Oi dont even joke lad
i don't do bad sauce passes
One Nice Bug Per Day
Monterey Bay Aquarium
hello vonnie
🪼

⁂
sheepfilms

祝日 / Permanent Vacation

blake kathryn

if i look back, i am lost
Today's Document
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
Game of Thrones Daily
d e v o n

No title available
Peter Solarz
Xuebing Du

izzy's playlists!
occasionally subtle

★
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Greece

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

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 Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from Russia
seen from South Korea

seen from United States

seen from T1
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
@vulphi
Oi dont even joke lad
If we wanted to engage in nuance (lol, lmao) on the "are audiobooks reading" debate, we really do need to bring literacy, and especially blind literacy, into the conversation.
Because, yes, listening to a story and reading a story use mostly the same parts of the brain. Yes, listening to the audiobook counts as "having read" a book. Yes, oral storytelling has a long, glorious tradition and many cultures maintained their histories through oral history or oral + art history, having never developed a true written language, and their oral stories and histories are just as valid and rich as written literature.
We still can't call listening in the absence of reading "literacy."
The term literacy needs to stay restricted to the written word, to the ability to access and engage with written texts, because we need to be able to talk about illiteracy. We need to be able to identify when a society is failing to teach children to read, and if we start saying that listening to stories is literacy, we lose the ability to describe those systemic failures.
Blind folks have been knee-deep in this debate for a long time. Schools struggle to provide resources to teach students Braille and enforcing the teaching of Braille to low-vision and blind children is a constant uphill battle. A school tried to argue that one girl didn't need to learn Braille because she could read 96-point font. Go check what that is. The new prevalence of audiobooks and TTS is a huge threat to Braille literacy because it provides institutions with another excuse to not provide Braille education or Braille texts.
That matters. Braille-literate blind and low-vision people have a 90% employment rate. For those who don't know Braille, it's 30%. Braille literacy is linked to higher academic success in all fields.
Moving outside the world of Braille, literacy of any kind matters. Being able to read text has a massive impact on a person's ability to access information, education, and employment. Being able to talk about the inability to read text matters, because that's how we're able to hold systems accountable.
So, yes, audiobooks should count as reading. But, no, they should not count as literacy.
Finally, a good fucking take.
Fuck Meyer-Briggs whatever typology. This INTFP shit is only for redditors up their own asses to substitute for a personality. Use my new typology instead!
Your ideal environment is:
Hot/Cold
Wet/Dry
Bright/Dark
Loud/Quiet
HWBL - beach boy
HWBQ - tropical fish
HWDL - dingy club bathroom hookup
HWDQ - the swamp woman
HDBL - CoachellaBurningmanSouthbysouthwestACL attendee
HDBQ - Lizard
HDDL - Vegas babeyyyy
HDDQ - Trapped in a slot canyon
CWBL - Rowdy Lobsterman Crew
CWBQ - penguin living
CWDL - port angeles basement show
CWDQ - bruminating amphibian/hypothermic mammal
CDBL - ski resort
CDBQ - Christmas in Nebraska
CDDL - mcmurdo station rave
CDDQ - corpse
Listen, fellow trans women, I love you all, but if you think that trans men or transmascs are an oppressor class you need to log the fuck off because you are being brainpoisoned by discourse-mongers. That is a legitimately rocks for brains take
There is a HUUUUUGE gap between "transfems experience a unique intersection of oppressions which are not experienced by transmascs", which is true, "some passing trans men benefit from male privilege", which is true, "trans people are not immune to transphobic rhetoric and this can sometimes take the form of transmascs engaging in transmisogyny", which is true, and "transmascs should be treated as equivalent to cis men because trans men are men and therefore as men they are a danger to trans women" like do you see where the gigantic leap of logic comes in here?
There is something personally offensive to me about accounts that go out of their way to post about transmascs being dangerous or untrustworthy or transmisogynistic when the primary danger to trans women right now is the goddamn United States government. Like we've got people in the white house who would outlaw all HRT if given the opportunity and you're gonna post about trans men?? I don't even mean this in a "we have bigger fish to fry" sort of way I mean this is the sense that building solidarity is one of the most important things you can do when faced with a hostile government and society. It's not just that the claims being made are bullshit and transphobic it's that the whole thing feels actively self-destructive toward creating any kind of community that's of any use to anyone
people were reblogging my oldass ctommy art so i wanted to draw him again + a mini redraw of one of the specific pieces i did
when you’re mean to me, this is who you’re being mean to
come home s o o n
does anyone have that 4chan greentext about giving in a future dystopia run by corporations and that guy gets a sams club platinum and escapes from wallmart or some shit like that. wanted to show a friend
"sams club" "walmart" you fake fucking fan. it was costco
If I was a wasp, I'd sting you. If I was a venomous snake, I'd bite you. If I was a lion, I'd maul you. If I was a swamp, I'd poison you. If I was a mountain, I'd fall and crush you. If I was the ocean, I'd drown you. If I was a cat, I'd never let you touch me. If I was a dog, I'd run away. If I was a horse, I'd never let you break me. If I was a farm, I wouldn't grow for you. If I was a fire, I'd burn out without warming you. If I was a home, I would fall apart around you.
If I was harmless and small, and easy to hold, you would love me. If I was a worm you could put me in the soft earth and I would be helpless in your care. Of course you could love me, but could you love me if I stung you, bit you, pulled against you, hid and didn't understand you but wasn't harmless or helpless at all?
Could you love something for what it is, when that means you can't touch it or show kindness, maybe even never be near it, and it might never, ever love you back? Is it okay to exist and not belong to anyone, to not be useful to anyone, to be dangerous or poisonous or a failure but a part of the world all the same?
