
@theartofmadeline
Monterey Bay Aquarium
ojovivo
Misplaced Lens Cap
No title available

No title available
Game of Thrones Daily

izzy's playlists!
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
$LAYYYTER
No title available
almost home
Stranger Things
đȘŒ
No title available

Andulka
The Stonewall Inn
YOU ARE THE REASON

â

ellievsbear
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from TĂŒrkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from India

seen from United States
seen from India
seen from Brazil
seen from Spain
seen from Czechia

seen from TĂŒrkiye

seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Malaysia
@rizaoftheowls
I just saw an acquaintance use "đđ" in place of the word genocide and. like. at what point are we going to decide that this kind of self-censorship is too degrading to abide anymore.
"grape" "sewer-slide" "the panini" I feel like I'm surrounded by Rugrats who overheard the grown ups talking about the news.
I'm tired of seeing people excuse algospeak because "corporations are making us do it." Why are we all letting them do that. The Internet is real life. Get mad about it.
I donât care what excuse people make for using these silly, childish phrases. You are directly contributing to the infantilisation and dumbing down of language and culture.
When I see post after post using this đ I simply cannot take it seriously. No, this person wasnât đed. They were raped. That person wasnât âunalived.â They were killed.
Serious topics need to be discussed seriously and with the weight the people who go through these things deserve, not like children who are scared to say big words.
D&D has become so much more fun since it clicked for me that I'm not the character, I'm the writer in charge of the character
If you're the character, bad rolls and bad calls reflect badly on you. You want to Win because that means you're doing D&D right, and if things go wrong, it's because you're doing it wrong.
If you're the writer, your number one job is to do things to your character that the character does not like because that gives them the chance to be interesting.
a funny thing about having conversations with people within institutions (academic in this case but also others) about gatekeeping, is that you end up having a conversation over and over in which you're like, "hey this alligator spike pit moat you have erected around your institution is keeping a lot of people out," and they're like, "well *I* navigated the alligator spike pit moat just fine," and you're like, "right. by dint of us having this conversation, you within the institution and me without, it is understood that you navigated the alligator spike pit moat. due to that being an inherent requirement of entering the institution," and they're like, "I don't think you understand the prestigious history of our alligator spike pit moat," and you're like, "is there a reason why there needs to be an alligator spike pit moat encircling the concept of higher education?" and they're like, "look, the alligator spike pit moat isn't for everyone. some people just aren't cut out for the alligator spike pit moat :)" and you're like, "right, yeah, like disabled people and people coming from poverty or unstable home environments or underserved communities or people dealing with difficult to navigate life events like pregnancy or abuse or prison or addiction or the death of a loved one, for example" and they're like, "how dare you imply that we are keeping those people out on purpose. it's their own problem if they can't wrestle the alligators and avoid the spikes while also disabled and/or poor and/or pregnant etc" and you're like, "well that seems evil," and they're like, "it sounds like maybe you're just bitter about the alligator spike pit moat because of your totally random individual experience with ONE bad alligator spike pit moat. have you considered therapy?" and you're like, "did you know that there's some patterns here in terms of how y'all are handling this stuff?" and they're like, "actually yes. we even have a department of alligator spike pit studies :)" and you're like, "that's great, how do I get access to and participate in those conversations?" and they're like, "well firstly you must cross the alligator spike pit moat"
if you can document that you have a medical condition that might make it challenging for you to navigate the alligator spike pit moat, they'll give you an extra 20 minutes to complete your navigation of the alligator spike pit moat
IMPORTANT: any injuries incurred as a result of navigating the alligator spike pit moat will be the sole responsibility of the injured parties. once you leave, the people who made you navigate the alligator spike pit moat and the institution that installed the alligator spike pit moat will never contact you again. except sometimes to ask you for more money.
iiiiii love this framing, you're so right
Some thoughts I had in response to this post:
A great many people who crossed the same alligator spike pit moats as me told me it's wasn't that bad, and then casually revealed they were gifted grandpa's spike-proof suit and had alligator-charming lessons starting in toddlerhood, and mom's map of the spike layout to study. They thought this was normal, and genuinely believed they had navigated the alligator spike pit moat without an unusual amount of assistance.
