, i am lost
NASA

#extradirty
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

Janaina Medeiros
DEAR READER
Keni

pixel skylines
trying on a metaphor
i don't do bad sauce passes
seen from Indonesia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands

seen from Netherlands
seen from United States

seen from Netherlands

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Iraq

seen from Germany
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@orkidian
only word that the internet has ever improved rather than ruined is “effervescent”
Hii 💯💯 back with more Can art!
The Knight of the Flowers, 1894, by Georges Rochegrosse. Detail and photo by Paul Perrin. Edit.
Claude Monet’s water structure and shades, II, transparent single picture version.
When I was in undergrad, during my methodology class, my professor (and advisor) was asked, "How do you keep your journal articles jargon-free?" and his answer was, "After a certain level, you simply cannot, and to do so would actually make your writing bad historical writing." He then went on to compare two different articles by the same author written in a journal where undergraduates can submit, and a journal where only phd. can submit.
The difference in language was subtle but noticeable, because there is an implicit understanding that the article is written for someone who has the necessary background on the subject. The writer was able to not have to explain every concept in a journal for phd., since the readers were supposed to bring a baseline of knowledge, or know how and where to go to be educated (or who to ask). This is despite the fact that both were available via jstor.
There will always be people having conversations about things that are beyond your understandig on the topic. I do not instantly understand nuclear physics or computer science or organic chemistry, but I give credentialed people that I know aren't cranks the benefit of doubt that they know what's going on. This respect is often not extended to humanities people talking about their work because "blue curtain is just blue" people think the high school education they mostly rejected puts them on the same field of discussion as people educated on the subject. Yet, these are the people who get mad when they find that rudely interjecting into a conversation where everyone else is on the same page and saying understanding the conversation is too hard in an extremely hostile manner gets a answered with hostility.
The bottom line is, you aren't entitled to understanding everything you come across instantly. If you do not understand the conversation, it is your job to either get educated on the subject if it seems interesting enough, or move on if it seems incomprehensible and is not something you'd care about. If you enter a conversation you are not ready for, that is on you, not people bewildered at your antics.
Specifically, I'm talking about people like this that leave dumb comments on any posts on complex issues that have words with more than 3 syllables.
It is absolutely a form of anti-intellectualism to say that all things should be understood to all people inherently or that conversations should be simplified until this is true. Sometimes, you are the one that needs to read a book until you understand. There is nothing wrong with being uneducated on complex subjects, but to then reject complexity since you did not instantly understand it is dangerous and only help people who seeks to undermine nuances in complex issues.
““Intersectionality is not primarily about identity, it’s about how structures make certain identities the consequence of and the vehicle for vulnerability. So if you want to know how many intersections marry, you gotta look at the context: what’s happening ? What kind of discrimination is going on ? What are the policies ? What are the institutional structures that play in a role in contributing to the exclusion of some people and not others ?”
— Kimberle Crenshaw (via ahistoryofanxietyandanxietyand)
love being a choice rather than an expectation or unbreakable bond or destiny makes it more powerful than any of those things actually
death approaches? DEATH APPROACHES death approaches
you know what's good? when you have a meat and a sauce and you eat it with a rice. thank you for listening
Season is a beautiful bicycling adventure where you explore & document a doomed world.
Read More & Sign Up for The Beta (Steam)
The em dash is rich with power. But you’ll lose yourself.
How do I tell people that sometimes if you turn your shipping brain off you can interact with media better
Like I hate to say it but if you can’t engage with any media without descending into full-on fandom-style shipping at the expense of the themes, characterization, non-romantic relationships, and general content of the work. You might need to take a step back from shipping and maybe fandom in general. (Also to the people in the notes of this post who are acting like I said shipping in general is terrible: What this post is saying is that if you interact with all media exclusively through a shipping lens you miss a lot of stuff. I’m not saying don’t ship things, I’m saying use your critical thinking skills.)
“There’s more to media than romantic relationships” should not be a take which causes so much anger, and yet
some of you can’t imagine a way to engage with media that isn’t projecting your insecurities onto a character you share an archetypal similarity with and shipping them with a character that best fits your ideal partner and it shows
okay, here are all my short stories available on my website! i’ll update the list as i publish more!
WHAT WE OWE EACH OTHER; horror, werewolves and mean girls, a fun cross between ginger snaps and russian doll. TRIGGER WARNINGS: suicide mentions, vague implications of sexual trauma
MIA & MAYA; horror, doppelgangers and balance. a woman is confronted by a unnervingly familiar face.
INGRID’S BODY; horror, a body after hours.
PICTURED: MARY MAGDALENE AT THE TOMB; drama, a mother faces the after effects of sainthood. TW; self-immolation, mentions of self-harm
THE WATER WOMEN; horror, a town’s strange tradition and the woman who follow it. TW; drowning
CHERRY WINE; horror + romance, a not-so-sweet sweet love. TW; violence
IT’S WARM IN HERE; gothic horror + sci-fi, the ship needs a heart.
Some of the newer stories!
HOW TO MAKE A VASE; a mother grieves and turns to pottery. TW; cults, child death
BLUEBEARD; a woman is visited by her husband’s very persistent ex-wife
WHAT DINAH KNEW; what to do when your child is not your child? a changeling story.
IN WHICH TWO WOMEN KILL A MAN; the title explains it all, really.
A LITTLE PAST EIGHT IN THE EVENING; a twist on the classic hitchhiker story, two girls talking in a car
do not mistake these comics for hypnos hate i love that bitch