Girl, whatcha looking at?đ

Jar Jar Binks Fan Club

#extradirty
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

Origami Around

if i look back, i am lost

izzy's playlists!
I'd rather be in outer space đ¸
Sade Olutola
Stranger Things
YOU ARE THE REASON

Love Begins
hello vonnie

No title available
art blog(derogatory)
Game of Thrones Daily
official daine visual archive
Mike Driver
almost home
Not today Justin
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
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 United States

seen from Germany

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 United States
seen from United States

seen from TĂźrkiye
seen from United States
@temporaryurlsstuff
Girl, whatcha looking at?đ
This is the most powerful call to ratio I've ever seen. It's like she's performing an incantation.
âNO!âŚ.RATIO!!!â
Honestly obsessed with her
Absolutely based
always reblog bonnie
I'm not even sure if they do still make tumblr
ppl who celebrate fictional character birthdays are annoying pass it on
FUCK this post and happy birthday sonic
Of course, itâs Sonicâs birthday today! (23rd of June)
Do you think the french would be angry if they find out Brazilian people are making sandwiches with their croissant?
Like in our defence, its a really good sandwich and Very filling too.
you make one fucking post where the point is âwomen are encouraged to develop disordered eating from a very young age and that impacts how we view the ânaturalâ size and shape of womenâ and too many reblogs later i am being accused of saying short people wouldnât exist if they ate better growing up. iâm sorry but if you genuinely think i was saying that you are just a buffoon. i cannot and will not sanction your buffoonery.
Googled something about quick hydration and it suggested big jug of water, couple tbsp pickle juice, dash of lime juice.
Its surprisingly tasty????
Pleased to report that after a day of this i am not longer craving caper brine and my mouth is not dry as usual. There's some good suggestions in the notes too that I want to try.
-ancient roman posca: water, red or white wine vinegar, honey, salt, herbs (coriander, mint, thyme)
-switchel: water, ginger, vinegar, sweetener, lemon, salt
-ayran: yogurt, water, salt, mint
-Agua pepino: water, cucumbers, lime, sugar, optional mint.
I have been reminded of:
-shrub: vinegar, sida water, elderberry (or other berry), sugar.
I have now been informed of
-sekanjabin: honey, vinegar, mint, water.
"Wow, I wonder why this post was popular this week."
-sees the reports of the heatwave in Europe-
"... ah."
No but the Hunger Games really said "what do you hate more- the atrocities or the people who commit them against you? Because like it or not there IS a difference. If you hate the people who commit acts of pure evil more than you hate the acts themselves, what will stop you from becoming just like your enemies in your pursuit of justice? What will keep you from commiting those very same acts against THEM when the opportunity arises? And what then? The cycle of pain and suffering will never stop. Round and round it'll go. Nothing will ever change. But. BUT. If you hate the atrocities. If you hate the vile, senseless acts MORE than you hate the people who did them to you. If you are able to see that evil is evil regardless of who does it... The cycle ends with you. No, you may never get justice. But you will never be responsible for making others, even your enemies, suffer the same crimes you have. The atrocities will never be committed by you, never by your hand. And that's the way you change the world. It's the ONLY way" and that's why I am sure it will never stop being one of the most relevant works of fiction ever created
"I don't want to read this" is totally valid.
"This is disgusting to me" is totally valid.
"I don't want to read this because it is disgusting to me" is totally valid.
"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.
"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.
Bro, blocking someone and then using their tag like this is, all offence, weak as fuck. Like all you had to say was, na bro I don't promote pedo protags on this here blog, because I wholly agree with the premise of your argument given contexts (i.e., writing abusive relationships to show the evils, great; writing abusive relationships to show the romance, yikes).
This response is so, so comically shitty within the context of that tag, oh my god.
"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.
"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.
"Censorship of some topics in fiction and art is good and I would be happy if it were to be enacted in a way I approved of"
and
"some things should be banned from ever being written or read about in fiction"
are both authoritarian viewpoints to hold and express, even if you don't have the power to enact them.
If you hold these viewpoints you are holding authoritarian viewpoints.
DUDE ITâS PEDO FICS EVERYBODY THINKS THEYâRE NASTY
Let me explain this to you in simple terms.
Something being nasty is not a good reason to ban fiction about it.
If we accept that "something being nasty is a good reason to bad fiction about it" then we give a foot in the door for all the people who truly, genuinely believe that queer people are nasty to ban all queer literature.