As a corollary, the alligator spike pit moat does not, in fact, weed out unserious and/or terminally mediocre individuals, because many of those people have been gifted alligator-grappling tools and spike-resistant boots. Alligators and spikes deter a great many enthusiastic, hardworking, and talented people who don't have a bunch of fancy protective gear and extensive training in alligator spike pit navigation.
As a second corollary, I am very grateful for the unusual amount of assistance I received in crossing the alligator spike pit moat.
A disturbing number of people did, in fact, acknowledge that the alligator spike pit moat was intended to keep people like me away from people like them and loudly expressed their displeasure that I was not eaten by alligators. One of them used the word 'besmirch'.
An equally disturbing number of people have attempted to use my successful navigation of the alligator spike pit moat as proof that my kind are not being kept out on purpose-- if I navigated it, everyone else is clearly just being lazy. Many of these people seemed to hope that my adventure in the alligator spike pit moat would make me see their point of view re: the alligator spike pit moat being necessary to ensure meritocracy bootstraps were happening in a meritorious and bootstrappy manner. It did the opposite.
TLdr: I have two STEM degrees from institutions known for the viciousness of the alligators and sharpness of the spikes in their alligator spike pit moats. This is not sour grapes. Fuck the alligator spike pit moat.
some of you guys are going to have to start internalizing and accepting the fact that you will not be able to tell some indigenous people apart from white people at a glance, no matter what their 'blood quantum' [gag] is, partially because genetics is wild, and partially because there are indigenous groups that are naturally paler than whatever you're thinking right now.
I'm not in the know like at all when it comes to indigenous things, may I ask why the "[gag]" with every "blood quantum"
Yeah no worries!
Blood quantum is a nightmare concept. It is essentially how much 'native blood' you 'legally' have according to the government.
It is not traditional, it is not cultural, it is not something Indigenous nations ever used to measure belonging.
It was created by colonizers as a tool of erasure. It literally exists so the government could mathematically subtract us out of existence over time.
Think of it like this;
instead of letting Indigenous communities define ourselves, the U.S. government came in and said, âYour Indigeneity is only valid if we can quantify it like livestock breeding papers.â It was meant to break apart families, stop us from passing on identity and land rights, and eventually reach a point where they could say, âSee, there are no real Indigenous people left! So we don't need to think about them!"
It weaponizes nebulous and often finicky genetics against culture, community, lived experience, etc.
It ignores the fact that Indigenous identity is about kinship, belonging, survival, language, tradition, and responsibility to our people.
Blood quantum turns those things into a number. A number designed to shrink until there is nothing left.
Many nations are still stuck dealing with blood quantum rules because of federal pressure and resource control, not because we chose it or approve of it.
And it harms us every single generation. It pits relatives against each other, creates disenrollment fights, and tells half of Indigenous kids they are somehow less real than their siblings because of paperwork.
It also lets the government give a 'good reason' for why we shouldn't have mixed race marriages or 'interbreed' with other races, because then the blood quantum 'goes down' and we may legally not be considered indigenous under the government anymore, which means they can deny us things like certain assistance programs, medical care, etc.
It's literally government mandated eugenics.
In short, it is is a colonial tool invented by the government to eliminate us. Which is why I gag when I say it.
Can't believe this didn't happen on Tumblr. We're slipping, people. Thread under the cut. Source attached to post.
