dirt enthusiast
Discoholic 🪩
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
ellievsbear
Sweet Seals For You, Always
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
Kaledo Art
RMH
Product Placement
will byers stan first human second
i don't do bad sauce passes
wallacepolsom
Today's Document
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Andulka
Cosimo Galluzzi
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
occasionally subtle
KIROKAZE
Not today Justin
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from Türkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Norway
seen from Estonia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Denmark
seen from Norway
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Arab Emirates
@tungledotedu
Verified fundraisers who need your support!
These are fundraisers who are at less than 10% support who need a bigger boost.
Aisha's family: at 3% funding only. Line 340.
Yasser Al Ostath: at less than 1%. Line 338.
Ribhi Ishtawi: at less than 1%. Line 372.
Mosab El-Dali: at 6% funding only. Line 321.
Something something imperialist violence kills so many that the names and histories of the tens of thousands killed in Gaza are not worth reporting as much as the deaths of Israeli embassy staff members because in the hierarchy of death in the western world, israelis/zionists are superior
"this is what we get when we allow pro-Palestine protesters to get aWay with EvErytHinG" and i suppose that thinking does not apply to the US government giving unlimited supply of weaponry to a state that kills tens of thousands and allowing members that support that violence into state government and having representatives of that state government loudly and proudly condone violence against Palestinians that have created a situation where Palestinians in the diaspora have been victims of attacks?
BiBi said ceasefire only going to happen when Palestinians leave Gaza
The Israeli leader endorsed Trump’s plan for the forced displacement of all Palestinians from Gaza.
Part of me is just glad that this motherfucker just said this even though Jake Tapper and CNN are going to act like he didn’t.
Someone will complain about the US not having any ancient history or architecture and then live in a place literally called Massachusetts. I’ll kill you.
"we don't have anything this old out west!" you have. pueblos. which are substantially older
(and this would be why I'm pedantic about New England having some of the oldest European architecture in the country. there were :) :) :) many people here for many many years :) :) :) before us :) and they are still! here!)
have you noticed that they don't even want you right clicking anymore
Yeah! you can do it to a youtube video and take a snapshot of that frame if it's paused, or open the thumbnail in a new tab if it hasn't started playing yet
[ID: Screenshot of the reblog tags by @/thebowlingalley on this post which read, "btw / shift+right click on firefox bypasses a website's shitty custom right click menu / WHATTTTTTT / PREV WAHT????????" End ID.]
There are sites that block shift-right-click. Fortunately, there are fixes for that.
Download Absolute Enable Right Click & Copy for Firefox. Force Enable Right Click & Copy
Chrome version:
Force Enable Right Click & Copy
Self-professed ‘book lovers’ hate her most, because they take her stance in the ultimate bad faith to mean ‘throw everything away, especially your books, ye even those books’
When really it’s more of a ‘really think about how each individual thing makes you feel. If it’s not making your life better for having it, why do you still have it?’
Like, if your floor-to-ceiling book collection makes you feel happy? Keep it! Definitely! But if you never look at those books but you cannot bear to part with them, ask yourself why that is.
i think we are going to have to eventually reckon with the fact that the way said self-declared book lovers hate marie kondo (so, so pettily and violently, too) is a feature and not a bug of the booktok-commercial publishing-hyperconsumerism machine that has taken over the book world and rendered it even more same-y and sterile than it was before, too. and yes i put booktok in there, and yes i even put it first on purpose. and i’m not going to articulate this well bc i’m sick and very tired and impulse posting on my phone, but what i mean is they hate her bc they’re hyperconsumers who have created a whole personality that makes them feel good and smart around buying, owning, and displaying books, yes. absolutely that is part of it. but there is also the insecurity running underneath, right, because—and i say this as an avid book collector who loves literally nothing more than going to a bookstore—buying, owning, and displaying books is a very different thing than reading and, crucially, thinking about books, and literary history and context, and culture in general. and i’m not saying they don’t read their books, but we all know no one reads books as quickly as they acquire them—and that’s not even the issue. the real issue is the not thinking, not engaging on a deeper level. because what that whole side of the books/publishing world sees books as is: 1) identity markers to be consumed, as i said, and 2) escapism. even the ones who incorporate ~reading for social justice~ into their whole thing mostly do it in a simplistic, idealized way—focusing on representation, or being unable to understand that depicting something is not the same as condoning it, etc, etc, etc. it’s all about never wanting to feel bad or complicated things, and so avoiding hard or complicated questions. and to be clear i don’t think there’s anything at all wrong with reading for escapism! i read many many whodunnits every year, for instance. but there’s a difference between doing that as part of a wider reading practice, or even between doing that entirely but with the full admission that you are, rather than pretending that reading any book makes you smart, or that passively consuming media makes you a critical thinker. i mean—and here’s what i’m really trying to get at—look at booktok’s absolute best beloveds: sarah j maas, colleen hoover, sterile myth retellings, and dark academia. i don’t have a problem with people reading stuff that i think is trash (i regularly read stuff that i think is trash) or that isn’t to my taste; that’s not the problem. the problem is that when you look at the overarching trends you see how it’s a juggernaut of white mediocrity, escapism, and (if any questions are asked at all) easy questions to easy answers. which would be boring and annoying but not really anything that new if the people in that community didn’t take it as this indelible marker of them essentially being the smartest kid in the classroom, rather than what it is, which is entertainment. a hobby, and a consumerist one for the most part.
