this tumblr is awful

25. They/them. Gay, agender, Canadian of Colombian descent. Will sporadically post cute things, hot men and social issues. Maybe some other stuff sometimes. Now with more tags

[humansoflatecapitalism]

[fruitgushers]

if you arent someone the church wanted dead 300 years ago are you really living

[karis-the-fangirl]

Ok I think this post is saying ‘if you aren’t the type of person that the church would have hated 300 years ago are you even living’

But I prefer to read it as ‘IF YOU ARENT AN AGELESS IMMORTAL WHO HAS BEEN FEUDING WITH THE CHURCH FOR AT LEAST THREE HUNDRED YEARS THEN WHAT IS THE POINT OF YOU’ and like. That seems fair.

[fandomsandfeminism]

Humans are a communal species that have banded together and cared for their sick, disabled, and elderly since before we were ever modern man. Resources were shared even as skills specialized. 

Capitalism isn’t natural. A community should not have members dying of starvation or exposure while there is an abundance of resources. That isn’t how it works. That isn’t how it’s supposed to work.

[g-taire]

ok so my roommates are anthropology students and their favorite example for debunking the ‘survival of the fittest’ bs is shanidar 1. (x, x, x)

shanidar 1 is a neanderthal who, at a pretty young age, was hit in the head hard enough to blind him. this also led to that side of his brain shutting down and withering his right arm, and possibly crippling his entire right side. not only that but his skeleton also shows that at some point, he broke a bone in his foot and, in addition to the other factors, resulted in a noticeable limp. there are some sources which say he likely had degenerative diseases. (arthritis was really common in neanderthals) 

going off of widespread ideas of “”primitive”” (no longer the word used in anthropology/academia to describe early-modern humans) societies, shanidar probably died really young, deliberately abandoned or killed. i mean, he was severely crippled, blind, etc., he couldn’t contribute anything, he would have been a “”burden to society””, right? 

except he lived to be between 40 and 50 years old. (about ~80 in human years)

this means that his social group had to have taken care of him for a minimum of two or three decades without his ‘contributing’ anything significant to the group. this discovery (and Shanidar III’s) was huge because it basically proves that early humans had a concept of hospice. early modern humans cared for the sick and the elderly, greatly extending their lifespan, simply because they cared. 

tl;dr: the concept of someone needing to be ‘’useful’’ or ‘’’productive’’’ in society in order to be valued and cared for is a very modern concept and our quasi-predecessors would be ashamed 

[ekjohnston]

Also, Shanidar I was buried with flowers. They cared about him after he was dead, too.

[ygosideblog]

who keeps giving her these things

[frommetrunui]

[super-saiyan-rose]

she ends up condemned too D:

[princesspornstar-deactivated201]

damn bitch get it together

[estrogenpatchnotes]

[megadethzenbu-deactivated202011]

She’s a Darklord now too

[ashestoashesjc]

[internationalbatofmystery-deact]

[dilfosaur]

read the full comic!

i have watched approximately 54535624664534 of these so here is my Ode to Hallmark Christmas Movies

[cloudfreed]

This is precisely how I make fun of these movies when my sister forces me to watch them.

[reynbowz]

*whispers* Just say 12 Men of Christmas

[photo-frier]

[doolerdip]

this passes the bechdel test

[galahadwilder]

A sudden, terrifying thought

When you see an animal with its eyes set to the front, like wolves, or humans, that’s usually a predator animal.

If you see an animal with its eyes set farther back, though—to the side—that animal is prey.

Now look at this dragon.

See those eyes?

They’re to the SIDE.

This raises an interesting—and terrifying—question.

What in the name of Lovecraft led evolution to consider DRAGONS…

As PREY?

[dorito-and-pinetree]

I know this isn’t part of my blogs theme but like this is interesting

[haiku-robot]

i know this isn’t part of my blogs theme but like this is interesting

^Haiku^bot^8. I detect haikus with 5-7-5 format. Sometimes I make mistakes. | @image-transcribing-bot @portmanteau-bot | Contact | HAIKU BOT NO | Good bot! | Beep-boop!

[kappagecko]

@howdidigetinvolved

[perfectlygenericblog]

The eyes-in-the-front thing (usually) only applies to mammals. Crocodiles, arguably the inspiration for dragons, have eyes that look to the sides despite being a predator.