Why do they even make apps for ADHD. You want me to use my 24/7 handheld immediate distraction device? To manage my 'gets distracted too easily' disorder? Ooooh we developed the perfect tool for managing your anemia. Its hosted in Dracula's castle. đ
Picked up my phone to consult my task list for today and now I'm reblogging this instead, case in point
The Odyssey if the suitors were competentâŠ
Go Check out Neet- sheâs awesome (her socials are at the bottom of the linked page if you want to see some of the training videos for this and other silliness)
Adding this from the comments...
since it's disability pride month can we seriously talk about the sanism in the comics community. i'm tired of mentally ill people being portrayed as evil and dangerous. i'm tired of fans and creators talking about our disorders as if that makes us inherently bad.
both creators and fans alike need to be careful how they discuss mentally ill characters. stop using words like "psycho" to signal someone is dangerous. stop portraying us as one dimensional villains instead of complex human beings. stop treating our mental illness as some "dark side" that needs to be fixed. we're real people in this community and we can see how we're talked about and portrayed. it's harmful. we deserve better.
i love this guy so much hes asking the real questions
Any Austin's YouTube channel: X
Have you are/are you going to read anything by Edward Said? From what I hear heâs not a total hack, and as an academic I feel like I should read it for completionism (my academic parents already have some of his books, so I wouldnât even be buying them), but like. I know anything he has to say is gonna be laced with antisemitism
Iâve only read Orientalism, and it was several years ago; I found and revised some of my old notes if you want a brief overview:
- It does not acknowledge that for most of European history, the Eastern Other was represented by the Jews and the Romani, which would be more useful to understanding modern European Othering than reaching back to Aeschylus and trying to impose modern racial concepts on ancient Athens and Persia.
- It invents a new and largely superfluous word for racism; Orientalism is structurally identical to most other forms of racism, and Said is parroting what many black American thinkers had been saying for decades, but presenting it as his own new idea, which gets annoying very quickly.
- Said is a literature professor trying to establish a theory of sociology primarily out of European classic novels. I donât entirely disagree with this approach â I believe that literature is an important reflection of any society â but it would be stronger if there were a precedent that went beyond literary theory. His scope in the book is (among ten other abstractions) to bring literary theory into the decolonial framework, but I think it would be more useful if there were an actual pre-existing sociological foundation that it drew on, rather than inventing the social theory out of literary criticism. Heâs outside of his jurisdiction here, and it hurts his writing.
- This is a personal pet peeve, but heâs very openly an academic disciple of Foucault and mimics his writing style, which I find tedious. Like Foucault, he is addicted to word vomiting every thought and counter-thought in his mind; it takes him pages to say what really ought to be a single paragraph, and Said doesnât even have the excuse of writing in French.
- He takes issue with Western academia encouraging its scholars to separate their works from the politics of their life â as a professor at Columbia University, he had an enormous impact on the culture of campus activism in the US â and while I donât entirely disagree with him on the political events of oneâs life contributing to their academic work, his approach to this is very frustrating, considering he outright lies about the events of his life to further his political ambitions.
- His focus in writing the book is on the âintellectual, aesthetic, scholarly, and cultural energiesâ that went into the âmaking of an imperialist tradition like Orientalism,â including âphilology, lexicography, novel writing, and lyric poetry.â I love classic literature, and I have a deep regard for it, but I canât justify taking a social theory as large and broad as Orientalism and basing a good chunk of it on the poetry of Lord Byron and the first twenty years of Victor Hugoâs work (he uses Hugo as a pillar of Orientalism â which is fair; Hugo renovated his Paris townhouse to look more Japanese, and wrote Notre Dame and Les Orientales with clear contemporary prejudice, so thereâs a lot to work with, but I am frustrated that we limit Hugo to the first twenty years of his work and ignore his later writings which would influence many postmodern writers that Said draws from, especially Foucault).
- Said flattens English, French, and American culture into a monolith when it comes to their interactions with and understanding of the Middle East, which I find frustratingly vague and unhelpful, like the rest of this book.
- Large swaths of the book are French quotes without translations. In fairness, much of it is elementary French and fairly easy to parse out if you have a basic French background, but it is a bit of a barrier.