so yeah, marie kondo saying “let’s sit with these books for a moment and really think about them and whether they’re necessary, whether they improve and enrich your life” is totally antithetical to that subset of bookishness and it also, crucially, is antithetical in a way that sets off all of their obvious insecurities that they’ve built those mediocrity-fuelled personas around in the first place
listen up folks he may be a paleolithic racist who failed upwards until he was in a position to give tens of billions of dollars to enable a genocide but you're mean and that's worse. remember the human.
wait no not those ones
remember when he led opposition against active school desegregation? remember when he was best friends with the most notorious segregationist in washington? remember when he gave the eulogy at that guy's funeral? remember in 1991 when bush sr conditioned loans to israel on a halt to illegal west bank settlements and he co-sponsored an amendment to forcibly override it? remember when he drafted the 1994 crime bill that fueled the ongoing mass incarceration of primarily black men? remember when he bragged about it? remember when he led democrat support for the invasion of iraq? remember when he led an all-white congressional panel in dragging a black woman's name through the mud on live tv for the crime of being sexually harassed?
the nauseating reinvention of this lifelong monster as a civil rights hero is solely due to his proximity to the first black president, which he only had because they needed someone on the ticket to reassure racist liberals that the white house would stay white. he spent 50 years making the world a worse place. he bears personal responsibility for the imprisonment and death of millions of people in the us and in the global south. his presidency was delivered by a bourgeois class that was terrified of any challenge to neoliberal orthodoxy. his entirely self-interested decision to pursue re-election delivered the everyday horrors you're seeing now. this doesn't even touch on the genocide you've been watching play out for over a year. he is a vain, miserable, racist, warmongering, murderous sack of shit and you do not owe him any sympathy whatsoever. save it for his victims.
TPOC-Prioritized writings on anti-transmasculinity / transandrophobia
transandrophobia / anti-transmasculinity are both theories that have been spearheaded primarily by trans poc, particularly Black transmascs and transfemmes.
unfortunately, as with Everything created by queer and trans poc, particularly Black queer ppl, white trans ppl (regardless of gender, and regardless of whether they "believe" in this form of oppression or not) have coopted these theories and dominated these conversations, such that both "sides" of the "discourse" are divorced entirely from the racial connotations in which these theories were created, and the ways in which they were created specifically as an intervention against white feminism, and to highlight the ways multiple marginalizations affect the marginalization of masculinity. these are theories that explicitly interact with and can only be understood in conjunction with transmisogyny, as well as other oppressions like racism and misogynoir.
*"anti-transmasculinity" as a term and theory was coined by Black trans folks (some of whom's writings are linked below), and is specifically a theory within the context of Black transfeminism antiBlackness, and transmisogynoir, and cannot be divorced from that context. i try be very intentional about my use of the terms 'anti-transmasculinity' and 'transandrophobia' in different places here, because i do not want to dilute the former’s very particular context.
anyway, here's a list of miscellaneous writings on the subjects, with a priority for collecting writing from trans poc (not all of the authors are tpoc, but this list was intended to prioritize tpoc voices). the intention of this is not to be a be-all end-all on the subject, nor exalt any one of these individuals or pieces as exclusively ~correct~ or whatever, but to combat the whitewashed nature of these discussions online, and raise awareness to the myriad of people speaking on this subject. (nor do i claim to speak for any of them, or claim that any of them speak for me. i tried to make sure i didn't platform blatant racists, zionists, transmisogynists, or other bigots, but i'm not pretending to be 100% accurate about that.)
they aren't in any particular order (except the first one, which i think is an extremely foundational text for anti-transmasculinity theory as delineated by its creators, within the context of antiblackness and transmisogyny, and necessary reading to understand anti-transmasculinity as a theory). I tried to group all the links from the same authors together.