[pyrrhiccomedy]

hey what up I’m about to be That Asshole

This isn’t a mammalian thing. When people talk about ‘eyes on the front’ or ‘eyes on the side,’ they’re really talking about binocular vision vs monocular vision. Binocular vision is more advantageous for predators because it’s what gives you depth perception; i.e, the distance you need to leap, lunge, or swipe to take out the fast-moving thing in front of you. Any animal that can position its eyes in a way that it has overlapping fields of vision has binocular vision. That includes a lot of predatory reptiles, including komodo dragons, monitor lizards, and chameleons.

(The eyes-in-front = predator / eyes-on-sides = prey thing holds true far more regularly for birds than it does for mammals. Consider owls, hawks, and falcons vs parrots, sparrows, and doves.)

But it’s not like binocular vision is inherently “better” than monocular vision. It’s a trade-off: you get better at leap-strike-kill, but your field of vision is commensurately restricted, meaning you see less stuff. Sometimes, the evolutionary benefit of binocular vision just doesn’t outweigh the benefit of seeing the other guy coming. Very few forms of aquatic life have binocular vision unless they have eye stalks, predator or not, because if you live underwater, the threat could be coming from literally any direction, so you want as wide a field of view as you can get. If you see a predator working monocular vision, it’s a pretty safe assumption that there is something else out there dangerous enough that their survival is aided more by knowing where it is than reliably getting food inside their mouths.

For example, if you are a crocodile, there is a decent chance that a hippo will cruise up your shit and bite you in half. I’d say that makes monocular vision worthwhile.

Which brings us back to OP’s point. Why would dragon evolution favor field of view over depth perception?

A lot of the stories I’ve read painted the biggest threats to dragons (until knights with little shiny sticks came along) as other dragons. Dragons fight each other, dragons have wars. And like fish, a dragon would need to worry about another dragon coming in from any angle. That’s a major point in favor of monocular vision. Moreover, you don’t need depth perception in order to hunt if you can breathe fucking fire. A flamethrower is not a precision weapon. If you can torch everything in front of you, who cares if your prey is 5 feet away or 20? Burn it all and sift among the rubble for meat once everything stops moving.

Really, why would dragons have eyes on the front of their heads? Seems like they’ve got the right idea to me.

[nathanpikajew]

this is some good dragon discourse right here, 10/10, and i dont mean to derail the whole thing away from the eyes, but i feel obligated to mention that in many stories and accurate to some reptiles, dragons have an extremely acute sense of smell/taste which would definitely help narrow down the depth perception issue. things smell stronger the closer they are. and i feel like i read somewhere that a blind snake can flick the air with its tongue and track its target mouse with no trouble at all. gotta imagine the “great serpents of the sky” had some pretty advanced biology. enough to make field of view win out against depth perception.

anywho. cool stuff. fear the dragons even if they are the prey cause they still beat us on the food chain.

[jabberwockypie]

“A flamethrower is not a precision weapon. If you can torch everything in front of you, who cares if your prey is 5 feet away or 20? Burn it all and sift among the rubble for meat once everything stops moving.”

[tamascotchi-deactivated20190101]

can we all pls collectively agree to make tying ur jacket around ur waist fashionably acceptable again

i don’t wanna carry my jacket anymore when i get hot

[tresbienbitch]

my biggest enemy in any video game: full inventory

[thenatsdorf]

These 3 always go to bed like this. (via sirmakoto)

[bae-in-maine]

My heart

[mythcreantsblog]

Unreliable narrators need to add something to the story. They aren’t an excuse for poor storytelling and inconsistencies.

[gracebeereblogs]

If you have an unreliable narrator, you should be doing twice as much work in your plotting! At every turn of the story, you need to know both what’s actually happening AND what your narrator thinks is happening. 

[emptymanuscript]

When you’re right, you’re right. And you’re right.

Not only does the author need to know what’s happening on both layers of story, they need to actually write in clues for the reader to telegraph the lower, “true,” layer of the story so the reader is capable of figuring it out if they choose to read closely. Without that double work, an unreliable narrator cannot perform its literary function.

It is the evidence of the truth, not the lie the narrator tells, that makes a narrator unreliable. Otherwise they are just a liar which the audience is incapable of catching due to the hobbling imposed by the medium. Which means the lie may as well be the truth, making it serve no function as a lie. 

[thecatranimal]

Anyone know good examples?