- He tries to create a clear through-line from Aeschylusâ play The Persians, to Shakespeare, to the boom of European interest in the Middle East following the Napoleonic Wars/Greeceâs War of Independence, to modern American wars. This is a much bigger task than he is prepared to take on, and it falls apart even before he tries to categorize anti-Turkish sentiment and anti-Indian sentiment as the same social ill. I do sympathize with the trouble of biting off more than you can chew in a thesis statement, but Said only doubles down on the broadness that undermines his argument; his ambitions are much greater than his skill.
- Critique of American culture from an Arab perspective is seen as noble, brave, and righteous, and I do think that American society should be criticized often and well, to make it stronger and better. Critique of Arab culture from an American perspective, however, such as the prevalence of honor killings, social prestige-by-conquest, social shunning of nonconformists, and political inability to admit error, are seen as attacks on the Arab people and a slight upon their honor, which does nothing to disprove the claim. I will sayâ even accepting the role America has played in wreaking havoc on the Middle East â my greatest frustration with Middle Eastern scholarship is how fiercely its leaders fight against internal critique and introspection.
- Most criticism Iâve seen of this book says that Said is a good writer without many original ideas. I found some of the ideas intriguing, especially regarding Europeâs racialization of the Eastern Other, but the gaps, omissions, and misrepresentations in Saidâs history were maddening, and I found his writing style to be tedious. Heâs known for his later efforts to replace Jewish suffering in the Western consciousness with Palestinian suffering, but I was surprised that he mostly omits the Jews in this book; his audience is Christian, and he caters to a Christian understanding of history. I suspect that Orientalism would not have gained the importance that it currently holds if Said were not a Palestinian Arab. I also find it frustratingly bioessentialist; while Said is right to criticize the armchair anthropology that runs rampant throughout much of 1800s European literature, he doesnât ever give a counterexample of a person from the West engaging honestly and respectfully with Eastern cultures, and even modern attempts to do so are read with the worst possible faith. His argument seems to be that Eastern people and Western people are fundamentally incapable of understanding each other, which seems very reactionary to me. Itâs an interesting read, but not enough to justify its place in the Postmodern Canon. As literary criticism, it has merit, but as a theory of sociology it falls flat.
There are a lot of great points here. I'm gonna add two more:
1. I tried to read his "The Question of Palestine." I really tried. I honestly couldn't get past the intro.
Because it was an anniversary edition, with a new added intro where he brings the reader up to date on every significant Palestinian event since the book was published.
Every significant Palestinian event, except one:
Palestine declaring independence in 1988.
The book was published in 1992.
He even mentions the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference.
He just chooses not to mention that from 1991 on, Israel and Palestine were specifically negotiating how Palestine would become an independent country at peace with Israel.
Or that Jordan had held claim to the West Bank until 1988, something I think is pretty fucking important and relevant here. (Not to mention that it had specifically renounced that claim in 1988 because Palestine declared independence.)
Like. If you don't know that the entire reason Palestine is "the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" is that those are the areas Egypt and Jordan claimed, after they and every other Arab League country invaded in 1948 to retake the land for the Arab world...
Then you're not going to have the context for anything that's happened since then.
Which is the precise trick that most academic information about Palestine uses. It plays a game of careful omission that gives you about a quarter of the story.
Anyway, as a historian, this omission threw me so hard that I spent the next half-hour trying to think of any legitimate reason to avoid mentioning the fact that Palestine had declared independence and - unlike any other country I can think of that has ever declared independence - skipped over the whole "oh no you don't" violent invasion stage, in favor of the "peace talks" stage.
To this day, the only reason I can think of is that it contradicts his position and his narrative.
He was already insisting in 1993, and presumably much earlier, that Israel had outright expelled 800,000 Palestinians and conquered their lands and property.
No Arab League invasion. No 350,000 people leaving its "soft invasion" of volunteer armies before the war even started. No Egypt and Jordan snatching up land with another 300,000ish internally displaced people on it, who then automatically became "refugees" in those foreign countries.