This is a non-exhaustive list! I will likely come back and add more writings as I find them. please feel free to recommend to me any works to include (including your own! especially if you yourself are a Black trans person or a trans POC).
Now with an Archived Read-more Link!
everyone say thank you archived read-more link <3
love when stories inflict unspeakable horrors onto a person for no real reason. its not karma. its not payback. its not a lesson. its not your fault. no ones even out to get you in particular. youre not the chosen one or special or anything. it just sorta happened and you were there. sorry man
i actually do believe that everyone will acknowledge exactly the nature of the crimes committed by israel against palestinians, i have no doubts about that despite the nature of the world and how many genociders have lived as the victors of history. i am cynical but this, to me, is unquestionable. what my real fear is is just how many palestinians will die before it. in fact the less palestinians there are the more apologetic you will find people, the bigger the memorial museums, the louder the inevitable apologies, the longer the pieces finally published by the new york times.
it is only so long as palestinians continue to resist and exist that this process will be stalled and derided. it's our responsibility to make sure that the crimes they've already committed are enough. in truth they are already much worse than we describe, and so much worse than we treat them in discussions. i still see people in denial about the exact colonial nature of israel and the racist nature of zionism and its overt parallels to nazism. these are all things that are too gauche to discuss for the liberals in denial, that they need a minimum of perhaps 500,000 dead palestinians to really begin entertaining. i promise you it's all already worse than you think. someday you're going to laugh at what you thought was a problematic description for what's happening now.
we are really living through the historical moment where the violence against a native population peaked, the eye of the ethnic cleansing and genocide. this is the place in the graph where there are sharp jagged lines. if it doesn't feel like observing the worst of history come alive on your phone, then you don't really understand the gravity of this moment. not just for palestine, though palestine is what the modern world order was built on and where it will now crumble. every stance you take now is the stance you will remember for the rest of your life.
In the past I've shared other people's musings about the different interpretations of the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. Namely, why Orpheus looks back at Eurydice, even though he knows it means he'll lose her forever. So many people seem to think they've found the one true explanation of the myth. But to me, the beauty of myths is that they have many possible meanings.
So I thought I would share a list of every interpretation I know, from every serious adaptation of the story and every analysis I've ever heard or read, of why Orpheus looks back.
One interpretation – advocated by Monteverdi's opera, for example – is that the backward glance represents excessive passion and a fatal lack of self-control. Orpheus loves Eurydice to such excess that he tries to defy the laws of nature by bringing her back from the dead, yet that very same passion dooms his quest fo fail, because he can't resist the temptation to look back at her.
He can also be seen as succumbing to that classic "tragic flaw" of hubris, excessive pride. Because his music and his love conquer the Underworld, it might be that he makes the mistake of thinking he's entirely above divine law, and fatally allows himself to break the one rule that Hades and Persephone set for him.
Then there are the versions where his flaw is his lack of faith, because he looks back out of doubt that Eurydice is really there. I think there are three possible interpretations of this scenario, which can each work alone or else co-exist with each other. From what I've read about Hadestown, it sounds as if it combines all three.
In one interpretation, he doubts Hades and Persephone's promise. Will they really give Eurydice back to him, or is it all a cruel trick? In this case, the message seems to be a warning to trust in the gods; if you doubt their blessings, you might lose them.
Another perspective is that he doubts Eurydice. Does she love him enough to follow him? In this case, the warning is that romantic love can't survive unless the lovers trust each other. I'm thinking of Moulin Rouge!, which is ostensibly based on the Orpheus myth, and which uses Christian's jealousy as its equivalent of Orpheus's fatal doubt and explicitly states "Where there is no trust, there is no love."
The third variation is that he doubts himself. Could his music really have the power to sway the Underworld? The message in this version would be that self-doubt can sabotage all our best efforts.
But all of the above interpretations revolve around the concept that Orpheus looks back because of a tragic flaw, which wasn't necessarily the view of Virgil, the earliest known recorder of the myth. Virgil wrote that Orpheus's backward glance was "A pardonable offense, if the spirits knew how to pardon."
In some versions, when the upper world comes into Orpheus's view, he thinks his journey is over. In this moment, he's so ecstatic and so eager to finally see Eurydice that he unthinkingly turns around an instant too soon, either just before he reaches the threshold or when he's already crossed it but Eurydice is still a few steps behind him. In this scenario, it isn't a personal flaw that makes him look back, but just a moment of passion-fueled carelessness, and the fact that it costs him Eurydice shows the pitilessness of the Underworld.
