
tannertan36
No title available
Monterey Bay Aquarium
will byers stan first human second
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Keni
NASA
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
$LAYYYTER

roma★

JBB: An Artblog!
Three Goblin Art
Sade Olutola
taylor price
RMH
occasionally subtle

pixel skylines

Kaledo Art
Cosmic Funnies
Peter Solarz

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from France

seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia

seen from United Arab Emirates

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Romania
@plastickatz
"sex tourism" is such bullshit. you're not a "sex tourist", you're traveling to other countries so you can rape impoverished, often trafficked, women and children and you should be hanged
correct word is "international rapist" and "would be dead if we lived in a just society"
hello instagram artist. your challenge is to do a portrait study of a woman but you’re not allowed to stylize them so their eyes are really big and more cat eyed than the reference photo. You’re also not allowed to make their noses more of a button nose or their lips full and pouty or their faces heart shaped with no double chin. Also you have to draw a fat woman. one thats actually fat and not just slightly curvier than the kpop demon hunters body type. good luck
i think a lot of the people who say that warning posts are useless drama-starters that only exist to further harass marginalized/vulnerable people would have more plausible deniability if those type of posts didnt spring up literally every single time a black user pointed out that a white user is racist
and also if the Black user didn't proceed to get racist harassment from the white users followers for pointing out said racism
Black tumblr user: this user is racist, here is proof, and i would prefer it if those who willingly interact with this person after knowing this to keep their distance from me
dashboard for the next 4 days: when you make a callout post for someone you have murdered them. it is the same thing. it is the exact same thing as taking a life. you have killed them forever and you have blood on your hands.
This is literally what people are talking about when they say AI will be used to mainstream widely held bigotry. LLMs are trained on frequency and probability -> straight relationships are more well represented in the dataset -> straight pronouns and terms become the "correct" normal.
This is a form of backdoor bigotry from both normative facts (there are more straight than gay relationships) and well represented bigoted beliefs (men are superior to women).
Combine this with the mass of people inclined to believe (and being encouraged to believe) that if AI says and does something it must be correct
Black ppl deserve to feel safe and welcomed on the internet, on fandoms on whatever community or hobbies they want without having to deal with antiblack racist attacks, microaggressions or enablers of antiblackness . And if u genuinely consider urself to be left leaning or an ally or woke you should do and try to unlearn the colorism, texturism , eurocentrism and antiblackness
Here he isssssss
Close up belowwwwwwwww~
my supremely important girls :)
redraw of this from... seven years ago? geez louise, time flies!
Murdoc-centric sillyposting
Oh also! Both for pride and because I want to post more of my original stuff here, here's a zine I made for my recent screenprinting class! :p It's called Masculine Women and it's about being masculine and a woman! Fun fact, also, when you unfold the real thing, there's a big poster on the back! It looks like this:
Then only privilege going on here is being so privileged you believe your taste buds are more important than another individual’s life.
source: emptycages.vegan
My problem with veganism has always been threefold... With the first being the biggest point of damnation in my eyes.
It presumes there is morality in the consumption of living matter. But only in matter they consider relatable to their experience and not in the consumption of living matter that they -don't- find relatable to their experience. Plants SCREAM when they are cut on ultrasonic frequencies. Plants release chemicals to warn the ants that live inside them of the danger when they are harmed. Plants communicate through connected root systems and fungal messengers. But because vegans can't hear it, it's morally okay to eat a plant, but not a chicken, because the vegan can empathize with a chicken but not a plant. Much less the microscopic organisms that live on the plant.
The destruction of environments and populations to sustain monocultures. Yes. Beans like soy and lentils are able to sustain vegans. And in order to sustain a vegan population we need MASSIVE QUANTITIES of them in vast monocultures of plantations which result in communities being priced out of local staples because shipping it to America yields more profit. Add in the potential for global supply collapse due to the spread of hypereffective fungus or other crop-destroying disease...
The people who literally cannot survive on a Vegan diet. Whether due to genetics or later acquired traits, there are folks all over the world who are unable to sustain themselves on a vegan diet. People with Crohn's, for example, often have to avoid foods with high insoluble fiber content and the best possible proteins they can consume are fish or chicken in order to avoid malnutrition.
When someone tells me they're a Vegetarian I go "Oh, okay." and in my mind I know this person doesn't eat meat. Maybe because of dietary restrictions, religious tenets, moral identity, or simple preference.
When someone tells me they're a Vegan I go "Oh, okay." and in my mind I know this person considers themself to be morally superior to me because for them it is an explicit moral position and I exist in a state they consider immoral.
