Sitara Jaadugar: A Witch in Mongolia (2026) — 1x01
𓃗

@theartofmadeline
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me

titsay
Game of Thrones Daily
Today's Document
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
h
will byers stan first human second

Andulka

bliss lane
d e v o n
One Nice Bug Per Day

Origami Around

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
hello vonnie
RMH
Noah Kahan
ojovivo

seen from Uzbekistan
seen from United States
seen from Pakistan
seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from Qatar
seen from Uzbekistan
seen from Brazil

seen from Bangladesh

seen from United States

seen from Australia

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye

seen from Germany
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from Germany
seen from United States
@skydemonizark
Sitara Jaadugar: A Witch in Mongolia (2026) — 1x01
We’re under a severe thunderstorm warning rn and my dad just opened the door to show my dog because he was begging to go out and it reminded me of that part in Dracula where Dracula opens the door to the howling wolves and Jonathan’s like um actually I’ll stay inside thanks
they hate us control freaks for making sure everyone else does things the correct way
never thought the dad was hot before
Tumblr speech patterns really are indistinguishable from Calvin and Hobbes, and I'm starting to think that's not a coincidence
Daikon world by Sin jong hun
Iron Lung Fanart
Ballpoint pen on paper
8x10"
Its been a month since the last time I went on this same tangent but neural networks, their history, their potential, and the intentions behind those who pioneered them are actually all really fucking incredible and cool and it cannot be emphasized enough how unfairly they've been perverted by capitalism right now. Some of you think you understand that but I still see you very quick to dismiss that there was ever any merit to the technology at all.
The data centers aren't needed for it to exist, or even for it to be used for entertainment or novelty. The data centers are because it's being crammed into a billion times more than that, because they're inserting it into literally everything several billion people are using every second of every day.
I remember years ago reading about how excited medical researchers were, because they created one of those that scanned like, 20,000 healthy scans of tissue, and a thousand scans of unhealthy tissue, and they started feeding it scans of tissue and it would identify healthy from unhealthy tissue with a staggeringly high accuracy rate? I remember it was being touted as a medical breakthrough.
This is still advancing as far as I know. Picking things out from sets is one thing that it's best at!
But there's a downside we unfortunately all could have guessed, too, which is that actual doctors using ai assistance become more careless and lazy at doing it themselves.
https://archive.ph/whVMI
...On the other hand, though, pretty much all medical work has BEEN understaffed, pretty much always, and the staff they have is therefore constantly over-worked, right?
Virtually everyone is overworked in all industries. That's...the original reason we wanted robots.
So I have to wonder, like, is it also possible the human's "20% drop in effectiveness" is just what it looks like when something else can shoulder what was already unhealthy burden? Was the average doctor doing 20% more than the human brain and body was really comfortable handling? Would their personal efficiency have also similarly dropped a bit if they just had more human help, too?
This has still been a net positive where it's been implemented, with the combination of computer and human saving more lives together, but when lives are on the line we obviously still want both of those at their best.
ChatGPT is the same concept
understanding the actual scientific applications of neural networks makes it easier to understand what fucking garbage the AI chatbots and "Assistants" and this and that are.
Show it lots and lots of a certain thing, and it will become really really good at finding patterns in that thing.
But with the AI chat bots, the thing they showed it lots and lots of is...Language. they crammed every sentence on the whole entire internet into it basically
So the AI is really really good at finding patterns in...how people write sentences online.
Which means it can create sentences that follow the same patterns as sentences that real people write on the internet.
The devastating error has been that when "language" is the thing the AI is trained on, people mistakenly think that the AI "knows" a lot about the things the sentences appear to be about and not sentences themselves
there’s a post on tumblr about like. if you could do something to bring people a little relief, why wouldn’t you do it? which has unironically informed my practice as a nursing student and patient care tech
i’m glad no one made any unpleasant comments on this post that might distract from the message because that would really suck
I never saw people say stuff like this enough when I was a teenager, so I’m saying it now.