In other versions, concern for Eurydice makes him look back. Sometimes he looks back because the upward path is steep and rocky, and Eurydice is still limping from her snakebite, so he knows she must be struggling, in some versions he even hears her stumble, and he finally can't resist turning around to help her. Or more cruelly, in other versions – for example, in Gluck's opera – Eurydice doesn't know that Orpheus is forbidden to look back at her, and Orpheus is also forbidden to tell her. So she's distraught that her husband seems to be coldly ignoring her and begs him to look at her until he can't bear her anguish anymore.
These versions highlight the harshness of the Underworld's law, and Orpheus's failure to comply with it seems natural and even inevitable. The message here seems to be that death is pitiless and irreversible: a demigod hero might come close to conquering it, but through little or no fault of his own, he's bound to fail in the end.
Another interpretation I've read is that Orpheus's backward glance represents the nature of grief. We can't help but look back on our memories of our dead loved ones, even though it means feeling the pain of loss all over again.
Then there's the interpretation that Orpheus chooses his memory of Eurydice, represented by the backward glance, rather than a future with a living Eurydice. "The poet's choice," as Portrait of a Lady on Fire puts it. In this reading, Orpheus looks back because he realizes he would rather preserve his memory of their youthful, blissful love, just as it was when she died, than face a future of growing older, the difficulties of married life, and the possibility that their love will fade. That's the slightly more sympathetic version. In the version that makes Orpheus more egotistical, he prefers the idealized memory to the real woman because the memory is entirely his possession, in a way that a living wife with her own will could never be, and will never distract him from his music, but can only inspire it.
Then there are the modern feminist interpretations, also alluded to in Portrait of a Lady on Fire but seen in several female-authored adaptations of the myth too, where Eurydice provokes Orpheus into looking back because she wants to stay in the Underworld. The viewpoint kinder to Orpheus is that Eurydice also wants to preserve their love just as it was, youthful, passionate, and blissful, rather than subject it to the ravages of time and the hardships of life. The variation less sympathetic to Orpheus is that Euyridice was at peace in death, in some versions she drank from the river Lethe and doesn't even remember Orpheus, his attempt to take her back is selfish, and she prefers to be her own free woman than be bound to him forever and literally only live for his sake.
With that interpretation in mind, I'm surprised I've never read yet another variation. I can imagine a version where, as Orpheus walks up the path toward the living world, he realizes he's being selfish: Eurydice was happy and at peace in the Elysian Fields, she doesn't even remember him because she drank from Lethe, and she's only following him now because Hades and Persephone have forced her to do so. So he finally looks back out of selfless love, to let her go. Maybe I should write this retelling myself.
Are any of these interpretations – or any others – the "true" or "definitive" reason why Orpheus looks back? I don't think so at all. The fact that they all exist and can all ring true says something valuable about the nature of mythology.
american liberals talking about gofundme scams: oh these are egyptian qatari made-up people out to get your hard-earned cash with fake pictures and details that don't add up this is all fake this place doesn't even exist that child doesn't exist, the person who set up the campaign is in belgium they don't even have electricity and internet over there you gullible fool you think these are real palestinians??
palestinians talking about gofundme scams: yeah this guy's in gaza but he said his house was destroyed and only 3/4s of it were destroyed he has no honor and no dignity don't donate to him
anarchy is when everything is the same but no government
liberal democracy is judged by a whitewashed ideal but anarchy is judged by a half-understood collection of rando tweets and zero of the books written on the subject
oh and the insistence that anarchist societies (which ones? when? who knows, certainly not the speaker) left their disabled children to die
for what it's worth I actually do think anarchism has weaknesses and issues as an approach and a belief system, but there is such a massive gulf between the weaknesses and issues identified by anarchists and educated people, and the weaknesses and issues identified by people whose hobby is "dunking on anarchists"
As part of her social media detox this girl on YouTube made herself do one hour of understimulating tasks every day and she just counted rice for 60 minutes straight because its no different from doomscrolling in terms of wasted time
When I say this changed my life. Every time I'm on my phone I ask myself Is this different from counting rice for one hour ? and if the answer is no I go find something else to do. It works well because it's not about conforming to productivity standards or about moralizing digital hobbies it's just an honest reflection on whether tomorrow I will be glad I spent my time this way and then acting accordingly. The rice paradigm
using brain damage as an insult isn't a better alternative to using the r word. brain damage doesn't cause bigotry, and it's not the punchline for a joke. you know you can express astonishment at someone's actions without implying they must have brain damage. brain injuries aren't the end of someone's worth as a person. like are you even aware there's various types of brain injury.
im sure someone already made a post about it but i came across a ublock origin add-on that blacklists around 950 AI websites and disables AI overview ☝️ so u can be free from seeing AI in your search
