these colors aren't websafe

27 she/her I've been on here since 2014 (ack!) for the laffs. art sideblog @willowenna

[markovchaingang]

RULES FOR DATING MY DAUGHTER:

my daughter cannot, through action or inaction, harm a human or allow a human to come to harm

a daughter at rest or in constant motion remains at rest or in constant motion unless acted upon by another force

daughters are never created or destroyed, only transformed

always treat every daughter as loaded, even if you know she isn't

you do not talk about my daughter

[abalidoth]

6. If x and y are my daughters, then there exists a set that has x and y as elements.

7. You can fold my daughter through any two points.

8. I have exactly one daughter parallel to a given line passing through a given point.

[inthefallofasparrow]

9. If my daughter is hung on the wall in the first act, then in the following one she must be fired. Otherwise don't put her there.

10. When two or more daughters are offered for a phenomenon, the simplest daughter is preferable.

11. Any sufficiently advanced daughter is indistinguishable from magic.

12. Without a clear indicator of intent, it is utterly impossible to parody my daughter without someone mistaking it for the genuine article.

13. My daughter is nine-tenths of the law.

[geniusbee]

these are getting weird

[yujateaandpi]

Was driving with my grandmother and in broken English she says “no eyes… no nose… no face. Don’t trust.” To which I looked around wildly in search of this omen of ill portend.

Cybertruck. It was a cybertruck.

[amvs]

[amvs]

[amvs]

[amvs]

[juh-was-deactivated19691231-dea]

[amvs]

yeah

[monkeysky]

Minotaur is not a species

The Minotaur was named that because he was the son of King Minos. Anyone with a bull head has to be named after their dad, like the Kyletaur or something.

[supreme-leader-stoat]

[wintersoldierfell]

hang on i gotta google something

[supreme-leader-stoat]

I am so sorry.

[shamebats]

[image ID: TikTok comment by Spedubopy: I once had a german bouncer look at my pre transition-ID and then back at me and just go "ja das ist an improvement" /end ID]

[abigailunderthemoon]

After I came out as an adult to my childhood best friend, he went back to his family and told them and then when we next spoke he said, ‘we’ve decided this is a good move for you.’

[moss-wizard]

[emilyelizabethfowl]

[hydrachea]

> turns on my computer

> disables a new AI feature that was turned on by default

> opens my email

> disables a new AI feature that was turned on by default

> launches a software

> disables a new AI fea

[cipheramnesia]

Posts that just fundamentally misunderstand horror movies like The Thing, that have thousands of notes, are turning me into the joker.

[cipheramnesia]

"The thing is only acting in self defense because it gets attacked first"

The very first experience it has with the base crew is that they save it from people shooting at it, give it warm hugs, and kill the people trying to deatroy it. After that it attacks and impersonates an unknown (at the time) member of the crew. After that it gets surrounded by dogs who are angry but too scared to approach, then it changes, then it attacks the huskies, and only then does anyone in the base camp treat it with hostility.

You can imagine anything you want for the unknowns (before the movie starts, whether it can tell animals apart, etc), but you are fully wrong if you characterize its reception as being preemptively attacked. You can interpret things lots of ways, but saying the humans at the camp attack it first is factually wrong.

[cipheramnesia]

"None of the men know each other enough to recognize an impersonation."

The entire first act of the movie is devoted to establishing that they know each other with an Intimacy so deep they can anticipate one another's actions and attitudes. They have been in an isolated arctic base for months and months where they can barely leave the same building. They are in one another's personal space throughout the movie. It's a vital plot point that the Thing can immitate people down to memories and personality traits. It's a vital metaphorical point as well. It's so deeply and fundamentally superficial and factually incorrect to call them unfamiliar with each other that it implies total inattention to what is happening on screen.

There are so, so many completely reasonable ways to read ideas of social disaffectation, queerness, and more into the text of the movie without misrepresenting the factual text. I'm screaming and crying and throwing up blood, what else would everyone like to propose about horror movies that sounds great aside from being entirely spurious? Someone told me psychological thrillers are the only good horror movies an hour and a half ago, we could start there. I want people to think in these ways about horror but also talking about it in a way that depends on the the text of the film does require a certain amount of knowing the actual text of the film.

