look at my gouger, boy.
Xuebing Du

shark vs the universe
Not today Justin
tumblr dot com

Andulka

blake kathryn

Love Begins

tannertan36

Product Placement
$LAYYYTER
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
hello vonnie

Kiana Khansmith
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
YOU ARE THE REASON
Sweet Seals For You, Always

titsay
Game of Thrones Daily
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
No title available

seen from Spain

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Sri Lanka

seen from China

seen from Netherlands

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from Türkiye

seen from Malaysia

seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Lebanon

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
@tropicofeuclid
look at my gouger, boy.
my friend wanted me to make this
still haven't watched or read it but I love this
I think part of getting better is complete ego death. Like you’re not above setting a timer for 5 minutes and focusing on a task. You’re not above doing a very simple 3 minute workout to start. You’re not above reading for 10 minutes a day when you first get out of your reading slump, even if you used to read for hours. You’re not above starting slow and then building up to where you want to be/where you once were. What you are above is total inertia. Doing something really is better than doing nothing. Radically accept where you are, radically accept your limits, and go from there. Don’t let your ego get in the way.
Why does everyone think fiction is just fantasy wish fulfillment now and not like an exploration of themes and ideas
you've heard of death of the author, now get ready for death of the audience: where instead of basing your reaction on a thousand uninformed opinions online, you actually read the text and engage with it
immediately after an interaction: i have GOT to get more normal oh god i need to get more normal immediately i have to get more normal or they're going to hunt me down they're going to hunt me down and flay me for sport
during an interaction: and why not put a little spin on it? why not add some conversational zest?
personally I am of the opinion that vegans who are like “the way our food system currently works under capitalism on a large scale is exceptionally cruel to all animals including humans and is not sustainable, so I’m doing what I can to make the most ethical choices available to me about what I eat and encourage others to do the same” are generally very reasonable people who I agree with in spades. but vegans who seem to think human beings are not themselves animals who are ultimately also part of the food chain but instead some kind of other paternalistic higher entity that can never engage in ethical and sustainable hunting practices (and especially the fringe I’ve seen who think other carnivorous animal predators are also evil and need to be eliminated) are people I regard as foolish at best if not actively anti-indigenous and racist
It's good and cool to give your characters a single simple, straightforward, non-urgent, super-achievable goal that shouldn't really cost anything or hurt anyone, make that the driving factor for most of their decisions, and then have the Plot do everything in its power to stop them.
Goals include but are not limited to:
Wanting to go home
Wanting people out of your house who shouldn't be there
Trying to find a reliable babysitter
Trying to deliver a letter or package
Trying to do a favor for someone
Wanting to see a specific thing, place, or kind of animal
Wanting to collect the money somebody owes you (the lower the debt the better)
Trying to win a bet
Wanting to punch a specific person in the face
"wanting people out of your house who shouldn't be there" is my favorite because that was literally Shrek's main goal
Also both Bilbo Baggins and Thorin Oakenshield for that matter.
My memory of The Birdcage (1996) is always that it's more dated and more difficult to watch than it actually is. You hear "drag-themed comedy from the 90s based on a musical from the 80s based on a play from the 70s" and you brace yourself just a little, right? But the film has a strong gay perspective, so the fruity fag jokes mostly come off as warmly affectionate. There is a surprising amount of poignancy in Robin Williams' portrayal of Armand, grudgingly agreeing to his beloved son's request that he go back into the closet for an evening ("do me a favor and don't talk to me for a while"). The drag club's staff attempting to redecorate the apartment with stuff straight people might like (a taxidermy moose head, an enormous crucifix, and Playboy magazine) is extremely funny. Albert's histrionics are a point of tension because he does often come off as a stereotypically pathetic/comic figure, but towards the end of the movie he makes it very clear that he's aware of how people see him, and asserts that trying to copy a stoic masculinity he doesn't possess for the sake of social approval would be more pathetic. In the 1983 musical adaptation, they give "Albert" (Albin) the only good song in the whole show, "I Am What I Am", which Gloria Gaynor covered to the delight of gays everywhere. Apparently Nathan Lane wasn't (publicly) out yet in 1996, which is amazing because it means that at one point in this movie you're watching a gay man playing a straight man playing a gay man playing a straight man, in a movie about how it's important to be yourself, an absurdity that does seem to encapsulate the state of gay America in the 90s.
