maybe cats wanna wear hats too

wendy || she/her || lesbian || TME || trans rights

[drizzledrawings]

☆tiger☆

[datastate]

[ID: Gauche painting of a vibrant orange-red tiger creature against dark foliage, gazing behind itself to meet the viewer. Its stripes are tinted green, with an extra set of legs; it curves around a small, bright red star. End ID.]

[light-camera-bitch-smile]

[oliviawhen]

Just swimming by to say hello. 🦭

[starofhisheart]

Happy pride to those 5 seconds where Charlie Swan thought Jacob was coming out to him in the most insane way possible

[maulscrafts]

^ embroidered a net onto the front pocket of these overalls

^ shrimp in there

[shayucks]

don’t mind how the guitar is lowkey wrong

[shayucks]

[crankybestie]

[shayucks]

[animepopheart]

★ 【JLT4̴͇̓n̶͊̐】 「 Ryou // Bocchi // Nijika // Ikuyo 」 ✔ republished w/permission

[melps]

[polygonsarchive]

🍺🍺🍺

[lookmiik]

cuties

[imsobadatnicknames2]

Of course no heuristic is universally true, but I think if you're an american who considers themselves "progressive" this is a rule of thumb you should probably be considering more often: If the conversation you're currently participating in is only able to happen because someone is going out of their way to speak *your* language, that's probably not the person who's most in need of informing themselves about the other's country in this conversation.

[imsobadatnicknames2]

It's just such a common pattern, how when you disagree with an american about something like e.g. the idea that it's unfair to hate members of the US military, the american will always walk into the conversation with the unshakable assumption that the only reason why you could possibly disagree with them is because *you* are not informed enough about *their* country, that you obviously are not aware of how bad veterans have it once they return home, or of the conditions of poverty and systemic inequality that might drive someone to see the military as their only chance for upward mobility, or of how aggressively military recruiters campaign, or how much propaganda they make, or how they take advantage of systemic inequality to recruit from disadvantaged populations, or a million other things which they will inherently assume you lack an understanding of and proceed to condescendingly explain to you.

All the while they refuse to entertain even for one second the possibility that it might be *them* who has something to learn about *your* country, that they might not be informed enough about the violence and terror the US military enacted upon your people, that *they* might lack some awareness or understanding of the cruelty and suffering that those poor, propagandized, systemically disenfranchised kids lied to by recruiters gladly participated in enacting which might drive even people who are fully aware of their conditions to still harbor resentment towards them. The possibility that the other person might have a better understanding of the conditions in their country than viceversa and still disagree with them will never even cross their mind.

[imsobadatnicknames2]

Of course no heuristic is universally true, but I think if you're an american who considers themselves "progressive" this is a rule of thumb you should probably be considering more often: If the conversation you're currently participating in is only able to happen because someone is going out of their way to speak *your* language, that's probably not the person who's most in need of informing themselves about the other's country in this conversation.

[imsobadatnicknames2]

It's just such a common pattern, how when you disagree with an american about something like e.g. the idea that it's unfair to hate members of the US military, the american will always walk into the conversation with the unshakable assumption that the only reason why you could possibly disagree with them is because *you* are not informed enough about *their* country, that you obviously are not aware of how bad veterans have it once they return home, or of the conditions of poverty and systemic inequality that might drive someone to see the military as their only chance for upward mobility, or of how aggressively military recruiters campaign, or how much propaganda they make, or how they take advantage of systemic inequality to recruit from disadvantaged populations, or a million other things which they will inherently assume you lack an understanding of and proceed to condescendingly explain to you.

All the while they refuse to entertain even for one second the possibility that it might be *them* who has something to learn about *your* country, that they might not be informed enough about the violence and terror the US military enacted upon your people, that *they* might lack some awareness or understanding of the cruelty and suffering that those poor, propagandized, systemically disenfranchised kids lied to by recruiters gladly participated in enacting which might drive even people who are fully aware of their conditions to still harbor resentment towards them. The possibility that the other person might have a better understanding of the conditions in their country than viceversa and still disagree with them will never even cross their mind.

[imsobadatnicknames2]

Of course no heuristic is universally true, but I think if you're an american who considers themselves "progressive" this is a rule of thumb you should probably be considering more often: If the conversation you're currently participating in is only able to happen because someone is going out of their way to speak *your* language, that's probably not the person who's most in need of informing themselves about the other's country in this conversation.

[imsobadatnicknames2]

It's just such a common pattern, how when you disagree with an american about something like e.g. the idea that it's unfair to hate members of the US military, the american will always walk into the conversation with the unshakable assumption that the only reason why you could possibly disagree with them is because *you* are not informed enough about *their* country, that you obviously are not aware of how bad veterans have it once they return home, or of the conditions of poverty and systemic inequality that might drive someone to see the military as their only chance for upward mobility, or of how aggressively military recruiters campaign, or how much propaganda they make, or how they take advantage of systemic inequality to recruit from disadvantaged populations, or a million other things which they will inherently assume you lack an understanding of and proceed to condescendingly explain to you.

All the while they refuse to entertain even for one second the possibility that it might be *them* who has something to learn about *your* country, that they might not be informed enough about the violence and terror the US military enacted upon your people, that *they* might lack some awareness or understanding of the cruelty and suffering that those poor, propagandized, systemically disenfranchised kids lied to by recruiters gladly participated in enacting which might drive even people who are fully aware of their conditions to still harbor resentment towards them. The possibility that the other person might have a better understanding of the conditions in their country than viceversa and still disagree with them will never even cross their mind.

[imsobadatnicknames2]

Of course no heuristic is universally true, but I think if you're an american who considers themselves "progressive" this is a rule of thumb you should probably be considering more often: If the conversation you're currently participating in is only able to happen because someone is going out of their way to speak *your* language, that's probably not the person who's most in need of informing themselves about the other's country in this conversation.

[imsobadatnicknames2]

It's just such a common pattern, how when you disagree with an american about something like e.g. the idea that it's unfair to hate members of the US military, the american will always walk into the conversation with the unshakable assumption that the only reason why you could possibly disagree with them is because *you* are not informed enough about *their* country, that you obviously are not aware of how bad veterans have it once they return home, or of the conditions of poverty and systemic inequality that might drive someone to see the military as their only chance for upward mobility, or of how aggressively military recruiters campaign, or how much propaganda they make, or how they take advantage of systemic inequality to recruit from disadvantaged populations, or a million other things which they will inherently assume you lack an understanding of and proceed to condescendingly explain to you.

All the while they refuse to entertain even for one second the possibility that it might be *them* who has something to learn about *your* country, that they might not be informed enough about the violence and terror the US military enacted upon your people, that *they* might lack some awareness or understanding of the cruelty and suffering that those poor, propagandized, systemically disenfranchised kids lied to by recruiters gladly participated in enacting which might drive even people who are fully aware of their conditions to still harbor resentment towards them. The possibility that the other person might have a better understanding of the conditions in their country than viceversa and still disagree with them will never even cross their mind.