This is not about defending bad people this is about defending the freedom of good people from tyranny, you moron.
I think if you take it to its logical extreme. Say, banning people from writing stories of sexual abuse. That could then be said "well ANY talk about sexual abuse is bad."
And from that, you could ban books that talk about it irl. Or books like how to recover after being abuse. If its not something to be discussed AT ALL.
The fact that Iâve seen this post in some form on my dash like 100x and each time thereâs new idiots who do not get that you canât have *some* censorship.
Either youâre for it or you arenât.
The moment you agree that something should never, ever exist in fiction is the moment that anything can be banned.
Remember a while back how Tumblr banned a bunch of tags, including many popular innocuous ones that even people who are for censorship used and were upset about?
When censorship happens, stuff YOU like can and will be banned. Thatâs how it works.
Remember how a bunch of people had their accounts terminated here only last year for writing about their own sexual abuse?
When you ban âpedoâ topics, say, any talk of child sexual abuse in any form, that means people can no longer write about their own experiences. It means people cannot educate others so they can learn how to protect themselves or get help from these situations.
Censorship is authoritarian. Full stop.
Even if âeveryoneâ agrees something is âgrossâ and âshouldnât exist,â that does not fucking matter.
Do you know who generally believes queer people are gross and shouldnât exist??
The same people who are banning books left and right solely because they have queer characters or relationships.
The same people who attack and kill queer folk for simply exisiting.
This is not just some fandom matter or a case of being chronically online.
Protecting freedom of expression is essential, and if you do not get that, I donât know what to say to you.
And the people who keep bringing up child sex abuse as a reason for censorship are doing it very specifically because everyone feels like then they HAVE to agree with the person in favor of censorship.
Itâs not that there isnât widespread societal agreement on this. Itâs that they want you backed into a rhetorical corner where you feel compelled to agree with them.
Also, like, we KNOW how this shit shakes out in fandom because it's happened before.
In 2007, Livejournal capitulated to the "pedophilia and sex crimes!" cries of (hate group) Warriors 4 Innocence, and you know what communities got shut down? Slashfic communities. Sexual assault survivor support communities. Authors who'd written non-smut m/m fic even got caught up in it. It was DEVASTATING to fandom spaces. I think pretty much everyone knew at least one person whose account was literally DELETED, or were a member of a community that was wiped off the map because they were considerate enough to include topics like "sexual assault" or "BDSM" in the profiles under the badly-named category of "interests" to indicate that posts on said blogs or communities may include discussion of things like that. Even if it was for a SUPPORT group. And it was because a group of religious bigots came to LJ and said essentially "EVERYONE thinks it's gross and that it's promoting CSA, we should ban it."
Like, strikethrough and boldthrough were a large part of what propelled AO3 out of a more unfocused conversation on one person's blog about hosting a site INTENDED for fandom content, into being an actual archive and nonprofit. And it's a large part of why you won't find AO3 banning topics that you find "gross".
Censorship is authoritarian and it will ALWAYS have more collateral damage than you can imagine.
Going to add that fiction which had sexual abuse and communities which played around with it as a writing topic are the very things that protected me from irl sexual abuse when I was a teenager. I was in a dicey situation, and realized that while my situation did not match up to any of the superficial or textbook cases mentioned in passing (if at all) through school, it matched up a LOT to what I'd learned about irl sexual abuse through works of fiction and the rhetoric of my communities. I got out of that situation and dodged what was, in retrospect, one hell of a nasty bullet. If it hadn't been for that "nasty" fiction and those "nasty" communities, I would very likely have been abused, and subject to further violence spiraling out from that abuse.
you canât have *some* censorship.
Yup! It really is, in fact, pretty much that simple:
"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.
i call this one âusing tumblr as a person of colorâ
might update with more images at some point
Some of the ones I've accumulated
Type shit I did back then with my older sibling, stepping on their back like I'm doing something bc genuinely I felt proud doing that idk why
Yes yes i know love is love. But they are still killing CHILDREN. over this.
Well those are allllmost done
question. why do you have 7 featureless grey monoliths in your driveway
There's eight actually but the last one is still in the garage
question. why do you have eight featureless grey monoliths
They're actually a really dark purple
question. why do you have seven featureless really dark purple monoliths in your driveway and an eighth in the garage