I’m in my mid-thirties and I have never had sex. I’ve thought about it and could have had one or two opportunities if I put in more effort, but I always decided against it because I just wasn’t into it at the time.
I can safely say that I do not feel I have missed out on anything. I was perfectly capable, by myself, of learning about my own body and boundaries without anyone else there to muddy the waters. The immense pressure that was there in my teens/twenties to Have Sex Just Do It is basically gone. I’m vibing. I’ve got my routine by myself in bed that I enjoy, and that’s enough for me.
And in the unlikely event that I ever decide to have sex with someone in the future, I don’t feel at all like I’m lacking some essential Knowledge or Skill that would “make it good” for someone else. I fully expect to ask my partner out loud what they like and to receive an answer clearly communicated and to relax and have fun. And if it’s a disappointing experience, I’m fine with that too. It is what it is.
Sex is just not that big of a deal. I suspected it as a teen, and I’m more sure of it now. It’s fine to have it or not have it. It’s whatever.
You don't have to laugh at "girl math" or "girl dinner" or "I'm just a girl" jokes. You don't have to laugh at misogynistic humor that demeans women. You don't have to go along with it. You don't even have to sit there awkwardly pretending you didn't hear anything. You are allowed to speak up and say something.
You don't have to be a jerk about it. The most effective yet civil way of dealing with harmful "humor" is just pretending you don't get the joke and asking them to explain. "I don't get it, what's girl math? What's a girl dinner? What do you mean by you're just a girl? Can you explain the joke to me?"
And if you're feeling bold, you can just say (or follow up with) "I think that's misogynistic". That's allowed. You don't have to quietly endure misogynistic "jokes", you can call a spade a spade.
please read this even if you're not indian. especially if you're not indian.
you've seen the jokes. india is "dirty", indians are "everywhere", why don't they fix their own country. ok. let me tell you why, and what's happening right now while nobody's watching.
first, the history you skipped: britain ruled india for two centuries and drained it. economist utsa patnaik's research estimates around $45 trillion in today's money was taken. the india that got independence in 1947 was one of the poorest countries on earth. every "why is india like this" question starts there. you don't get to profit off a robbery and then mock the crime scene.
now, what's happening RIGHT NOW:
in may the question paper for NEET leaked. that's the national medical entrance exam. over 2.2 million students took it. cancelled. years of studying, families' savings poured into coaching, gone overnight because someone sold the paper. students died by suicide after. these were kids who wanted to be doctors.
and out of that came a protest movement. a gen z group called the cockroach janta party, started by a 30 year old named abhijeet dipke, got 22 million instagram followers within DAYS. they've been doing a sit-in at jantar mantar in delhi demanding education minister dharmendra pradhan resign.
and then there's sonam wangchuk. if you've watched 3 idiots, he's the real engineer the character was based on. built solar schools in ladakh. invented ice stupas so himalayan villages have water. spent his whole life on education. he's 59 and he's been on hunger strike for 17+ days now. reporters went to see him this week and he was too weak to talk. and the troll armies are calling him "anti national" and "foreign funded". a man starving himself for other people's children. that's the thing here, anyone who asks a question is suddenly a traitor.
it's not one incident, it's everywhere you look:
• infrastructure worth thousands of crores failing within months of the ribbon cutting. tunnels collapsing in regions where heavy rain is a guarantee, not a surprise.
• youth unemployment near 10% for ages 15 to 29, 13.6% in cities. in a country of 1.42 billion where more than half the population is young.
• only about the top 3% of indians earn above 10 lakh a year. meanwhile billionaire wealth keeps ballooning and the headlines celebrate it.
• manipur burned for over two years. an ethnic conflict, tens of thousands displaced, and the prime minister barely said the word manipur while it happened.
• journalists raided. critics' houses bulldozed. activists sitting in jail for years without trial under laws like UAPA. our press freedom ranking has cratered.
• even the petrol is a fight now, ethanol blending pushed through while drivers complain about their engines and get no straight answers.
and through all of it, the PM, who came to power on religious polarisation (americans, sound familiar?), travels abroad for photo ops and has not held one single open press conference in over a decade. not one.
what i'm asking:
if you're not indian: share this. our media mostly won't cover any of it because the big outlets are owned by the same billionaires the government serves. the only reason wangchuk's fast is getting any coverage is people refusing to look away.
if you ARE indian: speak up even if you're comfortable. especially if you're comfortable. join the protests. add to this, correct me, translate it. staying quiet is a choice when nothing in this post touches your life.
