Who Made the World...

What is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?

[yabagofmilfs]

is this montreal again

[confusionofconfusions-deactivat]

i love that 17th century jewish poltergeist story where the family living in the haunted house calls a catholic priest for help before they contact a rabbi, because yeah, i think that would be my call too; id be like, oh? a demon in my house speaking latin and drawing inverted crosses on my wall in sulfuric bile? then without even questioning my faith i’d call up the catholic church and be like yo father, one of your boys loose come get him

[noah-wyles]

this is such a fantastic and reassuring response

[depsidase]

[dragon-in-a-fez]

under US law, it's illegal for anyone who's not a member of a recognised native tribe to own an eagle feather. the penalty is a $100,000 fine.

14 years ago when I had recently moved to Alaska, I went hiking with an Aleut friend, and she pointed to a feather lying on the ground and said "hey that's a bald eagle tail feather, you should grab it!" and I was like "uhh I'm very white and that's very illegal" and she went "they're fuckin everywhere up here man. I have 20." so she grabs it off the ground and hands it to me and says "there, now it's a ceremonial gift from an indigenous person."

and I'm like, okay, cool, I guess this is how we do things in Alaska. nice.

so I keep this bald eagle tail feather around for years. display it in my home among other cherished memorabilia from places I've lived and visited, etc.

on a whim, I have just now looked it up. there is no exemption to that law for a ceremonial gift from an indigenous person. the last 7 years I lived in the US, I was technically a bald eagle poacher.

probably a good thing I don't intend to move back there anytime soon. I wonder what the statute of limitations is on bird crimes.

[dragon-in-a-fez]

@freedomisscaryshit I'm fucking dying I think you forgot the word "feathers" in your tags?? or do you just wish you could grab whole ass eagles that land in your yard??

[emotional-support-husband]

As an Indigenous person, it continues to astound me that there are such strict laws (written by White people) in our name, laws against...picking up things just found on the ground. Like, stop pretending this is "for" us. We don't want this.

[dragon-in-a-fez]

so, for clarity, that's not what this is. the law against possessing feathers is an anti-poaching measure, derived from a North American treaty protecting certain migratory bird species from hunting. that treaty has an exemption for indigenous people to allow tribes that use eagle feathers in ceremonial or religious practices to continue doing so.

[chekhovs-raygun]

i used to collect feathers (illegally) as a teenager and the thing is that it's incredibly important for feathers from wild birds to be illegal to possess because it ensures that they never become fashionable to wear. the reason we passed the migratory bird act was because the american and european fashion industry was driving species to extinction in a timespan of years. not just decades. the ecological devastation of exporting birds for hats was absolutely insane and people were watching wetlands and forests and meadows just empty out in realtime. look at the wikipedia article for the plume trade.

the law against 'picking feathers up off the ground' means that you can't go shoot an eagle then sell the feathers on etsy by saying you 'just found them'. you can't own them no matter where they came from, which makes sure that they're not going to come from any birds killed and then secretly disposed of.

these laws, as harsh and ridiculous as they seem, saved flamingos, spoonbills, egrets, and all kinds of hawks and eagles from extinction. the minute these laws weaken and people can make money off killing them again, they're fucked.

[lizardlicks]

this is one of those "no actually this regulation exists for a reason" laws much like work place safety and building fire codes (that Republicans keep trying to roll back) and is written in blood just like them as well. it's just not human blood this time, and the fact that people actually cared enough about long term future over short term profit to get it put in place is nothing short of astonishing. That it didn't get put in place in time to save several species is heart breaking.

[dailynarnia]

is jake gyllenhaal gay??

why would you ask us, a narnia blog, this

[helloitsbees]

happy pride month to this post specifically

[twominutesforembellishment]

A Tale of Kindy the Penguin

[redheadaholic]

This is the best thing EVER.

[bethanydelleman]

The most amazing thing to me about Jane Austen is that she staunchly refuses to leave any woman behind. It doesn't matter if a woman is an antagonist, a side character, or what, the reader is assured that they will be okay. This is so different from fiction at the time or even now.

Marianne Dashwood, living a plot perfect for a tragic death by illness to preserve the beauty of her first attachment and disappointment? Nope, she lives and loves with her whole heart again. Maria Rushworth, the fallen woman who cheated on her husband does not die for her crimes or even fall into poverty or prostitution, her father and Aunt Norris will provide for her. She is punished, but she's protected. Lydia Bennet? Her two sisters will provide for her for the rest of her life. Her husband's debt will not destroy her. Miss Bates? There is an entire community around her no matter what happens and her newly rich niece will provide. No woman is even left as a governess, Miss Taylor is Mrs. Weston, Jane Fairfax becomes Mrs. Churchill instead. Mrs. Smith is pulled out of her indigent state by Anne and Wentworth.