Some of them do have features though. There's holes and hinges and stuff, so I can put secrets in em
question. why do you have 8 really dark purple occasionally featureful monoliths
The heart wants what the heart wants
this reads like a muppet sketch
see? See!??!
You're not wrong
This post is less than six months old.
World Heritage Post
...ah.
#so did they miss the part where gatsby ends up floating dead in a pool and all the miserable deaths in wuthering heights#or did they miss that because there werenât any chapters titled In Which The Sinners Are Punished For Their Errors#like. even if you require explicit moral instruction from literature itâs pretty hard to miss the comeuppance in those.
âWhat I assume my teachers were trying to teach meâ
Huck Finn is about a white Southern boy who was raised to believe that freeing slaves is a sin that would send you directly to hell who forges a familial bond with a runaway slave and chooses to free him and thereby in his mind lose his salvation because he refuses to believe that his best friend and surrogate father is less of a man just because heâs black. Yes it features what we now consider racial slurs but this is a book written only 20 years after people were literally fighting to be allowed to keep other human beings as property, we cannot expect people from the 1880s to exactly conform with the social mores of 2020, and more to the point if we ourselves had been raised during that time period thereâs very little doubt that we would also hold most if not all of the prevalent views of the time because actual history isnât like period novels written now where the heroes are perfect 21st century social justice crusaders and the villains are all as racist and sexist as humanly possible. Change happens slowly and ignoring the radical statement that weâre all human beings that Twain wrote at a time when segregation and racial tensions were still hugely prevalent just because he wrote using the language of his time period is short-sighted and foolhardy to the highest degree.
Iâm really kind of alarmed at the rise in the past few years of the âand we do condemn! wholeheartedly!â discourse around historical figures. it seems like people have somehow boomeranged between âmorals were different in the past, therefore nobody in the past can ever be held accountable for ANY wrongsâ to âmorals are universal and timeless, and anything done wrong by todayâs standards in the past is ABSOLUTELY unforgiveableâ so completely, because social media 2.0 is profoundly allergic to nuance
please try this on for size:
there have always been, in past times as today, a range of people in every society, some of whom were even then fighting for a more just and compassionate accord with their fellow man and some of whom let their greeds and hatreds rule them to the worst allowable excesses. the goal of classics and history education is to teach you enough context to discern between the two, not only in the past but in the present
My mind just boggles at the âThereâs Racism In That Bookâ argument. Yes, there is racism in that book, because that book is ABOUT RACISM. The message is that it is BAD.Â
My high school English teacher, who was a viciously brilliant woman, used to say that when people banned Huck Finn they said it was about the language, but it was really the message they were trying to ban, the subversive deconstruction of (religious) authority and white supremacy.
Huckleberry Finn can actually be seen as a powerful case study in trying to do social justice when you have absolutely no tools for it, right down to vocabulary. And in that respect, itâs a heroic tale, because Huckâwith absolutely no good examples besides Jim, who he has been taught to see as subhuman, with no guidance, with everyone telling him that doing the right thing will literally damn him, with a vocabulary thatâs full of hate speechâhe turns around and says, âIâm not going to do it. Iâm not going to participate in this system. If that means I go to Hell, so be it. Going to Hell now.â
(I used to read a blogger who insisted that âAll right, Iâll go to Hell,â from Huckleberry Finn is the most pure and perfect prayer in the canon of American literature. Meaning, as I understand it, that the decision to do the right thing in the face of eternal damnation is the most holy decision one can make, and if God Himself is not proud of the poor mixed-up kid, then God Himself is not worth much more than a âGet thee behind me,â and the rest of us should be lining up to go to Hell too. Worth noting that this person identified as an evangelical Christian, not because he was in line with what current American evangelicals believe, but because âthey can change their name, Iâm not changing mine.â Interesting guy. Sorry for the long parenthetical.)
Anyway, the point of Huck Finn, as far as I can tell, is that you can still choose to do good in utter darkness, with no guidance and no help and none of the right words.
And when you put it like that, itâs no wonder that a lot of people on Tumblrâpeople who prioritize words over every other form of social justiceâfind it threatening and hard to comprehend.
I somehow donât remember ever reading Huckleberry Finn in school as a kid, so I read it more recently (although still a couple years ago) after already having seen a lot of the racism discourse around it.