I know this is a metaphor, but if you take it kind of literally, there is an answer to this.
We build wildlife preserves. Often explicitly for the protection of animals and ecosystems that can and have killed humans.
Whenever a whale gets stranded on a beach, CROWDS show up ad risk getting bludgeoned to death trying to get it back into the water.
Every Zoo has a reptile house full of venomous snakes and a team of humans dedicated to giving them the best quality of life possible.
There are volunteer beekeepers who will travel for miles and miles and hours and hours to relocate an entire hive.
There are people who rehabilitate dangerous dogs and horses
There are people who restore structurally unsound houses
There are people who study the way that fire burns so it can rejoin the ecosystem and not be smothered on sight.
Every day, millions of people get up and devote themselves to things that can and will kill them by their nature. Things they can't touch or show kindness to. Things they can't go near. Things that are wholly incapable of loving them back.
And they do it because they love them.
Everything dangerous, everything poisonous, everything 'useless'- absolutely everything has someone, often many thousands of people, who loves them exactly as they are, without expectation that their affection will be returned.
It is alright for anything, even you, to not belong to anyone, to not be useful, to be frightening and dangerous and not adhere to any standard of success. It's all alright. You are loved. You are loved. You are loved.
Nishiyama Hoen, Insect Procession,
detail, ink and color on silk, 1851
Humans are good sometimes actually
disney may have inadvertently created the single funniest reverse advertisement scheme of all time. EVERY SINGLE ad break for The Beauty FX started with an advertisement for botox and was followed shortly by one of those ubiquitous advertisements for GLP-1s. my father and i were in hysterics. poob is forcing you to watch advertisements for the torment nexus in between segments of their new live action adaptation of classic sci fi comic Do Not Create the Torment Nexus. literally on my television a shot of someone who had just taken a fictional miracle drug to become beautiful screaming and writhing on the floor with their organs and teeth and blood spilling out, cutting directly to a real life advertisement for a drug that makes you beautiful. don’t worry body is per fect place for beautiful miracle drug. miracle drug has no problems ever in body. what the fuck is a metaphor. oh god i can’t breathe
Where’s the Hunter S Thompson we’re at war now quote Bring me the Hunter S Thompson we’re at war now quote
1 week post 9/11
Hunter S. Thompson predicts a 'guerilla warfare on a global scale' between the United States and the merciless fanatics responsible for the
I wonder how many people who have self diagnosed with Autism have actually ever gone into the DSM-5 and read through the diagnostic criteria for Autism. You would think that would be like the bare fucking minimum for self diagnosis but judging by the 132,000 notes on that post about how extreme social impairment (often perceived as rudeness) isn't a symptom of Autism. I think like 95% of you guys "self diagnosed" based on a couple of relatable tumblr text posts.
I'm not against self-diagnosis, but I do believe that it has to be done with immense caution and research, or else it risks snowballing into social movements such as (but not limited to) the autism boom. A social movement is exactly what you don't want a diagnosis to become, because the very moment that it ceases being a set of criteria for a disorder and instead becomes a "cool kids club", you're going to get people who identify with the label only because they want to be included in the in-group. That's not an evil instinct; it's natural. But it isn't helpful.
I was not self-diagnosed. When I was about 12 or 13, my therapist sat me down and said that she thought I might have a disorder and that I would have to do some tests to be sure. I was tested for 2 weeks for hours at a time. When the results came back, I was told that I had something called "Autism Spectrum Disorder"--a term which I had never heard of up until that point. As it turned out, autism is rampant in my dad's side of the family, and several of my second cousins had been diagnosed with it ten years before me.
My autism is specific. I have issues reading expressions and social cues. I have a flat affect when speaking. I am extremely averse to physical touch. I don't understand others' emotions. Before I learned to control myself, my temper used to destroy things and physically hurt people. It takes effort for me to overcome these things, and if I don't consciously work on presenting myself in a certain way, I come across as very anti-social. The way that my autism presents is very similar to the way that autistic members of my family present, because it's a family trait that I and 3 branches of my family inherited from my great-grandparents. Lineage does matter when it comes to diagnosis, because autism is heritable in an estimated 70-90% of cases. As Ashkenazi Jews, we are more prone to this diagnosis due to the very tiny gene pool we have among our ethnic group. Statistics like these matter when you are considering your own possibility of diagnosis.
When people who are not autistic identify as having ASD, what they are doing is re-defining the term to mean something else, thereby limiting the usefulness of ASD as a diagnosis (or in some cases, rendering it utterly meaningless). You do not need to have autism to feel socially isolated from your peers. You do not need to have autism to have a weird interest that you talk too much about. Autism isn't about those things. It's not "about" anything. It's a set of criteria that you either meet or do not meet. If you do not experience some kind of social impairment, you are not autistic, and it does not benefit you or anyone else to identify as someone with autism.
#that giraffe is being so cute and curious and gentle#and that is running full speed because this is the worst fucking day if his LIFE#like IMAGINE having your butt gently scooted by the snoot of a pressence so massive#your body is not designed to even see high enough to see the top of#abd hes just gently nudging you along as you run for your life as fast as your legs can carry you#giraffe is playing humans are enjoying turtle is living out a cosmic horror story
✨️The giraffe✨️:
Vs.
The turtle:
1. should we throw a party should we invite bella hadid
2. you people can’t do anything
3. name one hobby you have outside of media consumption
4. I think you guys might be thinking of yourselves too much