[cipheramnesia]

Actually I think this is important tags that speak to a larger idea about horror conversation:

The Thing is, at heart, not a movie about any singular decision or behavior creating a bad outcome. Baked into the 1982 movie is failure, death, entropy, inevitable loss. It's not a movie that's meant to have a right solution, or a right decision - but when someone comes at this very bleak story without a good grounding in horror, there's a kind of urge to treat it like a puzzle. If only they were closer. If only they communicated.

That's not meeting it where it's at, because it rests on a situation where none of those elements really exist. People acted the best they could in the circumstances with the tools and information they had - and it simply was not enough. Nearly everyone dies. Even with the ambiguous ending, whoever is human is going to die, because it's winter in Antarctica and he is hundreds of miles from anywhere with no shelter and no food and no transportation. That's the sort of horror it is, the idea that when faced with extinction humanity's best efforts won't succeed. Creating an interpretation where if we had "just" this or that is shying away from the bleakness. But at the same time, not facing up to the idea that some things really might not be solvable, that the worst can happen in spite of it all, is a necessary skill. Not one we need to indulge in constantly, but we should have that knowledge.

And in a greater capacity, this is where I see things go very wrong when someone unfamiliar with or disdainful of horror tries to expound on the genre. It comes from a place of not wanting bad things to happen - not rose colored glasses or naivete - but not wanting the animal to die, not wanting the house to burn, not wanting the parents to lose a child. Not wanting to feel sick or hurt, a normal and human response to a genre which constantly steps over those lines, and quite often does so artlessly and with nothing but puerile shock at heart. That makes it difficult to examine in good faith, and wanting to see horror as something good for oneself leads most people to look for the places where horror doesn't stray close to the boundaries. Solving the problem of "bad horror" by presenting horror comedy or psychological thrillers as better side of horror, for example. But that's just another case of wanting to solve something that doesn't exist to have a solution. Part of getting the genre is recognizing not only that bad things happen in horror, but the ugly and awful and transgressive side is not a mistaken choice, not an error. It's part of what horror is, like a person, you can't understand it without understanding what you dislike along with what you like. Horror can't be corrected out of a set of flaws, those have to be accepted as part of seeing the genre as a whole.

[cipheramnesia]

Also, this isn't meant to suggest all horror is hopeless, mean, and cruel. Plent of horror is actually about having made one bad decision, having acted out of hubris, could have been solved by just talking reasonably and so forth. Those are all their own kind of horror plus loads of others. It's more that you can't fix the genre by decoding a right or wrong horror anymore than you can support an interpretation of The Thing where the base crew would have survived or mediated or so on. It's not a genre where a good version exists, because there's too much in it already which is either awful as a matter of fact like pain and death, or which is morally repugnant like racism and homophobia. It's useless to look for a way all of those things can somehow be retroactively solved. It's necessary to face all those things as a part of life. In horror, we have to acknowledge how much of it sucks (artistically) and was made by awful people and had deeply flawed examples of systemic oppression to actually like see the genre in a clear light. And similarly we also have to recognize how much of it is also necessarily transgressive in a way that cannot be anything except unpleasant, because that's part of things people find horrific. You can't have a respectable horror genre, is kinda the thing. There's too much going on, and trying to solve a flaw in like "too much gore" or "animal death" just ends up cutting off a necessary thing to the whole genre. The absolutely most bloodless zero death zero problematic element in the present day zero conflict good ending horror is still going to be uncomfortable because that's the point. Or it might suck. But lots of horror sucks, also, and sometimes that's also interesting.

[radicalityincident]

Seriously anyone engaging with age verification bill discourse in terms of whether or not you think age restricting content is good or bad are completely missing the point.

These bills have nothing to do with keeping young people from doing certain things or protecting the children or whatever. Their point is and always has been one thing: If your operating system knows who you are it is impossible to have any real form of privacy on the computer.

Thats it, thats the whole thing. They want to link your every single usage of computers to your real world identity, and like they have been doing for all of time, they are hiding under the guise of protecting the children.

[great-and-small]

Just in case anyone needs a reason to not feed wildlife- this story out of Washington is a pretty good reminder. This lady has been feeding raccoons for years and now she’s just had to call authorities for help because hundreds of them are parked out on her property and are so aggressive trying to get food that she can’t get into her house.

