2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
todays bird
Cosimo Galluzzi
Game of Thrones Daily
Show & Tell

tannertan36

#extradirty
occasionally subtle
ojovivo
Peter Solarz
Keni
will byers stan first human second
Claire Keane
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
Mike Driver
d e v o n
No title available
macklin celebrini has autism
art blog(derogatory)

⁂

seen from United States

seen from Singapore
seen from Brazil
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Mexico
seen from China
seen from Peru
seen from Greece
seen from Tunisia
seen from Italy
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 Colombia
seen from Canada

seen from Malaysia
@uszkovo
Stuffs I'm cooking rn:
Personality types and OCs. Might be replaced soon (it's too crowded).
Computer languages.
Worldbuilding stuffs.
Worldbuilding races.
hot artists don't gatekeep
I've been resource gathering for YEARS so now I am going to share my dragons hoard
Floorplanner. Design and furnish a house for you to use for having a consistent background in your comic or anything! Free, you need an account, easy to use, and you can save multiple houses.
Comparing Heights. Input the heights of characters to see what the different is between them. Great for keeping consistency. Free.
Magma. Draw online with friends in real time. Great for practice or hanging out. Free, paid plan available, account preferred.
Smithsonian Open Access. Loads of free images. Free.
SketchDaily. Lots of pose references, massive library, is set on a timer so you can practice quick figure drawing. Free.
SculptGL. A sculpting tool which I am yet to master, but you should be able to make whatever 3d object you like with it. free.
Pexels. Free stock images. And the search engine is actually pretty good at pulling up what you want.
Figurosity. Great pose references, diverse body types, lots of "how to draw" videos directly on the site, the models are 3d and you can rotate the angle, but you can't make custom poses or edit body proportions. Free, account option, paid plans available.
Line of Action. More drawing references, this one also has a focus on expressions, hands/feet, animals, landscapes. Free.
Animal Photo. You pose a 3d skull model and select an animal species, and they give you a bunch of photo references for that animal at that angle. Super handy. Free.
Height Weight Chart. You ever see an OC listed as having a certain weight but then they look Wildly different than the number suggests? Well here's a site to avoid that! It shows real people at different weights and heights to give you a better idea of what these abstract numbers all look like. Free to use.
Understanding Individualism vs Collectivism
Making that post about individualism and capitalism yesterday, I got some questions, that showed me the same problem as the person I was talking about had: A lot of people do actually not know what individualism and collectivism mean. So, let me try to explain.
I had kinda hoped that Abigail from Philosophy Tube might have made a video on this, but no such luck. So, I guess I have to try and explain it, even though I mostly know it from sociology, rather from the philosophic origins where it comes from.
Basically, both concepts originate with socialist philosophy in the early 19th century, which correctly identified the early capitalist society as individualist and saw the dangers coming with it. It argued that an individualist society will be harmful on a societal level, because the society at large would always focus on the self, rather than the other. Capitalist philosophy however picked this up was like: “Yeah, awesome, right?” And especially in the 20th century they really started to run with it, realizing that they could use it to make people into better consumers.
Now, individualism does not mean “a sense of self”. This is not connected to it. You will still have a sense of self in a collectivist society and nobody says that you shouldn’t have. Rather it means that the focus of everyone should be on the individual. Both themselves – but also the individual actors in society. It is as such not a surprise that the idea of “Great Man Theory” came up and started to thrive during early capitalism in the 19th century.
So, if individualism does not mean “a sense of self”, what does it mean?
I would argue there are two aspects to it. Once the aforementioned tendency to put the individual above the society and apart from it, but also to create and sell a personal philosophy that people are defined by their differences from others, rather than what they have in common. It tells people that they are all so very different from everyone else, which is a useful political tool for capitalism to fight collective actions such as unions, but also collective action for things like environmental protection. In the same vein it is used to keep people riled up against one another within society, as they focus on their differences, rather than what they have in common.
The most anarchistic professor I had at university put it very well: “If you as a worker talk to a factory worker from Bangladesh, you will find you have a lot in common. In fact you will always have more in common with this other worker rather than any billionaire there is.”
Which brings me to the other aspect that individualism is about: It sells you an individualistic dream. Which is why capitalism focuses so much on those rags to riches stories (that tend to be lies most of the time). “See, this millionaire started out his business in daddy’s garage. So you can also become a billionaire if you have the right idea.” Fellow leftist might know the saying: “You are just one bad day away from homelessness, but you will never be a billionaire.” Which is basically the counter argument to this.
See, capitalism tries to convince you, that “I am the better system, because in me you could become a billionaire,” to sell you not only on your own exploitation, but the exploitation of the masses.