Veganism, by its very structure, is designed around in-group out-group boundary generation with the Morally Superior Vegan in group and the Morally Inferior Meat-Eater out group.
And they hold themselves in that state due to their own ignorance. Because plants do not communicate to us their pain in a way they can personally hear and understand it is okay to eat -that- living thing, but not one that can moo or quack or oink. Because the vegan can hear the moo, the quack, the oink.
Trying to build morality around the consumption of nutrients is, at best, a fool's game based on assumptions and nothing more. And I hate it, deeply.
Once we get to spontaneous generation of nutrient-rich material with no exploitation of labor and poor people, or death of living things, -then- we can get morally superior about consumption. Everything prior to that is just moral masturbation.
Hey! Put this on my vegan blog to address these questions/concerns.
1: I get that, and considering the life of living things is something I always try to do. It can be worthwhile to consider the ways in which we harm all living beings, not just animals. In fact, Buddhist thought has a lot to say about this, and is a tradition with a long veg history - far longer than any in an english speaking country. However, contemplation on the suffering of the bugs we step on aside, we have to eat. Ultimately, if your concern is for the wellbeing of plants and animals, the answer is harm reduction: how do you consume where the least beings are harmed?
If you look into how plants and animals are used for consumption, reducing animal products is by and large more efficient. We grow mountains of corn and soy, mostly to feed animals. This is a waste of both plant life and human life. If most people were to go vegan, than a lot of the land currently being torn up for both animal agriculture and the monocultures that feed them could be rewilded, benefiting the ecosystem in huge, tangible ways.
Veganism isn't simply a concern for just animals. It's trying to reduce the harm we do.
2: I mentioned this in the previous part, but most of the soy we grow is not for people. The US soybean board's report from the '24/'25 states that ~6 million metric tons of soybeans were used in human food total, most of that for soybean oil. Compare that to the amount used in animal feed: 35.8 million metric tons, about 96.5% of all soybeans used. This is not even accounting for eating the soybeans as their own food or in tofu, tempeh, ect. This falls under "other edible products", and only accounts for 0.4 million metric tons.
3: Yeah, some people can't go vegan. Some people could, but it would be exceptionally hard. This is true. However, most people are not in this camp. Most people can go vegan. They do not want to.
And as a note about the morality aspect, I think a lot of people get very self conscious when someone is taking a moral stance they do not take. I will acknowledge that people on the internet are inherently more inflammatory, this is the nature of the medium. However, calling it "moral masturbation" and saying things like "Trying to build morality around the consumption of nutrients is, at best, a fool's game based on assumptions and nothing more." downplays the actual ability for people to enact change. How, perchance, do you think we will get to "spontaneous generation of nutrient-rich material with no exploitation of labor and poor people, or death of living things"? Who will try to find these technologies, these solutions? Will it be the people who claim that there is nothing to do, so they might as well continue with the (admittedly!) unethical behaviors they inherited? Or will it be the people who are fighting to make consumption more ethical, day by day?
Just to respond to this whole "plants SCREAM when they are cut" thing, this has to be one of the most widely misrepresented facets of biology and one of the most inappropriately applied half-truths I can think of. I'm sorry for the incoming rant but I am sick of being asked to take this idea seriously, as if it isn't just a complete fabrication of what the current research actually tells us. I don't think that the people putting forward this argument take it seriously themselves.
To start with, plants do indeed emit ultrasonic sounds when they are under stress, such as when they are dehydrated or physically damaged. These sounds resemble popping or clicking noises and occur at frequencies that are inaudible to humans, but not to many animals. These are sounds that are the result of a physical process, for example with dehydration, air bubbles form and collapse in the stems of the plant, creating vibrations that result in these ultrasonic noises. These noises are what we mean when we talk about plants "screaming."
Screams in plants are highly unlikely to be the expression of a subjective experience. This is simply a misunderstanding of what scientists mean when they talk about plants "screaming," and honestly, is more often than not the result of reading the clickbait headline but not the study itself... We can't know any of this for certain of course, just as I can't know for sure that you experience pain, but none of the available evidence even implies the existence of subjective experiences in any organism that does not have a central nervous system or a brain.
Compare that physiological response to a stressor, with a scream in an animal. A scream for an animal is a way to alert others of distress, it is indeed likely that plant "screams" function in the same way. They key difference is that in animals, a scream reflects a subjective experience, which is the state of being scared, shocked or in pain. The scream of an animal is not simply an automatic response to a physical process, it is the expression of a subjective experience. Suffering is the morally relevant factor, not relatability, and not empathy.