The only woman Jane Austen allows to suffer a terrible fate is off-page and dead long before the novel begins: Eliza Brandon. Eliza Williams, her mother's affair baby, is ruined by Willoughby. Colonel Brandon could easily have washed his hands of her and her affair child, but he doesn't. Eliza Williams is going to be okay. Her child will be okay.

Antagonist women never fall into poverty or die for their crimes, most of them are even in loving marriages. Fanny Dashwood is cruel to her mother and sisters-in-law, one could imagine her falling low in karmic retribution, but no, she's fine. Lady Susan, the delightful anti-heroine, marries a baronet at the end of her novel. No punishment looms on the horizon for her promiscuity and deception. Caroline Bingley has a loving family that will never turn her away and an independent fortune. Mary Crawford has a loving sister. Isabella Thorpe may have lost the big prize, but she has her mother. Never is a woman thrown to abuse or poverty, even when they have attacked other women. The only punishment would come from their own conscience or regret for the goodness they have thrown away.

Jane Austen somehow imagines a world where even the worst women are safe.

[bethanydelleman]

#jane austen#which definitely throws the very common 'caroline gets her comeuppance' trope in fanfic in high relief#the sheer volume of fics where caroline gets completely cut off and sent to live in exile is staggering#it's always struck me as unnecessary and excessive and i think this might be why#this just isn't how austen treats her characters so having it be SO prevalent in fanfic feels weird#all these fanfic authors out here saying that caroline should live in shame and exclusion and poverty forever#for being a little mean to lizzy#when ms austen simply would never (via @irasobrietate)

Yes! This is such a big thing for me I wrote a whole essay about it. Honestly, it's fics that destroy Caroline being so common that made me consider how unique Austen's treatment of women really is! That and the way she protects Miss Bates.

[hashtag-padme-matters]

Goodbye (Sad Beeps) by scadarts

[originalleftist]

And then R2 spent the next 20+ years fucking up Vader's shit.

Who carried the Death Star plans from Padme's daughter to Padme's son?

Who flew copilot on the mission to blow up said Death Star?

This guy.

Hello. My name is R2D2. You killed Padme. Prepare to die.

[gwydionmisha]

Judge stops Kansas law restricting transgender youth health care

A judge appointed by Gov. Laura Kelly said Kansas likely violated parental rights by restricting gender-affirming care for trans minors.

[vaspider]

Kansas Judge Eviscerates Anti-Trans "Experts" Jamie Reed, Chloe Cole, James Cantor; Blocks Care Ban

The judge found 349 individual facts supported the continued provision of gender-affirming care.

Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach brought forward a litany of anti-trans witnesses familiar from litigation defending these bans. Among them was James Cantor, a Toronto psychologist who has built a career testifying for states defending care bans despite no clinical experience treating transgender minors—and who was once quietly dropped from a Florida Board of Medicine hearing after it emerged he had served on the advisory council of the Prostasia Foundation, a group that has worked to destigmatize pedophilia. Folsom wrote that Cantor "has not conducted any original scientific research on the efficacy or safety of gender dysphoria treatments," and noted he is not licensed to treat anyone under 16 and has never diagnosed a minor with gender dysphoria. [...] "The Court gives Dr. Cantor's testimony little weight," Folsom concluded. The judge turned next to Farr Curlin, a Duke University doctor and theologian who was an author of the Trump administration's HHS report on pediatric gender dysphoria ... By his own admission, Folsom noted, Curlin's views are "radically counter to current medical orthodoxy." The judge found his opinions "appear motivated by his personal views as opposed to a methodology applicable in the field of medical ethics," and gave his testimony "little-to-no weight." ...

And then there was Jamie Reed, the self-styled "whistleblower" who built a national profile on lurid, largely unsubstantiated accusations against a St. Louis gender clinic and who has gone on Fox News to describe being transgender as a delusion. Reed also did not testify and could not be cross-examined. Folsom gave her affidavit "little weight,” and had scathing remarks towards her lack of expertise: “The Court gives thus Jamie Reed’s affidavit little weight, given that she is not a medical provider or mental-health professional. In addition, her affidavit primarily addresses her experiences with a clinic operating outside of Kansas—thus, it does not rebut or refute the credible, uncontroverted testimony about clinical practice within the state of Kansas,” read the order.

This decision is 117 pages long, and if you want to actually feel good about something a judge has had to say recently about trans rights, this is legitimately a good read. (I understand that some people do not read legal decisions for fun. You should still try reading this one. It's really good.)