And more than that, capitalism also has realized that it can use individualism to make you a better consumer. I alluded to this a bit further up. But the long and short of it is, that capitalism pushes this idea of “you are, what you consume”. Your individuality is defined by the things you spent money on. Maybe by you having the most expensive things, but also by you having maybe the weirdest things or something. You know, the “not like the other girls” girl will probably spend as much, if not more on the things that make her special, as “the other girls”.
This also goes into the whole idea of greenwashing, pinkwashing and rainbow capitalism. All this is about getting you to consume something to gain some sort of individual aspect from it. Basically, through buying the “green” stuff, you are a better consumer.
Ironically this also goes into the entire anti-shipping discourse, which basically also says that your goodness as a person is defined by the things you consume.
Capitalism is selling you your identity. Your individual identity.
But sadly this is an idea very, very deeply engrained into the heads of most who have grown up in capitalism. Because it is everywhere in media. Sure, there is some media that calls it out, but most of it actually peddles the idea of the individual.
Because this is the second aspect at the core of individualism: The myths that only individuals can change something, rather than a collective. Which is what I call out so often when I am talking about the entire punk-genre stuff.
Even though it is less punk, let me take Star Wars as an example, because it is an amazing example of this. Especially the original trilogy, in which the Rebellion battles the Empire. However, the evil Empire is not defeated because the Rebellion manages to somehow outwit or outmaneuvre the Empire. Or because maybe the collective of the workers in the Empire turn against it. Rather it gets defeated because Luke, the individual, turns Darth Vater, an individual, and defeats the Emperor, the individual. Which goes back to this idea of the “great man”. It is those unique individuals who will save the world, rather than collective action.
This idea of some individuals being the ones to save the world, rather than we – the people – as a group and ourselves, is used to keep the people pacified under capitalism. They are waiting for “a good billionaire” to solve climate change, homelessness and all the other problems for us, rather than getting active themselves. They keep telling themselves: “Hey, under capitalism everyone can be a billionaire, including myself, and also my life isn’t that bad right now. So who cares that under socialism/communism everyone could be lifted up?”
Look, folks. I am saying this lovingly. But you are not as much of an individual as you think. You are your own person, but you are not unique. In fact, if you talk to a random person on the street – no matter who they are – and you and them are not instantly judging each other for one reason or another, you will find that you have a lot more in common than you think. Capitalist individualism just taught you to not see this, because your empathy can be its undoing.
I want to add to this that individualism often sells itself as 'being all about personal freedom' or something like that. they oppose this to collectivism which they'll often say is about equality, or social harmony or something like that.
I've often heard people say that 'individualism puts personal freedom over the needs of the group' and collectivism (and your definitely familiar with this part) 'puts the needs of the group over the needs of the individual'
This is a false dichotomy. freedom and equality are not opposites, they're the same thing. no one is truly free unless we're all free. when individualists talk about freedom they don't mean freedom from oppressive systems, or the freedom that comes from having a supportive community, they mean the freedom to be the people at the top of the hierarchy. when they say the freedom to buy whatever you want, they mean the freedom to be the people at the top of the hierarchy. it's just selfishness, they're ok with they're freedom being subsidized by others oppression.
the needs of the community means the needs of the average person. you can't put the needs of the group above the needs of the individual because THEYRE THE SAME THING. the individual is a member of that community, and in an actual community, everyone's needs are respected.
putting personal freedom over the needs of the group actually means being selfish, that it. it's the freedom to not care if your action hurt other people.
all of this is perfectly exemplified by the fast fashion industry. we in the west have the freedom to get high quality clothes for extremely cheap prices, the cost is that 250 million children have to work in sweatshops to make that happen. our freedom to wear cheap clothes costs millions of kids their childhood, and pollutes the world more than you can even imagine (it takes litres upon litres of water to make and dye a single t shirt).
that's not freedom, that's hierarchy, which can often feel like the same thing when your the one at the top
I'd like to add my thoughts about this post.
freedom and equality are not opposites, they're the same thing. no one is truly free unless we're all free. when individualists talk about freedom they don't mean freedom from oppressive systems, or the freedom that comes from having a supportive community, they mean the freedom to be the people at the top of the hierarchy. when they say the freedom to buy whatever you want, they mean the freedom to be the people at the top of the hierarchy.
“Freedom and equality are not opposites” is true when you define freedom exclusively as negative freedom, i.e. the fulfillment of basic needs by external agents/circumstances, like having a supportive community, or not being in oppressive systems. However, individualists define freedom as positive freedom, i.e. the ability to do something you personally want without repercussions like choosing what kind of recreation to get, choosing what kind of lifestyle to have, choosing what worldview to adopt.