india is not "dirty". india was robbed, and it's being robbed again, from the inside this time. but it's also the country where a 59 year old will starve for strangers' kids and 22 million young people will rally behind a party literally named after cockroaches, because cockroaches survive everything.
we can still save her. but only loudly.
reblog. share. don't scroll past.
this is absolutely going to cause me to lose every single follower i have but i Do Not Care so anyways, i have something id like to say.
incest is not inherently damaging whatsoever as long as its consensual. there is zero scientific evidence that consensual incest is damaging. NONE. of course, incestuous abuse absolutely exists and is extremely damaging to the victims of it, but what i am talking about is consensual relationships between adults.
before you call me insane, here:
in an article by clare kasemset from stanford university, she states that one of the main (and only) scientific reasons that incest is illegal is that "the offspring of partners with a high level of consanguinity are more likely to have birth defects". however, this is eugenics: disabled people's children are also very likely to have children with birth defects, and anyone really could potentially have children with birth defects. this argument is simply that incestuous relationships should be illegal so that birth defects cease to exist. keep in mind, the definition of eugenics is "to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable"; in essence, make sure that the only people born are "desirable", which would include being able-bodied. kasemset goes on to explain that "the act of incestuous sexual intercourse does not cause harm". incest does not inherently cause harm. the only reasons people give for the illegalization of incestuous relationships are eugenics and the potentially offensiveness of it due to the fact that "the vast majority of people in this country have deep-seated beliefs that incest is immoral".
article source: https://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/download/137/35/615
in an article by maria campo redondo and gabriel andrade, they state that "incest represents a risk, but this is not reason enough to illegalize incest". this is because "other circumstances of sexual intercourse may lead to similar risks, and yet, such practices are not illegal". think of how AIDs is used to say that homosexuality should be illegal, how the possibility of miscarriage is used to say that people should only be getting pregnant at young ages, how the possibility of disabled children is used to say that disabled people shouldnt be having children: all of these are arguments that rely on nothing but "disability should be eradicated". ableism is so extremely ingrained in our society that people constantly search for the cure to every disability so that they wont have to deal with disabled people existing. i have had friends who have been told "your children will be disabled though!!!!! 😥" for being disabled just like those who are in incestuous relationships have. you should be allowed to have a child as long as you or someone else is capable of taking care of them, no matter if that child is disabled or not - a child potentially being disabled is not a morally wrong thing. as the authors of this article say, the reasons why incest is illegal "do not relate to public health and genetic risks".
article source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phil.12332
in a paper by jeff sebo, he states that "incest increases the incidence of inherited genetic diseases by about three percent". three percent. that is only three out of every hundred children born out of incestuous relationships. the argument of incest increasing disabilities is not only founded on eugenics, but founded on a very small statistic - especially compared to the fact that the probability of an autistic person have an autistic child is, on average, 3.45%. it is no different from any genetically disabled person having a child. advocating for incest to be illegal based on the possibility of disabled children is no different from advocating for disabled people to be sterilized.
he also explains that family is not dramatically different from any other relationship, and that there "are numerous important relationships in our lives—some of which are based on blood, others of which are not—and it is ridiculous to assume that our family members, whoever they may be, are necessarily our emotional centers". for many, many people, friends can even more important than family, or family can seem much more similar to friendly dynamics than typical family dynamics. the argument of families is also very often used against queer people by saying that it ruins the inherent family dynamics that are supposedly present, when in reality, families all function very differently and many people see their siblings or cousins as more like friends than how families are typically portrayed. as the author says: "no relevant moral distinction neatly separates our family relations from the other relationships in our lives".