Plants are complex organisms, and can respond to their external environment in relatively sophisticated ways. Through our recent discovery of what we call "The Wood Wide Web," we understand better the extent to which they can communicate and even share resources with one another, However, we have no compelling evidence whatsoever that plants experience anything even resembling the pain we observe in animals.
I am not aware of any respected botanist who takes seriously the idea that plants feel pain, or a peer reviewed study which demonstrates or even suggests that they do. Plants not only lack a central nervous system or pain receptors, they don't even have nerve ganglia. More fundamentally, plants lack the brain that is necessary to process those signals into a pain sensation, even if those signals did exist. Plants lack all of the biological apparatus we believe is required to experience pain, or any subjective experience of sensation at all. That plants emit sounds and chemical signals is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are capable of subjective experience.
You can disagree with me on philosophical or spiritual grounds, and it is completely fine if you do. That said, it is dishonest to pretend that this conclusion is based on the current landscape of scientific knowledge, or that this is anything other than an unsubstantiated belief. Nothing we know about plants suggests that suffering, or subjective experience of any kind is possible for them, and there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on that.
The implication that the physiological response to stressors is somehow morally comparable to animals who we know suffer at our hands, is not just inaccurate, it is morally repugnant. I use that term seriously. I find it genuinely revolting to be asked to take seriously the comparison between the suffering of a pig in a factory farm and the chemical response of a sunflower getting their leaf cut. I think that this rhetoric is cynical in the extreme.
This is not an attempt to centre the experiences of plants or to encourage people to value them more. If it was, you’d be encouraging people to eat less meat, since farmed ruminants take in far more calories in crops than they will ever produce in meat, meaning that most meat eating diets require more plants to sustain than a vegan’s does, to say nothing of the vast swathes of formerly forested land now used for grazing. This is less about valuing plants and more about devaluing the pain of non-human animals and put it on the same level as an automatic physiological response in a non-sentient being.
Slitting a pig's throat and picking a strawberry are not morally comparable, and realistically, I think you already know that. I do not believe you are out there in the world behaving as if you believe that every plant you touch, stand on or eat is experiencing pain. I think that this is something you only talk or even think about when you’re arguing with a vegan. To imply that you think that electrocuting a chicken and picking weeds are morally comparable is engaging in mental gymnastics in a deliberate attempt to obscure the issue.
In short, the morally relevant issue is subjective experience, not simply "living matter," or the fact that plants are not "relatable." To pretend that this is why vegans eat plants but not animals, as if there were no other morally relevant difference, is either wildly ignorant of what vegans believe and what the current research actually says, or it is an intentional misrepresentation of both.
When the average heterosexual family man complains about his family not respecting him, it is almost always because there is absolutely nothing about him to respect and he has made no effort to connect with any of them and he considers the slightest pushback or lack of affection a sign of ‘disrespect’. When the average heterosexual family woman complains about her family not respecting her, it’s usually because her 14 year old son keeps calling her a bitch and throwing things at her while her husband laughs. The difference is so fucking stark.
People hate me for my controversial opinions such as “don’t abuse animals for human gain” and “let’s lower our carbon emissions”
I always cringe so bad whenever I see that poem that’s like your face is a combination of all the people who’ve loved each other bc like actually girl no my face is made from generations of marital rape but im really happy for u
Like well no I can’t take you seriously if you think bi women and lesbians are oppressed the same when half of this site has been jerking off recently to correctively raping lesbians I simply cannot take you serious! I’m sorry!
non lesbians go one day without equating lesbians to men challenge go!
Saying lesbian oppression has some specific traits based around our unique position as women who only want other women is "MRA rhetoric", but calling lesbians ugly and jealous in a post that didn't even have to do with attractiveness is instead super feminist and progressive. Never have women complaining about their oppression just be called ugly hysterical jealous cunts.
Especially alarming that their definition of bi women vs lesbians is "bi women are queer women hot enough for men to still be an option, lesbians are too ugly instead, and the reason any woman gets assaulted is because she's attractive."
Anyways. I'm also, personally, hotter than any lesbophobe. ❤️
“Girls w boyfriends aren’t your enemies” I mean I wish that was true but too many women let their bfs take them over like the symbiote So