oozey mess
Jar Jar Binks Fan Club
No title available
tumblr dot com
occasionally subtle
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Cosmic Funnies
$LAYYYTER
Mike Driver
taylor price
Discoholic đȘ©
Xuebing Du
Cosimo Galluzzi
â
almost home
art blog(derogatory)
Misplaced Lens Cap
đ©” avery cochrane đ©”
No title available
No title available
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Myanmar (Burma)
seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from Uruguay
seen from Uzbekistan
seen from United States
seen from Algeria
seen from TĂŒrkiye
seen from Iraq
seen from Iraq
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Ecuador
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Indonesia
seen from Brazil
seen from Panama
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
@recklessnikki
I think your fanfic is amazing.
âBut Professor, the technical flaws!â âBut Professor, the grammatical errors!â âBut Professor, youâre not even in my fandom!â âBut Professor, youâve never even read my fanfic!â
Iâll say it again; I think your fanfic is amazing.
i'm in agony, SOMEbody please help me remember what the childhood book series was that centered around critters that looked like this:
IM IN HELL WHAT WAS IT
Little Critter?
THATS THE BITCH
alright smart-aleks, what about THIS one huh?? the dude had a really cool shading technique where he just swirled (colored pencil?) around??
Parts :)
YOU GUYS ARE TOO GOOD AT THIS WHAT THE HELL
ok my partner wanted in on this, I have no idea what this is
I GOT YOU
i'm never leaving this fucking site i stg i love you all.
OK
final one
for all the marbles,
this one doesn't have an illustration bc i think it was just a kids novel but i haven't been able to find ANYTHING about it on my occasional internet queries:
kids is staying with his (grandmother?) in the woods and she warns him not to look a fox in the eyes bc they're tricksy and will swap places with you. obviously that's the first thing the little boy does and gets body snatched by a fox who uhhhh proceeds to pig out with his new little boy human hands and the boy has to trick the fox into looking him in the eyes again to switch back...
thats all i got, it's an older book i wanna say from the 60's?? 70's?? kinda the same jist of "Little Rascal"
perhaps this?
A DECADE OF SEARCHING THANK YOU @dyketennant IM ORDERING THIS IMMEDIATELY
ok i lied i'm back bc this is fun and i get to share some of my most deeply cherished childhood books with you all
i cannot express how much these are from memory, that's how internalized these artists and writers have become, they're a part of me now
The first one looks like The Spider and the Fly, though the poses are a bit different.
The second one is likely Stellaluna.
Iâm not sure about the third one, I will keep searching.
I think I found the third one, though Iâm the least confident about this one. Is it Creature Tech?
Unfortunately it doesnât have a praying mantis on the cover :(
16k notes, librarian ass webbed site i stg,
alright heres another one for the real ball knowers
i have for a while been using stepping on somebody's toes as a metaphor for misgendering. and i genuinely think that it's kind of a good one.
if you keep stepping on somebody's toes for a long time at minimum they're probably going to start really hating you and at maximum you might cause them lasting damage.
if you do it on purpose you're a dick. if it's on accident but you keep doing it that person is still going to be mad at you because you don't care enough to try not to step on their toes
if you give a grovelling begging apology after accidentally stepping on somebody's toes one time you're going to make the whole thing awkward, but not giving a quick "sorry" before moving on is still kind of rude.
buffies
I gib u frög
[image description: digital painting of a rain frog, looking very grumpy and potato-shaped, with a shiny golden crown floating above its head.]
the unimaginable power of saying "huh, guess that's not for me" and moving on with your life
Alex Hirsch is so unhinged
I fail to see how the Monsters of Inc. were persuaded to care about the welfare of children who to them were no more than an anonymous, alien resource necessary for the convenience of their lives. They weren't even the same species of them. Yet they overhauled their whole energy economy to be more humane toward this hated other, which had no legal rights in their society, and which most of them had never even seen. It really makes no sense, if anything it's sort of a perversion, like if you actually lived with that level of concern and empathy you wouldn't be able to function at all. You would be, just, fucking debilitated. Just psychologically crushed. Idk it's just not that plausible to me. And Randall, the lizard. He isn't that fuckable either.
the next day after exerting myself too much because i felt good for once
free the nipple has to make a resurgence for a number of reasons but bro look at our upcoming eternity of wet bulb temps youre smoking straight up cock if you think im keeping a shirt on when it hits 105° in new england
everyone tits out with a parasol is such a beautiful world to imagine that the fact it doesnt currently exist fills me with equal parts fire and misery
â âfriends donât look at friends like thatâ devalues friendship/platonic forms of love, pushes amatonormativity
â âhistorians will call them friendsâ devalues historians and forces complex relationships into modern simplicities, also devalues friendship/platonic forms of love
â âdo they know its legal nowâ suggests the characters are stupid, poorly suggests that this is the only barrier to their relationshipâboth of which are funny as hell
I gib u frög
[image description: digital painting of a rain frog, looking very grumpy and potato-shaped, with a shiny golden crown floating above its head.]
why be radically exclusionary abt queerness when you could be radically inclusionary instead. let's inflate the numbers. let's become the majority. the sky's the limit
"we can't let just ANYONE call themselves queer!!" what are you talking about. I'm steepling my fingers and gleefully cackling every time we Get Another One and you should be too. lock in.