he also explains that many people claim that incest "turn[s] out badly frequently enough to warrant a categorical ban". incestuous relationships are often abusive ones, this is very evident. however, "the outcome of our test will depend largely on how we run it". if we only ask abuse victims what their experience was (as many, many articles do), we will come to the conclusion that it is all abusive. only looking at people who were children abused by adult family members is not looking at the effects of incest, but looking at the effects of child abuse. yes, there may be a lack of scientific evidence for incest being good - but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and there are many, many person experiences from people. on top of that, "those who breach the taboo are branded as outsiders, they suffer the effects of social ostracism, and since others misinterpret this suffering as caused by the act and not the label, they are used as evidence in support of the taboo". if someone is in an incestuous relationship, they will be hated by everyone, which will lead to them being depressed and possibly suicidal - not because of the incest itself, but because of how its treated.
source (PLEASE go read this its very well-done): https://jeffsebo.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/the-ethics-of-incest1.pdf
look. i came into this respectfully disagreeing with you, but then i looked into it myself, and i do have to say: i agree, mostly. this is one of the few times i will talk about sexual topics on my page because this one's unavoidable it's inherently going to be brought back to sex sorry. i also mention sexual violence, csa and sexual assault in this, so be wary.
first off, i acknowledge that you have fair points, quite a few actually. first of all, the concept of incest is very much more heavily demonized than it really needs to be. i would like to assume this is not only due to the stigma around it being a paraphilia but also because of history showing the effects of long-term inbreeding, and how it caused intense health risks for individuals. i agree that there are likely many circumstances where the same family dynamic does not apply to individuals who would be blood relatives, such as for example cousins who see themselves more as friends like you said. i would also like to add the fact that some forms of incest are not directly genetically harmful, such as a pair of adopted siblings, something i cannot remember if you mentioned.
i do agree that it is definitely a strange double standard for incestuous relationships to be criminalized due to the reason of "a possibility child comes out disabled." i would like to add the fact that it also paves the way for someone with very bad-faith intentions to attempt to, as you alluded to, criminalize disabled people having children as well.
in doing my own reading on this, i found a quote by martin o'reilly, stating, "indeed, it’s worth noting that with respect to huntington’s disease — a distressing, impairing brain disorder — if one parent has it, there’s a 50 percent chance any child he/she has will also be born with the fatal disorder. But if we don’t punish those carrying defective genes from having children, why then should we punish incestuous partners? if we’re not prepared to prevent carriers of congenital disorders from having children —or, for that matter, having sex — then it seems quite arbitrary and discriminatory to only punish incestuous partners." i think it's a pretty well-stated commentary on this phenomenon and the double-standard enforced here. i'm not going to make commentary on the ethics of attempting to stop anyone from having children who are disabled or who may be disabled, simply because it is a highly complex issue that i am not one side on. i can recognize points on both sides that are well spoken, and i can see people on both sides having genuinely good-faith opinions on the matter.
however, i would not use the word eugenics here. i feel as if that may be too heavy a word to be using in this situation, as eugenics has been used as part of a collection of ideologies used to systemically discriminate against and even genocide individuals before, which i would not like to compare the act of incest to. i feel as if that waters down the suffering victims of eugenics have gone through.
my original arguments were for the unhealthy power dynamic between individuals who have grown up as family members, but... there is no evidence i can find of that power dynamic other than in fringe situations. i have only seen criticism of your reference of "destroying a family dynamic" or "emotional harm to the other family members," and commentary proving the exact opposite, or commentary on incestuous abuse, or incest not practiced by two consenting adults (see: child abuse). in fact, in the abstract of a book i found legitimately criticizing incest as it would harm the family dynamic, the author directly states "that being said, i argue that there is insufficient legal justification for all consensual, adult incest to be criminalised. i examine four potential arguments in favour of consensual, adult incest being illegal, and conclude that none of them succeeds in justifying a total legal prohibition against it."