I'm seeing a couple of posts circulating about the gay 90s and this movie. The above is a very good summary, and I think it's worth adding a few other points.
This movie got made because Robin Williams said yes to it (and it's important that Gene Hackman did as well). Williams in the 90s was a mega-star of a type that's not present in the current media environment (maybe Tom Cruise, but I personally think that's echo from his salad days). Even his flops made money on the back end in the video rental market, which also doesn't exist anymore (streaming is different). Hackman was on the other side of his A-list career but still Hollywood nobility if not full royalty.
Playing gay was considered career suicide in the 90s. There had been a number of actors who put lie to that belief stretching back decades, but this was Williams and Hackman (yes, being on screen next to a gay character was enough to get you blacklisted) saying "screw that" and doing it anyway.
Being gay and out was career suicide in the 90s.
Nathan Lane had a really nice gig going for himself. The Lion King put him into the Disney rep company with people like Williams, Bette Midler, and Whoopie Goldberg (check their IMBD list from the 90s--they were making bank at Disney).
Lane didn't come out until several years later (nice summary: https://deadline.com/2024/06/nathan-lane-robin-williams-advice-coming-out-birdcage-1235975010/).
I don't want to imply that this was a Sorkinized moment where everything changed because of one thing, but this was a very important movie that caused real movement in the needle on queer acceptance.
It also proved that there was a market for films with gay characters, which had the knock-on effect of gay filmmakers being able to find distributors of their gay-themed films. Which meant that more people than ever (queer and non-queer) got to see representation on-screen.
The Mountaintop (2011) is a play by American playwright Katori Hall. It is a fictional depiction of the Reverend Martin Luther King’s last night on earth set entirely in Room 306 of the Lorraine Motel on the eve of his assassination on April 4, 1968
Cast: Angela Bassett, Samuel L. Jackson
Hello! Just wanted to pop by and say thanks so much for the blindness guide! I'm honestly a little baffled by a few of the things that to me just feel like common sense, like duh blind people don't have pure white eyes, where did that misconception come from? WHERE DID BLIND PEOPLE DONT SMILE COME FROM WHAT?! But it still helped me a lot, I didn't know white and red are a common way of communicating that someone is blind, that's very helpful! I love making disabled characters, since I'm disabled myself and I've been around many kinds of disabilities, so the more kinds of disabilities I can represent accurately the better for me!
I have a question if you're able to answer. Would a blind person be able to learn and use sign language? Well a better way of phrasing it is are there's forms of blindness that would prevent someone from using it? It's alright if you don't have the expertise to answer, just here to say thanks anyway
I think a lot of the misconceptions are the result of this never-ending game of telephone where someone somewhere 1 billion years ago wanted to Clearly Signal that a blind character was blind, someone else thought that it looked cool, it got repeated approximately a trillion times, and now there are more depictions of blind people as having these "blank stares" than there are opportunities to meet an actual blind person (in most people's cases anyway). Also the fact that people are allergic to actually researching disabilities before writing or drawing people with them and prefer to just rely on other media portrayals but that's another topic..
For the sign language question: there absolutely are blind people that sign. Among younger deafblind people sign language is one of the main means of communication because a very common pattern is Born Deaf/HoH → Becomes Blind/Low Vision Later (rather than the other way around) because of how frequent Usher syndrome* is. So for some blind people sign language is actually their first language.
*- the other very common cause are things like cerebral palsy or TBI but people who are deafblind from those often have physical problems signing and use AAC instead.
