[sunsbleeding]

[givememtnspls]

Second Beach, Washington - 35mm

[kiefferlmeridew]

Waipi'o Valley, Hawai’i

[babetalksbookish]

[expressions-of-nature]

by Sergey Bragin

[johnnyslittleanimalblog]

A traffic camera in Montreal

[strigimorphaes]

I'm pretty sure that's an owl actually

[sjoongki]

STUDIO GHIBLI + FLOWERS

[medusadyke]

academic dishonesty is not something you can spin as moral lol i do not want to share a career field let alone a social sphere with a bunch of chatgpt using ass bitches

[medusadyke]

"you're just scared your diploma is going to devalue" i'm afraid you dumb bitches are going to become my colleagues and drag social services to hell

[madeline-kahn]

Music in Film: Sinners (2025) dir. Ryan Coogler

[professor-winter]

ʀᴇᴀᴅɪɴɢ ɪɴ ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴀɪɴ

[mountainbaby25]

Mirrored.

[my-midlife-crisis]

No children are allowed in the Library of Congress.

It's not that kind of library.

In other words...

You are being lied to

again

[madenthusiasms]

Everything published in the US is copied to the Library of Congress; appropriateness for children is not a criteria. Published under copyright is.

In order to read something in the Library of Congress, you must, in order:

1) Be 16+ years old and in possession of ID such as a driver’s license or passport to obtain a LoC card

2) Make an appointment to go to a reading room

3) Know what it is you want to read and which library building it is in so you can fill out a request form when you arrive.

So the chances of a “child” just stumbling over something “inappropriate” that was “put” there by the choice of the head librarian is 100% impossible.

Leavitt seems to believe that if she wears a big enough cross, God can’t hear her breaking the commandment against false witness.

[adambenhall]

Tryfan, North Wales.

[nostosphotography]

Yosemite (2021)

[butterflycharms]

[dappledwithshadow]

Alexander Koester (German, 1864 - 1932) Flowering Field Date Unknown

[myfootyrthroat]

I feel like there's a certain type of "ex-evangelical" progressive who obviously supports mandatory progressive causes like abortion access and LGBT rights, but then in practice supports them "so strongly" that they can't compromise on anything. And if that means that they can't vote for candidates who support those issues because they aren't "good enough" and those issues get set back, well... That's a trade-off they're willing to make!

[myfootyrthroat]

If there's one pro-choice candidate and one anti-choice candidate and you campaign against the pro-choice candidate because you don't think their support is strong enough, knowing that the alternative is the anti-choice candidate... I feel like you're not that pro-choice?

[myfootyrthroat]

Or if you have one candidate who wants to maintain LGBT rights and one who wants to roll them back, and you oppose the pro-LGBT candidate because they don't want to... add 3 new sex markers to government IDs, but the other candidate wants to make it impossible to change the sex marker on your government ID at all... I don't think you're actually being very supportive of LGBT rights?

[prince-atom]

They are all clearly acting like they think they'll get the candidate they want next time. But next time the fight won't be over three new sex markers on IDs, the fight will be over civil rights. We are actively moving backwards.

[amorphousturtle]

"You are functionally a conservative". It doesn't matter if they believe in supporting queer rights. They probably do, but it doesn't matter. Because their choices, their actions, oppose those rights.

A candidate isn't perfect? Yeah, welcome to politics, where "Not Good Enough vs Horrible" is a good day. As long as Not Good Enough wins. Because there's ALWAYS Horrible options, always candidates that want to make things worse, and there's NEVER candidates that do everything you want. But one that wants to make things better? That's valuable. You're not going to solve everything today, but you can make things better tomorrow. And if you keep that up, keep making things better, things DO get solved.

When someone tells you that a progressive candidate isn't progressive enough? Well, yeah. That's probably true. And when they say that you shouldn't support what progress they would work toward? That letting the REgressive candidate win is better than an imperfect progressive?

You wish that officer a nice day, and you tell them to fuck ALL the way off.