My hyrax tribute video
RMH
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
★
Show & Tell

shark vs the universe
Noah Kahan
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
untitled

@theartofmadeline

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

No title available
sheepfilms

roma★
No title available
occasionally subtle
Keni
𓃗

Andulka
h
Mike Driver

seen from Indonesia

seen from United States
seen from Chile
seen from Denmark

seen from Malaysia
seen from Russia

seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from Ukraine

seen from Vietnam

seen from Norway

seen from Malaysia

seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Norway
seen from Türkiye
seen from Austria
seen from Austria
seen from United States
@wasserikosaeder
My hyrax tribute video
if you've never been clinically depressed, this is the short version
One of the things I really appreciate about Dungeon Meshi is how the text is so clearly full of love for animals. Like the true kind of love Laios feels for the monster where he wants to know everything about them, but most of all he respects them and loves them as animals.
One of the chapters I can't stop thinking about is the one about Anne the Kelpie. It's kind of impressive how well it illustrates the different kind of love people have for animals. And how someone that loves an animal isn't necessarily an animal lover. If that makes sense.
When Senshi calls out Anne what he says is "Don't worry Anne's Harmless" but she isn't, she's a wild animal.
Marcille immediately reacts positively about it thinking it's cute she accepts the treat Senshi has for her. And hers and Chilchuck's reaction to Senshi wanting to cross the river on her back is more surprise while Laios immediately realizes how bad of an idea it is.
But Laios is the animal monster lover so how come when he finally is faced with a "docile" monster he doesn't react positively like the others? Marcille even calls him a monster. That's because Laios loves monsters, and Senshi loves Anne.
I've seen this attitude around me several times, where people love a specific animal but what they love is their idea of that animal, they don't really know them because they don't love the animal part of them.
It becomes a "this one is special because I love them" that can quickly become an issue for the animal as much as it is for the person. It's something unfortunate I see time and time again irl.
Anne wasn't wicked, Anne wasn't mean, Anne didn't trick him. Anne was a wild animal and Senshi loved her as Anne but not as a kelpie.
She acted on instinct, maybe she did love Senshi in the way kelpies can love, but animals are still animals and must be respected and treated as such. Climbing on top of Anne's back was the equivalent of putting your arm inside a alligator's mouth, the mouth is gonna close because that's what they're designed to do.
The real life equivalent I see the most of "I love this animal but I don't love the animal part of them" is with dogs. If you insist on loving an animal without acknowledging they ARE an animal they might hurt you, you might hurt them, it will only end in grief.
The best way you can love an animal is by understanding they're an animal.
That is all to say I don't mean that the love Senshi felt for Anne wasn't real or that it's all his fault. He couldn't have known with the information he had and unfortunately it came down to the worst outcome.
I just love dungeon meshi dearly.
One of the blu-ray bonus is an extra about Anne
Dungeon Meshi continues to be amazing "can you really provide for that animal" is something more people should ask themselves before getting a pet <3
Do you ever see something that makes you laugh so hard that you have to buy it
we were put on this earth to eat sandwiches
Mammal in a Sunday Dress, by Georgina M. Cox, 2026
Mammal in a Sunday Dress explores the uneasy relationship between femininity, civilisation, and the animal body. At first glance, the figure appears modest and withdrawn. Her posture is composed, her gaze seemingly lowered towards her bare feet, recalling the conventions of nineteenth-century portraiture where women were often depicted as passive objects of observation. Yet as the viewer moves closer, the illusion collapses. Her eyes are not lowered at all. She is looking directly back. The delayed eye contact transforms the encounter. The viewer approaches believing they are safely observing a woman; instead, they realise they have been observed themselves. The work refuses the traditional power dynamic of portraiture, denying the comfort of anonymous spectatorship. Looking becomes a reciprocal act. For Cox, the painting considers humanity's persistent desire to separate itself from the rest of the animal kingdom. The title quietly undermines this distinction. A "mammal" is not another creature—it is us. The Sunday dress, rich with cultural associations of femininity, morality, and respectability, becomes an attempt to distinguish ourselves from nature. Yet clothing cannot alter biology. Beneath lace and ritual remains the same vulnerable animal body. The work also reflects on the historical relationship between women and nature. Across art, religion, and philosophy, women have repeatedly been positioned as closer to instinct, emotion, reproduction, and the body itself, while men have been aligned with reason, culture, and civilisation. Mammal in a Sunday Dress does not reject this comparison. Instead, it questions why proximity to nature has so often been treated as something lesser. Chiaroscuro isolates the figure within darkness, allowing the luminous dress to symbolise the performance of civilisation while the bare feet quietly return the body to the earth. Neither is presented as more truthful than the other. The painting exists in the tension between performance and instinct, refinement and biology. Mammal in a Sunday Dress ultimately asks a simple but unsettling question: if every layer of culture were stripped away, what would remain? Not a king. Not a saint. Not a gentleman or a lady. Only another mammal, looking back.
source
Teeth of the Valley
Oh I’m so sleepy… won’t you use !tuck to tuck me into bed?
!cursedoak
did anyone else have terrible dreams about a gnarled, twisted forest with one tree more terrible and hateful than all the rest
pet peeve is when a fellow hater conducts their haterism such that they leave the hater community vulnerable to attack. “i think characterizing Character A in x way is boring and annoying” = beautiful, flawless, unimpeachable haterism. no one can tell u that u aren’t allowed to find a certain characterization boring. “it is morally/objectively wrong to characterize Character A in x way” = sloppy, reactionary, overcommitting. you have left our eastern flank open to attack girl what the hell….now my dedicated hater troops are taking fire from YOUR enemies fuckkkkk
Cribraria cancellata by Eric Cho
Tony Capellán (1955-2017)— Caribbean Sea [salvaged rubber sandals, barbed wire, 1996]
the best death note joke format will forever be L asking light a simple question in which logical answer A might increase the likelihood of light being kira and logical answer B similarly might increase the likelihood of light being kira and after a short internal struggle light comes up with answer Y, which no human being has ever thought of as being a normal response in all of living history
the "what are your pronouns" comic is my fave example.
For those unfamiliar, or simply wanting to see it again:
tomorrow I'll do the possible
same energy