There are accommodations that can be made depending on the actual symptoms the person has.
One of the most common and basic ones is wearing clothes that are the opposite of your skin tone (ex. Dark skinned person wearing a white shirt while signing, pale person wearing a black blouse, etc.) which is effectively making it high-contrast. This is overall helpful and not really specific to low vision/blind signers tbh, it makes it easier for nonfluent signers too.
Another one is modifying the actual signs. Mostly for tunnel vision, so it's effectively narrowing the space where the other person can sign. I don't know much about it other than that it exists.
For people with little to no usable vision, you can also have tactile signing where the blind person has their hands somewhat over the signer's hands. Not "grabbing onto them for dear life", more so just tracking where they're going and what they're doing there.
Last option that all kinds of DeafBlind people can use is protactile which is a tactile language that requires no sight and no hearing. It's very new for a language but it's incredibly important. If you're interested in learning about protactile and/or DeafBlind communities then I recommend the work of Elsa Sjunneson (Being Seen is great), aj granda, Jelica Nuccio, and John Lee Clark (Against Access is also great).
So basically TLDR etc the answer is yes, it's possible. It certainly might be harder (if it's a hearing blind person who's rarely interacting with Deaf people, chances are, they'll just have a third person interpret—like most hearing people), but it's very much happening regardless.
"Tutorial" on how to "draw" a blind OC.
My kofi
Boring tired disclaimer: Keep in mind that this is an introductory "drawing" "tutorial" and has some generalizations in it, so not every “X is Z” statement will be true for Actual People. Which happens to be true for everything in general. Links below so that you can research and do a nuance. Ones that were directly mentioned are bolded.
Tutorial for drawing characters with Down syndrome.
DISCLAIMER: Please keep in mind that this is an introductory drawing tutorial and has some generalizations in it, so not every “X is Z” statement will be true for Actual People. It's more of an overview of features that are common in people with Down syndrome, not meaning to imply that every person with DS has all of them 👍 thanks.
If you draw any characters using this feel free to tag me.
Consider supporting me on ko-fi if you find this to be helpful.
It's me again! Now with a language question
I am creating a fictional south american country, where most of my stories take place. It's called Nauramá and it's heavily inspired by Brazil (cause I love it here). I am also making a fictional indigenous language that is spoken by the mojority of the inhabitants, called Yēra'mai.
So, I was thinking if I should make a fictional sign language for the country as well? I really want to, but since I do not primarily use SL I felt like getting a second opinion! I don’t want to step where I shouldn't.
In this case I would not come up with every single possible word or phrase because I am just a guy and I'm not doing that to do the spoken/written language lol. The main reason I wanted to do this is because I have a good number of characters that use SL and most of them are very important characters and/or very frenquent in the stories, and I don't think it would make much sense if they were using LIBRAS or ASL or something (even tho portuguese and english are also recognized as official languages, nauramenos, Yēra'mai and people with those heritages are very proud of their culture).
Hi!
I definitely think establishing the existence of a local sign language is a good idea, especially if your indigenous group has a high Deaf population.
However, making signs themselves can get a little difficult. This is in part because describing sign language gets very clunky and hard to follow. Signs have many parameters, which you can think of as a parallel to grammatical characteristics and spelling of a word, except they are visuospatial. Describing a sign in a written work takes time that can distract from the actual message.
There are some scenarios where I think describing a sign is appropriate--for example, a completely non-signing character trying to piece together unfamiliar signs, or when emphasizing very specific signs (to be used sparingly). But for the most part, I recommend writing a translation of what is being said, using the language that you are writing the story in.
Compare the following three paragraphs (I am writing using descriptions of ASL signs):
Example 1: She pointed to herself, then made a motion like giving a tight hug, before pointing to him. I love you. Then, her index fingers flew apart--but--and her palm chopped against the other, eyebrows crinkled and mouth open in disgust. You're so irritating.