Given how thoroughly and completely he eviscerates the supposed qualifications and relevance of the same tired grievance actors that the right totes from case to case like a basket of moldy oranges, I hope that this decision will not only act as an example for future judges, but save them a bunch of work, because they don't have to then go do all of the writing themselves on how much these people suck, they can just cite this decision.

[shanehollandered]

can we talk about, maybe not the height but a very VERY significant peak of vulnerability for ilya when he admits to only ever having been in love with shane in front of his parents, and that's potentially only mere hours after confessing his love to shane in the first place??? like. jesus.

[graceebooks]

was literally just thinking about this while looking at that recent gifset of this moment. like yes ilya is right shane is so so brave but ilya deserves more credit for bravery as well. shane's dad was literally like "i thought you were a womanizer" and ilya calmly looks all three of them directly in the eyes and says he has only ever loved shane

[shanehollandered]

and now that you're saying he’s brave (yes he is!!!) im thinking. he watched and witnessed shane be brave so many times, like look his biggest fears in the eyes and not shrink, that he decides to be brave, too. he’s already been, with shane at the cottage, admitting things he’s probably never admitted out loud before, but he’s sitting in front of shane’s parents now, who clearly worry, and he’s just like. i want to be brave, too. not just in front of myself, not just in front of shane. and then practically nukes the room with his bravery, like!!!! need to go punch a wall for a little.

[graceebooks]

and it goes so well hes like lets get this pasta girls!! and then makes out with shane with pasta mouth right in front of them and tells them to text before they arrive since hes gonna be banging their son. hes like damn this emotional bravery shit is my jam lets GO

[doomdaysdecays-deactivated20251]

if i had to explain what tumblr is like i’d only show this

[moon-grub]

No one seems to be acknowledging the far funnier element of this, which is, that when you go to the commenter’s account, you find out they are actually fucking roleplaying as a sexually repressed skeleton and jjst really committed to the bit while everyone in the reblogs is talking about how much they hate minors or whatever. thank you kharak the skeleton servant of the almighty lich king

[nerdragons-hoard]

if i had to explain what tumblr is like i’d only show this

[depsidase]

[chryza]

Debating silently showing this to one of the flight attendants while boarding

[chryza]

I SHOWED IT TO MY FLIGHT ATTENDANT WHEN HE GAVE ME MY COOKIES AND HE LAUGHED SO HARD HE TOOK MY PHONE TO SHOW IT TO THE OTHER FLIGHT ATTENDANT

[bippysaurus-rex]

I don’t know how you got a good grade in being a passenger on an airline but that’s a totally normal thing to achieve and I’m not seething with jealousy at all.

[dailycatsblog]

[vamptits]

they want you to make fried rice

[memser]

who is "they"

[vamptits]

the wok left

[solongandthanksforallthefish42]

how am I supposed to make fried rice if the wok left

[6qubed]

skillet issue

[twistedingenue]

Not to be former Catholic-blogging on main but Chicago Pope can WRITE, y'all

Breaking the chains of new forms of slavery 173. This distorted view of the human person is reflected today in various forms of servitude directly linked to the digital economy. Nothing in the world of AI is immaterial or magical. Every seemingly immediate and flawless response is the result of a long chain of mediation, involving vast networks of natural resources, energy infrastructure and, above all, people. A significant part of the digital economy’s functioning relies on the silent work of millions of people engaged in essential yet largely unseen activities, such as data labeling, model training and content moderation, often involving disturbing material. In many cases, these workers are young people, predominantly women, working under demanding conditions for minimal wages. Added to this invisible labor is the even harsher work of extracting the resources required for the production of the devices and microprocessors on which AI depends. In some regions of the world, children and adolescents work in dangerous conditions, crushing the materials from which rare earth elements are extracted. The bodies of these people are scarred, injured and worn down so that computational flow may continue uninterruptedly. Furthermore, criminal networks use online platforms, messaging systems, anonymous payment methods and profiling techniques in order to recruit, control and transport victims of trafficking — very often minors — reducing men and women to “data” to be tracked and “packages” to be moved around within the same digital circuits that support much of the global economy. This reality deeply challenges the moral conscience of our time. It is not enough to invoke efficiency, nor to celebrate the benefits of innovation, if they are built on a chain of exploitation that remains deliberately hidden. If technology promises emancipation, yet produces new forms of global subordination, it stands in contradiction to the fundamental principle of human dignity.

MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE LEO XIV ON SAFEGUARDING THE HUMAN PERSON IN THE TIME OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

[redheadaholic]

Damn.