Most people would like to have positive freedom too alongside with negative freedom and deem it as an equally true freedom. However, collectivists seem to regard the former as unimportant or even bad, maybe due to its personalized/selfish nature. Most people are wary of collectivism because of that — they don't want to be deprived of their personal/selfish preferences. “I don't want to devote my times for the community or a grand cause, I just want to buy and read comics” might be the complaint of one of these people.
the needs of the community means the needs of the average person. you can't put the needs of the group above the needs of the individual because THEYRE THE SAME THING. the individual is a member of that community, and in an actual community, everyone's needs are respected.
When the needs of the community are the needs of average person, the community really represents only average person. In such community, the farther you go from the average, the less your needs are respected, because the community doesn't represent outliers.
As such, no, the needs of the group IS NOT THE SAME THING as the needs of the individual, because the group and the individual are distinct beings. An individual might need X and Y, but the community needs X and Z instead because that's what most other individuals need. And since a group represents its average members, it's perfectly possible to put the group's needs over the individual's needs.
What are the chances that Satsuki is actually autistic?
I mean, she doesn't study medical stuffs in detail because she enjoys it, but because she needs them for saving lives. She doesn't lie mainly because last time she didn't tell the truth sooner, someone died, she ended up looking like lying, and her dad hated her since then.
Is it true that autistic parents tend to be bad parents?
Asking this because seriously, almost all personal accounts I found about having autistic parents are traumatic. Autistic parents are described as either unloving, judgmental, strict, violent, or all of those. And people that told these stories often suggest that autistic parents are like that because autistic people are bad at social and emotional skills which are essential to be a good parent. It's as if parent that are both autistic and good are exception to the rule.
I've been pondering about romantic vs platonic love, and I finally get why the latter is seen as “just a friendship” as if it were less than the former.
What's more physically intimate and ‘invasive’ than having sex? What's more binding than love confession and eventually marriage? What emotion represents the relationship trying to prevent itself from fading away other than jealousy, which is so normalized in romance? Those are what to expect in a romantic relationship.
Meanwhile, you're not meant to have sex in a platonic relationship. You're not meant to marry your platonic partner, not even to live and sleep and growing old under the same roof. You're expected to accept it when your partner get more intimate with someone else then marry and live with that person.
It goes without saying that one kind love isn't necessarily better than another. People have differing need for kinds of love after all. However…
In the end, romantic love has more intimacy, exclusivity, and possessiveness to it, while platonic love has thicker personal boundary, more inclusivity, and less jealousy. Romantic love is harder to achieve and maintain, so it's ‘higher’ than the platonic love. Romantic love ‘invades’ your very body and mind, so it's ‘deeper’ than platonic love.
To be honest, I've been speculating that I might be autistic. I hate warm drink. I hate being in bright light. I hate getting my skin greasy or sticky. I'm very picky when it comes to foods and drinks. I can't tolerate most clothes on my skin until I have to wear said clothes to go out. I've been making spreadsheets of letters, numbers, chemicals, OCs, and other things in secret for years. Sometimes I feel so lazy, and forcing myself to do my responsibility just makes me want to avoid it even more. Sometimes I can't tell if someone is joking, while everyone else seems to get it. I have an urge to imitate what others do, to the point of being nosy if I have no idea of what they're doing.
Yet I've always ignoring that possibility for some reason. It's possible that I'm just weird, since it's common and normal for allistic NTs to be weird. I also has no formal diagnosis, or at least so I thought.
Then lately, I was reminded of a certificate I found years ago in my parents' bookshelf. I remember that in that document there were my name and a line that came across as “has autism” or something. Probably taken when I was a kid. That document and its font size were so ‘modest’ that it didn't impress me at all for years and had me doubting its existence for now.
But if that document actually existed and actually legit, that means I'm diagnosed! Actually autistic! Note that I have no idea how the result of autism diagnosis looks like, so it might be not legit. But if it does, at least I finally know my condition, and I may feel a bit in peace with myself.
But until that time, I have to look for that document in my parents' bookshelf… the problem is that I'm currently out of town for some months.
UPDATE:
So I've come home, and I've found the document. Yeah, I'm called “autistic” several times in it. It's real.
However, the document only has one page of paragraphs and paragraphs talking about how autistic people has difficulties in this and that, &c. There's no chart or numbers. And for context, this diagnosis was made pre-DSM-5 and done by a psychologist.
Is it legit?
Serious question.
How possible is it for a person with low empathy to be kind and considerate to others without being two-faced?
Intense eye contact with Memo
Aloof dark-haired girl
Karen Kujou
Rome, 667 AD (Coalescent)
Someone in Tumblr or Twitter mentioned ripped Kanon, so I made a ripped Kanon.
For some reason I find Sayo ‘mystical’. Maybe because her hair is copper green and long.