The surprising thing, to me, was that no one was talking about the child abuse and neglect that was affecting Huck himself, and all of the commentary was about slavery and racism. The commentary I saw on Huckleberry Finn seemed to insinuate â if not directly state â that it was the story of a privileged white boy who generously condescended to empathize with Jim, the poor slave who wasnât born with the innumerable advantages Huckâs white skin blessed him with.
Then I read the book, and I was reading a story about a boy with a physically abusive, neglectful, alcoholic father who reappears in his sonâs life only to attempt to seize his windfall wealth in a brazen act of parental theft that would have shamed James Spears, and an aunt a guardian whose self-righteous controlling behavior and spiritual abuse make Huck wonder whether he isnât better off with the aforementioned dad.
So I think the adverse circumstances that both Jim and Huck face â although in many ways different from each other â have parallels that allow them to empathize with each other in a manner thatâs closer to parity than âHuck gazes down at the pathetic Jim from the peaks of Mt. Privilege and feels pity.â
(There are times when Huck acts kind of patronizing toward Jim, but correspondingly there are times when Jim does the same thing toward Huck. In both cases, they tend to be confidently wrong, with Huck citing half-learned, misremembered, garbled lessons from school, and Jim citing various superstitions.)
Crucially, it is personal empathy, and not any kind of principled abolitionist morality that is at play here. Huck and Jim are thieves and vagabonds. Rejection of slavery comes in the context of a broader rejection of social norms and morality â and not some kind of consistent high-minded anarchism, either, but stuff like âweâve gotta steal to survive, but persimmons arenât that great this time of year, so we wonât steal those, and weâll count the fact that we donât steal persimmons as points in our favor morally.â
A cynical part of me wonders whether thatâs the really offensive part of Huckleberry Finn â the suggestion that maybe the ability to transcend and see past societyâs arbitrariness and injustices isnât the exclusive preserve of the respectable classes using all of the right Diversity Equity & Inclusion-workshop approved language, or the YA authors obsessed with imparting the Correct Moral Lessons to the Youth (hmmm⌠which Huckleberry Finn character do they remind me of?), but might lay with outcasts and runaways who use some offensive language and do desperate things to survive, but who experience society from an outsiderâs perspective and form bonds of necessity â and, ultimately, empathy â with members of other widely despised segments of society.
Update: Crossed out âaunt,â because I misremembered and Miss Watson is not Huck Finnâs aunt.
Please stop trigger tagging with #epilepsy tw/cw/warning/etc.
I need every single person to understand how horrible tumblrâs tagging system is
I go into the tag for epilepsy and its all flashing lights. We canât use our own tag because people without epilepsy fill it up with improper warnings.
Use âflashingâ in place of âepilepsyâ in your tags. You arenât warning people of epileptics, youâre warning us of flashing lights. Please please tag properly. Epileptics say this endlessly and constantly and itâs ignored. You are risking lives by doing this.
Hereâs proof of what I mean:
THIS POST IS 100% OKAY TO REBLOG, I ENCOURAGE PEOPLE WITHOUT EPILEPSY TO ESPECIALLY DO SO!
And if youâre in the notes or tags telling us to âjust get a new tagâ
Fuck You
Ultra Rare sighting of Jean drawing canon sonic
Randomly remembered seeing this random old black and white photo from like the 50s, pretty sure it was from Sweden. A picture from a morgue, of a tall blond man in some kind of an uniform approaching another man standing beside an opened coffin, clutching something to his chest while looking at the approaching man with a look of wary insult on his face. The caption explained that this was an incident of a police officer stopping a man from putting a bottle of beer in his father's coffin (his own father, not the cop's father) because for some reason doing that was against Sweden's burial laws.
I don't remember the details but I recall how the guy had the looks of a rough life written all over him, ragged clothes in contrast to the police officer's pristine uniform - though obscured by motion blur as he was rapidly approaching with hateful intent - and the much finer burial clothes of the deceased. A small, skinny man with black hair, holding onto the bottle that's about to be confiscated like it's something precious to him.
I felt like something wasn't adding up and went to the comments to see if there was additional context that was missing from all this, and there was: The son and the father were Romani, and at least at the time it was still very much a tradition in Swedish Romani culture to bury the dead with little gifts - not necessarily extravagant or expensive, but things that the lost loved one would have liked.
This wasn't about a mourning son being stopped from playfully paying his respects in a way that someone else thought indignified. This was about a man being prohibited from performing his own peoples' funeral rites.