[homelandsexual]

I’ve got a ton of classic lit examples like the governess from Henry James’s Turn of the Screw where her inability to convince the reader of her narrative (things like getting the time of day wrong when describing an encounter) adds horror and tension (if what she’s telling us is wrong then what’s really going on? am i being just as bad as the master by not believing her? could she be insane and an immediate threat to the children in her care?)

and some YA examples like Holden Caulfield from The Catcher in the Rye where Holden struggles to put together the motives and perspectives of other people in his lives possibly due to trauma sometimes ascribing more innocent interpretations of events (Stradlater’s previous sexual encounters were 100% consensual) and sometimes ascribing more sinister interpretations of events (Mr. Antolini is watching me sleep and intends to harm me when i am most vulnerable) in both cases we see characters with a pretty and appealing front but hints at a more gruesome interior (Stradlater’s uncleanliness and Mr Antolini’s drinking) and once again there are real life implications to questioning the narrator

[bad-4chan-literature]

[hotvampireadjacent]

[definite-human]

The sad thing is that this would be hilarious coming from someone like John Mulaney, but you just *know* the author is some narsisistic neckbeard who thinks women don’t sleep with him because he’s too intimidatingly intelligent

[beachdeath]

What Are White People Naming Their Kids This Week: A Report from the Baby Names Discussion Facebook Group // Week of December 12, 2018

Draven

Lennix

Adalley

Illari

Oxsen

Maree

California Skye

Brodeigh

Rosalie Zion

Vaiana

Alba

Athena Valentina

Chrisilynn

Rainey

Enoria

Hogarth

Emileen RayLynn

Topanga Rain

October

Coven

Zeppelyn Lillith Moon

Tigerlily

Heavenly Grace

Zoie

Kaiser

Tjaden (pronounced “Jayden”)

Rubella

one woman has it narrowed down to Ziggy-Wolf, Ziggy-Bear, and Ziggy-Sparrow

Cena (pronounced “Sienna)

Rogue

Ember Sparks

[reynbowz]

[teathattast]

[9pieceboom]

What happens when you keep snowballing and neither one of you wants to swallow.

[turnipfritters]

[9pieceboom]

[berniesrevolution]

[beardburnme2]

Surdaddys Twitter

[mioxenoblade]

“but your doctor needs to know what genitals you have or were born with!”

I agree, and I think this supports the ousting of the female/male dynamic.

The only people who need to know about your genitals is your doctor (and your partners that you’re sexually involved with), this is done through conversation and discussion. There is no need to have the F/M distinguishers on paperwork, IDs and the like.

“how will doctors know???”

By doing their jobs and talking to you, by doing their jobs and running tests. It’d change nothing.

This concept that “you’re a woman but biologically male!” is so convoluted that its disgusting. “Female” denotes woman and “male” denotes a man. These two terms are so heavily gendered that there’s nothing truly “scientific” about it, and this split of gender and biological sex only is out to support a misgendering view of trans bodies.

There’s no reason a trans woman can’t put a F on her medical forms. It’s arbitrary information and doing anything else only serves to publicly “out” her to possible hostile environments and people.

A doctor that paid attention in school will know what a penis is, they will be able recognize a post genital surgery by looking at such; and if a doctor can’t distinguish that without some arbitrary letter on a paper, then they need to go back to school.

There is no logical reason to be calling trans women male. To do so is transphobic.

[cream-and-stars]

And more to the point, modern medicine acknowledges that chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, hormonal sex, morphological sex, and behavioral sex (extensive overlap with but not the same as gender and/or gender role) are different and need to be considered differently under different circumstances. No one thing is biological sex.

If we are evaluating you for something where (say) your chromosomal sex (XX, XY, XO, XXY, etc.) matters, we can ask that question *specifically.* Same goes for estrogen-progestin dominant vs testosterone-dominant, Mullerian vs Wolffian duct derivatives, Sertoli and Leydig cells vs ovarian tissue, gender, and so on. Saying “male” or “female” is a heuristic that may cover most people, but FAR from most configurations and is inadequately specific for issues where “biological sex” is relevant.

There is no reason to call your trans women patients male. Like, ever. It’s transphobic, and it’s bad medicine.

And further to the point (and the below holds true for various biological sex markers, eg hormonal profile, not just “sex behavior,” e.g., the range of normal clitoral sizes is greater than the difference in size between the average clitoris and average penis):

(Nelson, R. (2005). An introduction to behavioral endocrinology (3rd ed.). Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates.)

See also: examining someone’s bits doesn’t a man or a woman make.

[mioxenoblade]

This was incredibly detailed and a great addition!