Example 2: "I love you but--bothersome you," she signed, her mouth slightly open to show her annoyance. "Fish-fish."
Example 3: "I love you, but you are so irritating," she said, rolling her eyes. "Leave me alone!" Her hand flicked in his direction as if to shoo him off as her mouth tightened in annoyance.
The first uses a literal description of the signs. See how much longer it is compared to the others? It also slows the pace of the scene dramatically. This format could work for a short scene if someone is trying to bridge a language barrier, but other than that, I do not want to actually read a book written like this.
The second is written using a modified version of gloss, a method for transcribing sign language. I never recommend writing in gloss, partly because it often makes no sense to non-signers, and partly because even for native signers, it's missing a lot of information that being face to face would provide. (And providing all that would make a long paragraph with many technical details!) Gloss can be more effectively replaced with the descriptors and tone indicators of natural English writing.
For both of the first two methods, since your book is using a fictional sign language that will have its own grammar and acceptable parameters, describing signs or glossing does not provide any additional level of understanding to the work. For a made-up sign language, writing out the signs is like putting a pronunciation guide and a dictionary directly into the scene.
The third is the most natural for all readers to follow, provides the most detail, and allows for something to the scene other than description of what the signs look like. Notice that I don't entirely omit descriptions of signs when it gives some emphasis, but it's only for those specific moments that I rely on describing a sign, or calling attention to the fact that a character is signing rather than speaking.
I absolutely recommend that you think about some signs or concepts that might be important to the culture. Research indigenous sign languages in the areas and cultures you are drawing inspiration from, plus look into Deaf culture and sign language linguistics to get a basis of what the Deaf community in your world might look like.
Most importantly, hire a few people fluent in sign languages and use sign language dictionaries to make sure any signs you do invent aren't slurs in existing languages. (This last one isn't foolproof--for example, the middle finger is an acceptable hand shape in many sign languages, even though it's only used as a rude gesture in ASL. But since you are creating a conlang, you can be a bit more careful.)
To summarize, I think you can write a Deaf culture and population without inventing the signs in their language. But if you are going to create a sign language, look into the linguistic characteristics of signs, get proofreaders, and prioritize the flow and readability of your writing over showcasing your conlang.
Mod Rock
Y'all wanna see some medieval mobility aides in manuscripts?
There are clues in the margins of medieval manuscripts to suggest that disabled people in the past made long pilgrimages, and were helped on
Once again I’m thinking about the symbolic meaning in Michael’s hair, particularly in season 1.
Young Michael before and after she started living on Vulcan.
When she’s living on Vulcan, and trying to suppress her human self, she straightens her hair and has it in a Vulcan bob. When she’s been in Starfleet for awhile the bob disappears but she still straightens it.
When in prison she starts getting a more natural hairstyle, but still have it short and pretty practical. Then eventually we get to her season 4 look.
While in real life these changing looks can mean completely different things for different people, the changes here do have a clear connection to the narrative in Discovery. A narrative of self discovery, of becoming a more complete person if you embrace different parts of yourself. Of stop trying to be something others want you to be and forge your own path.
There’s no denying that before Michael there were vanishingly few instances of black women wearing their natural hair in Star Trek. So it’s worth pointing out the symbolism and also how Michael’s hair is used to signify the journey of her character.
It has felt almost meta at times when I’ve watched Discovery, since Star Trek itself has been so bad at letting the few black actors they’ve had to grow their hair in a way they want. Avery Brooks fought for years to be able to shave his head and grow a beard, which he thought was culturally and personally very important. The producers thought it was “Too street” (!).
Nichelle Nichols (RIP trailblazer space queen) had to fight to be able to wear an afro in The Motion Picture because the writers claimed it was “Too modern”:
Anyway, what I’m saying is Michael’s journey chronicled through her hair is as much about Star Trek itself as it is about her.
THE AVENGERS (2012)