turning back to martin, who puts it in a way that really puts it into perspective for me, specifically when he talks about an explanation by vera bergelson, detailing "the legal scholar vera bergelson points out this argument is both overbroad and redundant. it’s overbroad in the sense that it applies to cases where power dynamics, abuse, or exploitation do not exist. (speaking of which, we don’t prohibit nonincestuous adult relationships merely because one partner is older, richer, or has more social status than the other). the argument is also redundant as there are already statutes directed at child abuse and statutory rape, as well as sexual exploitation or violence (irrespective of the age of the victim). the sexual acts between relations here would be immoral not because they are incestuous, but because they would amount to rape, violence or exploitation; we already regard such behaviour as wrong, independent of whether or not incest occurred." honestly if i could quote his entire breakdown of it, i would. i'll try not to, though.
while i would love to treat this going into this with the passion of a thousand suns throwing out proof that it's actually really terrible and you are So Stupid To Believe That.... well, first of all, this was something written in complete good faith with cited scholarly sources and second of all i don't do that usually lol. and third of all... there really is no evidence! i would love if someone could pop into this and give some articles that disprove op and i's statements in defense of consensual incest, i've found that every article i've seen talking about it in a negative light have been
only speaking of incest between father and daughter, especially in cases of csa. paints all father-daughter relationships as the father directly asserting dominance over the daughter (which in most cases may be the case) and paints any other situations, like mother-son incest, as either the woman being the victim (denying the concept that women can be aggressors and/or rapists and that men can be victims of rape) or somehow the son is the problem.
treating sibling incest as somehow the fault of the father for not being "dominant enough" in the family, therefore causing the brother to be the source of power. repeat the earlier statements about father-daughter relationships.
ignoring the concept of incestuous relationships between, say, cousins, or aunt and nephew.
for these, i would check out this article which in the preview breaks down parts of weinberg's incest behavior. additionally, if you feel privy, feel free to do as i did and browse google scholar attempting to find one link to an abstract or synopsis that isn't in defense of consensual adult incest. seriously, it's more difficult than you would think.
i... have had every argument i had dismantled, honestly. i had one about the increased amount of inbreeding that would come from the decriminalization and normalization of incest, but guess what: good old martin coming back again. "this might be a fair objection if there was good reason to assume the decriminalisation of adult incest would lead to a significant rise of inbreeding. but as we know, there are already a small number of countries that currently don’t ban adult incest, and we’ve no reason to believe there are significant instances of inbreeding in those countries. there’s also evidence to suggest the practice will never become widespread: various studies have shown that people who live together in close proximity during early life become desensitised to future sexual attraction."
....so, yeah. op, you're right on this one! seriously, i invite anyone to try and disprove this in a way that a. cites evidence that is either as reputable as or more reputable than ours (hey, i'd take anything above a blog post lol), b. doesn't use "it's gross" as a reason, and c. doesn't inherently dismiss the concept that women can be aggressors or perpetuates the concept that all family dynamics have to be the Nuclear Family, Actually. hell, i'm lenient on that last one, that's an opinion you can have, even if i personally don't agree with it.
also, just to recap op's first commentary: this is not on the topic of sexual abuse. this is not attempting to erase the effect on incest on sexual abuse, or how victims of incest especially as children may experience large amounts of trauma relative to that. abuse is fucked up and bad, that isn't a hot take or anything. i recognize that abuse, especially sexual violence, especially sexual violence against a family member is really fucking bad. that being said, this is specifically referring to cases of consensual incestuous relationships between adults.
i have a couple more points (effect of incest on abusive relationships and how that may make it harder to escape them but how that is the fault of the abuse and not an inherent fault of incest and how there's tons of societal complications in all different power dynamics that also make it harder to escape but those aren't criminalized yadda yadda my thoughts are all over the place here bear with me) but i'm gonna leave it there. don't worry no-more-rqs i'm getting sent to superhell for my terrible incest defending right here with you. lol