Neighbors have been reporting excessive raccoon mortality on the adjacent road and several attacks on pets, but still everyone on this video was just talking about how cute it is. Why can’t people see how unfair it is to disrupt an animal’s life like this? What do they think will happen to these raccoons? They should be scampering through a forest or marsh eating crayfish and berries and bugs, not hotdogs and cat food. This is a nightmare situation and it’s entirely one person’s fault.

[datderpycookie]

- tags by @sigmastolen

[great-and-small]

Just in case anyone needs a reason to not feed wildlife- this story out of Washington is a pretty good reminder. This lady has been feeding raccoons for years and now she’s just had to call authorities for help because hundreds of them are parked out on her property and are so aggressive trying to get food that she can’t get into her house.

Neighbors have been reporting excessive raccoon mortality on the adjacent road and several attacks on pets, but still everyone on this video was just talking about how cute it is. Why can’t people see how unfair it is to disrupt an animal’s life like this? What do they think will happen to these raccoons? They should be scampering through a forest or marsh eating crayfish and berries and bugs, not hotdogs and cat food. This is a nightmare situation and it’s entirely one person’s fault.

[datderpycookie]

- tags by @sigmastolen

[razielim]

How To Talk to Anyone About OMB-2026-0034 — Stand Up for Science Foundation

Written By: Colette Delawalla, PhD, CEO

It's also just good general guidance about how to approach political topics you care about with the people in your life who are tough nuts to crack.

from article:

The Administration proposed a sweeping rule that would bar scientists from international collaboration, control what they can tell the public about their research, and give Trump officials complete power over which grants are funded—including authority to stop any grant at any time, for any reason.

Russel Vought (Project 2025 mastermind) is side-stepping Congress by issuing a “uniform guidance” rule proposal:

Put Trump’s hand chosen officials in charge of making sure anyone receiving federal grants is aligned with Trump’s priorities 

Allows these people to cancel grants at any time for any reason

BAN on research for women, people of color, LGBTQ+, religious minorities, climate…

No viewpoint discrimination…except viewpoints that don’t align with Administration policies

BAN on any collaboration with scientists in other nations

Scientists can be denied grants for personal affiliations (e.g., Indivisible, SUFS)

Researchers can’t freely tell the public about their findings

[maykitz]

[blinkees]

updated the character limit on the blinkie maker! previously 15 characters, you can now attempt to cram a whopping 25 characters on your blinkies!! certain fonts and font sizes WILL cut off. use your best judgement ok?

[fasciation-fascination]

perfect

[no-more-dead-dogs]

my beautiful wife, severe thunderstorm warning, is texting me 😌😚😍😍

[foldingfittedsheets]

When I worked at the place selling oils and vinegars I’d sometimes get asked about food. I was, and remain, wildly unqualified to ask about food, but thankfully it was pretty rare. Usually our shoppers were fully aware they knew more than me and they were content to ignore me.

One day a woman in her fifties came in. She looked at the pretty amphora displays and the sample cups before she turned to me. “What would go well with steak?”

“Oh, some of the fruit vinegars would be a nice finisher,” I said, talking out my ass. Like, I’d eat that but whether it’s conventionally accepted to douse a steak in mango vinegar is up for debate.

“I’ve been a vegetarian for forty years, but my doctor suggested I might need more red meat. So I thought I’d get a steak tonight and I don’t know much about preparing it.”

I stared at this woman. This fully adult human woman. Who had just spoken to a doctor. And I said, “Do not buy a steak tonight.”

“What? Why?”

“You’ve been a vegetarian for forty years?”

“Yes?”

“Then your body has no idea how to process meat. You will get so sick.” It was pure luck that I knew this. I had a few hardcore vegetarian friends who had been exposed to meat at potluck dishes and told me about the ensuing horrors as their gentle veggie gut biome was overrun with flesh. And how consequently their toilet overfloweth.

“Really?!”

“Yes,” I said, emphatically. “If you want to try to incorporate meat I would start with a tiny portion of fish, and slowly work your way up, but your insides will not know what to do with steak.”

“Wow! I’m so glad I mentioned that to you.”

I was likewise glad, and ended up selling her a light vinegar that would go nicely with fish. I don’t know if she didn’t have any other vegetarian friends or if her doctor hadn’t said anything to prep her for a radical diet change but it still blows my mind that she didn’t know she couldn’t just cook up and enjoy a steak.

[jurassicpeanut]

No bond stronger than a disabled girl and her disabled cat