Fuck yeah, let's make this little raft we're surviving on big as hell. If I bring my bit of driftwood and you bring yours and we let as many people join in as want to, we might end up with a functional boat.
I heard someone say 'queer is that which accepts queerness' a few weeks ago and I've been thinking about it ever since.
Back when I was active on AVEN (I have no idea what it's like now), we had two definitions of asexual -- an external definition and an internal definition. The external definition, the one that's on the wiki and the press material and that everyone uses when talking about asexuality, was of course "an asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction". The internal definition, the one we kept in mind when talking to each other, was "an asexual is someone who calls themself asexual".
The reason for this was very simple and very practical. In the very early AVEN and immediately pre-AVEN days, back before my time when the disparate ace communities were first finding each other and creating a public online network, there was a fair lot of exclusionist discourse. There are a lot of ways to be asexual, and the early community of course fell prey to the usual infighting about whether someone with a libido counts as asexual, whether someone who chooses to have sex can be asexual (usual tiring Purity Brigade Bullshit), whether someone without a libido counts as asexual (after all, if you have no sex drive, are you sure it's a matter of sexual orientation?), whether ace people count as lgbtq, all the usual nonsense. This worked out the way it pretty much always does -- the inclusionists "win", because exclusionists always break off into smaller and smaller communities so the largest group is, of course, the one where all different kinds of people stick together and welcome each other. And that was AVEN.
And when you're trying to have a strong community and somebody shows up at the gates saying, "hi, I think I'm asexual", it's a fucking horrible idea to start doubting their credentials. They saw the public definition and started calling themselves asexual; they're here, and now they're under the internal definition. An asexual is somebody who calls themself asexual. Sometimes, these people would be frustrated allosexuals, or people choosing to swear off sex, who might not fit the external definition of the term. We made sure that everyone knew the external definition, and there were always conversations about asexuality and how it affected our lives, if they asked us directly what we thought then we'd say "only you can know for sure" and then give our thoughts on the matter for as long as they asked for them, and other than that it wasn't anyone else's fucking business or anyone's place to judge. If people weren't nasty and didn't create problems, they could stay and call themselves whatever they wanted.
Many of these people who didn't fit the strict definition eventually left after receiving support and discovering more about themselves. Some stopped IDing as ace but became allies to the community. Some people who came in with the most "I'm a heterosexual girl who is angry at my boyfriend" intro posts you've ever seen in your life discovered that they were in fact ace and that the messages that society had taught them about sex and romance were simply not for them -- these are people who, in a gatekept community, would have been incorrectly ousted immediately.
And then there were people -- a LOT of people -- who found themselves in grey areas. People who said "okay, this community makes sense to me and is useful to me and I have so much in common with a lot of you, but not EXACTLY like you. However, what I experience may not be the strict default definition but it's an awful lot like these other members on the forum." And they formed sub-communities. The grey aces. The demisexuals. The aromantics and greyromantics. Through these dialogues, between subgroups who in a more exclusionary community would be arguing about who the "real" asexuals are and splintering off into their own communities away from all those stupid cishet fakers, we developed language to describe our similarities and differences. The sexual/romantic/aesthetic attraction model came out of these dialogues and it became so massively important to our understanding of asexuality that basically everyone in the ace/aro community describes themselves by it, as do a large number of people outside the community. The community made massive leaps ahead in just a decade or two by, well, being a community. By being a place where anybody who called the place home, and didn't bully other people in the home, was right. By being somewhere where anybody who saw "asexual: someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction" and thought "that sounds like a term with some use for me" was allowed to use it.
An asexual is somebody who does not experience sexual attraction.
An asexual is somebody who calls themselves asexual.
These definitions are not in conflict -- they are both, in concert, fundamentally necessary for a safe and vibrant community where we can protect, support, and learn about each other and ourselves.
And that is absolutely not exclusive to asexual communities.
labels should always be about making people feel seen and understand that they are not alone in their experiences, but those definitions should never be used to exclude anyone from identifying with that label.