He made that statement in the context of criticizing the preliminary version of the Oslo Accords that the two countries had signed at that point. So he definitely knew all this was happening. It's not like he was just uninformed.
He built his entire career out of the big, broad, easy falsehoods that "everybody knows" today.
Which brings me to my other point:
2. Edward Said is a fucking liar.
He was Egyptian-American. Born to Egyptian-American parents. Given a rich kid childhood in Egypt, until he went to rich kid boarding school in America.
He was not Palestinian.
He was born in Jerusalem. That's the entire part of his story that's true.
He was not a citizen of Palestine. He didn't grow up there. His parents didn't live there when he was born; they were visiting relatives. They didn't own the home he claimed to have grown up in.
Every sad story he's ever told about being dispossessed was an outright lie.
In a way, he even admitted this: his 1999 autobiography contradicts tons of the claims he'd made about his life. He just glosses over that, acting as though it doesn't.
An Israeli lawyer who specializes in Palestinian rights discovered this in 1999.
Among spokesmen for the Palestinian cause in our day, surely none is so articulate, or so well-known, as Edward W. Said. The holder of an en
Here's the de-paywalled version.
Ironically, the guy specifically specializes in helping Palestinians through the legal process of reclaiming, or getting compensation for, property they lost in 1948 or 1967.
This article is how I found out there was even a process for that. Much less an entire industry of lawyers and NGOs to help people do it.
Talk about things that are deliberately never mentioned.
I'm just going to quote a few things. This is a long-form essay, and it's gripping.
As a living embodiment of the Palestinian cause, [Edward Said] has made much in print and on film of his birth, childhood, and schooling in Palestine, telling a story of idyllic beginnings and violent disruptionâof a paradise lostâthat resonates with personal pain while also serving as a powerfully compelling metaphor for the larger Palestinian condition.
Said's father Wadie did grow up in Jerusalem, under the Ottoman Empire, before moving to America in 1911, and later, to Egypt. He married a Lebanese woman named Hilda, in Egypt, in 1932.
Wadie's brother Boulos still lived in Jerusalem, with his own wife and kids.
To this branch of the family, as to other destinations, the affluent Cairo-based Saids made periodic visits. In November 1935, during one of those visits, Edward Said was born.
On his birth certificate, prepared by the ministry of health of the British Mandate, his parents specified their permanent address as Cairo, and, indicating that they maintained no residence in Palestine, left blank the space for a local address.
Similarly blank is the entry for a local address in the church record of Edward Saidâs baptism, an event that likewise took place in Jerusalem two years later.
Of the 29 telephone and commercial directories for Jerusalem and Palestine from 1931 through 1948 that I was able to locate, more than half carry business and/or residential listings for Boulos Said and his wife. There are no listings for Edward Saidâs parents in any of the directories, whether in English, Hebrew, or Arabic.
As for the house in Talbieh (Talbiya), that is a story unto itself.
In his article in Harperâs, as in the much longer version of the same piece that he published in the (London) Observer, and as in other iterations of this theme elsewhere, Said has wrenchingly recounted the nostalgic visit he paid in early 1992 to his childhood roots in Jerusalem and in particular to this house at 10 Brenner Street....
In the ledgers kept at the Land Registry Office in Jerusalem during the Mandatory period, the earliest entry for the house in question is dated February 14, 1941. It records a transfer of fractional interests in the property from its registered owner, Yusef Said (Edward Saidâs grandfather), to Mrs. Boulos Yusef Said (Edward Saidâs aunt) and her five children.
And that is all. There is no record of Edward Saidâs parents owning either the house or any interest in it.
If his nuclear family had no ownership interest in the house at 10 Brenner Street, neither did he or they ever permanently reside in it. (Nor, apparently, did his aunt and cousins until 1942.)