Some tags and comments that pass peer review
Tags that should see the light of day
Just adding that incest as a subject is not inherently “sensitive content” and saying that is like saying “we should censor gay couples in media”
The links were dead, so I uploaded the articles to the internet archive ♡
based on this paper I found when doing research myself awhile ago, the 3% is on top of the chances of a child born with a disability from none incestuous parents, which is 3% so the chances of a child born from incest being born with a disability is 6%. and boy was it difficult for me to find those numbers cause every single article I read just said "it's significantly higher" while true does super obfuscate the truth that it's only an additional 3%
I'm still thinking about the guy who saw me realize my wheelchair wouldn't fit in the elevator because he (also a wheelchair user) was already inside it and immediately quipped, "This elevator ain't accessible enough for the both of us."
For all that the 1800s etiquette guides are--obviously--derangedly sexist from a modern perspective? They're also mindblowing in how casually they will assert things that MODERN DAY CONSERVATIVES would scream and cry and shit their pants about.
"People back then always married young it's natural!!!" Every single 1800s guide I've ever met casually mentions that, of course, you really shouldn't get married before you're at least 20, and waiting until 25 is usually better.
Or, like. Okay here's a long segment:
Just firmly going "it is crazy sexist to blame The Wife for overspending when thirty seconds of asking questions will immediately establish that her husband was outright lying to her about how much money they had. Talk to your wife like a normal person."
Or--okay, here. A section on being honest and not writing love letters in secret, because that's usually a good sign that there's something untoward going on....
....except that he then immediately acknowledges that sometimes, the reason you're hiding this from your parents is that your parents suck. That there are parents who frankly have not earned the right to approve or disapprove of your partner.
(I realize the phrasing there sounds a lot less strong than my summary, but--trust me on this. When you're familiar with the narrative voice of these kinds of books, this passage is downright radical. The mere acknowledgement that if you treat your kids badly, it's your own damn fault when they don't talk to you? I've genuinely never seen that before in this genre. Don't freak out over "properly trained", either. It's just a linguistic shift--at the time, "training" was used the way we would say "raising" a child today. )
"Delete all the nudes and sexts after a breakup or you're a piece of shit" has been the standard expectation since EIGHT. TEEN. EIGHTY. FIVE.
"Men and women being friends with each other is literally normal. Don't be a controlling freak."
Anyway I was wrong the publishing date is actually 1882 so like.
"If you have to abuse a child to keep order in your classroom then you're a bad teacher."
So like @ the modern Republican party, are the "traditional family values" in the fucking room with us right now--
Okay that first quote is so very directed at Rosamund and Lydgate from Middlemarch it's insane
All of this is so interesting
TRIED TO COME UP WITH AN ON-THE-SPOT ANALOGY FOR BEING ASEXUAL AND THE FIRST THING MY BRAIN SHAT OUT WAS "IT'S LIKE A WAFFLE MAKER"
Ways that sex is like a waffle maker:
1. Lots of people have one but you don't really think about it until they start talking about making waffles and you're like "oh shit they have a waffle maker"
2. Messy as fuck and you know what as far as I see it why even bother when you have pancakes, you don't need to bother with all those fluids and crevices with pancakes
3. WHY DOES EVERYONE AT THE WEDDING THINK YOU NEED ONE
4. Theoretically implied fun with whipped cream until it melts and starts soaking into shit
5. If you don't prep ur surfaces ur gonna have a bad time
6. It's fun in the kitchen but only on like special occasions cause again it's a pain in the ass to clean
7. ??? I prefer crêpes tbh I don't get it
Looking forwards to celebrating the 6th birthday of the post I made to describe a stance I was assured I'd grow out of by 13
If your system doesn't account for the fact that Parents Are Going To Be Abusive/Neglectful/Insufficient then it objectively sucks I'm sorry I don't make the rules
Monitored bank accounts for those under 18. Requiring parental consent for medical procedures. Parental controls on personal devices. "We won't teach this at school because parents are supposed to address it at home." Anything that puts all of the child's power onto the parents' hand, anything that assumes parents are going to inherently do enough of a good job no one else needs to interfer, every single one of these IS going to be used by controlling, neglectful or unprepared parents and already are, and if the system did not account for that very real, tangible, dangerous tendency, then it's not worth fucking anything. You shouldn't make things "for the youth"/with children in mind if you are going to overlook this painfully common aspect of their lives u_u