OMFG. I'd forgotten that part. He couldn't even have been born in that specific house, or had childhood memories in it! Because his relatives didn't live there yet! The building was a duplex until 1942:
From 1938 to 1946 (that is, from the time Edward Said was roughly three to the time he was eleven), the upstairs level was rented out to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia as its consulate general, and then from 1946 to 1952 to the successor government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
...As for the downstairs, main-entrance level of the house, it was rented from about 1936 to 1938 by the Iranian consulate.
Then, after 1938, this and the basement level were leased to the illustrious German-Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, his wife, and his two teenage granddaughters, all of them recent refugees from Nazi Germany.
The Buber family was forced out of the house in early 1942 (when Edward Said would have been about seven) in a dispute with the ownersâthat is, Nabiha (Mrs. Boulos Yusef) Saidâwho broke the lease and reclaimed the premises for their personal use, winning a judgeâs ruling in favor of eviction.
Buberâs granddaughters, from whom I heard this account, also accurately remember the names of Nabiha Said and two of her boys, Yusef and Robert. Another tenant of the house during the latter Mandate period remembers George, still another son of the family. None remembers Edward or any of his four sisters.
In fact, Edward Said has actively claimed something I've repeatedly been told: that Martin Buber lived there after 1948, and "didnât mind living in an Arab house whose inhabitants had been displaced."
There's so much more in that article. I'm gonna go reread it.
But first, one little thing I learned today:
In 1966, before hitting on the gold mine of selling outrage porn to would-be white saviors, Edward Said published his very first book.
It was called, "Joseph Conrad and the Fiction of Autobiography."
You have to hand it to the guy. He sure was consistent.
im reading discworld and im on the third book and i only just realized they arent arranged like this
I raise it to
Twenty-one tons of potatoes are up for grabs at Potato Palooza on Monday.
The nonprofitâs set to receive a donation of 21 tons of tubers this weekend from suppliers in the Midwest. Hoping to get the starchy vegetables to people in need, the nonprofit will host a âPotato Paloozaâ event on Monday in Park Hill. âAnyone is welcome to come. They can bring tote bags, wagons, you could back up your pickup truck if you wanted to,â Hissong said. The event is 9 a.m. to noon at the Park Hill Food Recovery Hub, 6090 East 39th Avenue, on July 27.
This is the dream
đ„ â ïž đ„ â ïž đ„ â ïž đ„ â ïž đ„ â ïž đ„ â ïž
People near Denver, Colorado.
Potato alert. Potato alert.
Free food. Unlimited free potatoes.
Potato alert.
đ„ â ïž đ„ â ïž đ„ â ïž đ„ â ïž đ„ â ïž đ„ â ïž
This concludes this broadcast of the emergency potato system.
headcanon that a ferengi tradition is putting your new baby up for sale at a ridiculous price to show how valuable they are to you (everyone has to be polite and not actually buy them or hands will be thrown, people will be sued, etc etc)
I love the idea of Ferengi traditions that are both ha-ha capitalism but also create a functioning culture thatâs more than a metaphor.
So, this is related to a headcanon I have. There's a kind of ritual sale of childhood goods as part of the Ferengi coming-of-age, which was featured in an episode of DS9. The ostensible purpose is to raise capital for the young Ferengi male. But, like, if the Ferengi were approaching this in their usual capitalistic mindset, you wouldn't really get much from what's basically a glorified garage sale
My headcanon is that it is the accepted practice to buy those goods at much higher prices than you would normally pay, serving as a culturally acceptable way of effectively giving financial support
Oh I love these, especially because of the spoken and unspoken meta-traditions around the tradition! Maybe they work similarly to the âspeak now or forever hold your peaceâ thing in human marriage ceremonies. Everyone at a human wedding understands youâre not actually supposed to say anything at that point, itâs just a formalityâbut you see characters do it all the time in literature and entertainment, because it makes for such a juicy plot twist.
I bet ânewborn gets purchased by evil jealous ex-business partnerâ is a classic plot hook in Ferengi soap operas. Itâs their version of getting sold to One Direction.
"forgor" did irreversible damage didn't it