My hot take for today is that The Far Side and The Twilight Zone actually describe the same thing, except viewed from opposite ends of the horror--comedy spectrum.
Okay, but seriously. What stands out to me about both of them is that, on the one hand, they're rooted in the tropes of post-war American suburban life, but on the other hand, they both seem to be reacting in different ways to their creators' bone-deep understanding that the bourgeois values that are being relentlessly naturalized at the time...aren't actually natural? That they're an atom-deep imposition on a nonhuman nature that will never accord with them and is fundamentally stranger than humans are capable of conceiving, and that the illusion of normalcy is just a distraction from the chaos below. Humans behave like animals, animals behave like humans, and always the nuclear armageddon hangs over both proceedings like a cloud. It's like...modern civilization trying to process the knowledge of its own mortality.
quick question why does your cat command you to print something on the printer
he really likes to watch the printer print. It seems like he thinks thereās some kind of creature in there that I have the mysterious power to summon that he can then hunt for sport?
he sticks his entire arm inside the printer and breaks it if I donāt put some kind of physical burrier between him and the printer but like he purrs so loud when it starts printing and will beg harder for people to print things than he will for treats.
he just loves hunting the printer so much. he even tried to climb inside the place the paper comes out of the printer when he was a kitten.
No matter where he is in the apartment if the printer makes a noise he sprints full speed. He also knows which button to press to get the printer to print like the ink levels info and alignment sheet, so you have to make sure itās off or locked up or he will print nonstop himself and then attack the printer and jam it.
is it inconvenient that my cat is obsessed with the printer? yes, but damn if itās not also adorable.
I donāt actually have a ton of photos of him sticking his whole arm in there though because stopping him from jamming the printer is usually a task that involves all of my arms and also all of my roommates arms.
Thinking about the post because I had to unplug the printer today because he broke into the closet and printed the info sheet 3 times in a row and did bite me when I tried to stop him
The face of a boy who is sulking because I expelled him from the printer closet.
the good news is that my cat is so happy, the bad news is that my sticker cutting machine that I got recently instils the same curiosity and lust for violence in my cat that my printer does so no matter what I do I will not know a moments peace.
how eerie to hear they're going to remake carrie. how eerie to hear they have made the mother into some kind of gentle well-meaning figure.
carrie is almost explicitly about the cycles of abuse. it is almost explicitly about how women and girls are taught to reproduce the patriarchy. it cannot be isolated from either message.
it shows cruel teenagers not as a random whacky plot point but instead to highlight that we are taught to mock other girls for not being fuckable; lest we ourselves be considered not-fuckable. we will eat our own kind to survive. nobody helps her because to help carrie would be to turn against the patriarchy.
carrie's mother has experienced abuse at the hands of her husband and religion not as a "sad backstory" but instead because it lampshades her behavior when she then turns and abuses her daughter while citing that same religion. we are forced to ask the question: what is the difference between the patriarchy and religion? aren't they both systems of control? we often see mothers as being the "ultimate" in innocence and kindness - but this book challenges that narrative. abusive mothers exist, and and always have. abusive women exist and always have. white women, after all, love voting for donald trump.
men are almost absent from the book, but their presence lingers. it feels almost like the red mark made after a slap - the men do not have to be there; the women will continue to abide by the rules without question. it is a devastating, haunting condemnation of the notion of feminine fragility. it accurately asserts that women are cruel, are capable, are power-hungry - and often are hiding behind perceived innocence to mask that cruelty. the abuse carrie experiences rests in a doubled betrayal: it is because of another woman. the supposed "sisterhood" is revealed to be thin, a guise of equanimity that is only offered to the "right" type of girl/woman.
many of us were not the right type of girl.
to go back on these main and obvious themes of the book - to rewrite the mother as some caring and sad creature is... a curious choice. i can't explain it, but it feels almost like censorship to me. it refuses a deeper meaning of the book (and one that questions the patriarchy) in favor of the incredibly thin plot of "what if scary girl had scary powers." i literally don't even know what level of misogyny it is that we have to defang everyone around her in order to tell her story. i'm baffled by it.
in the era of trad wives endlessly posting abusive content of their children online - the adaptation had plenty of meat to modernize her mother. in the era of AI and revenge porn and social media - there's a huge amount of space for a competent writer to play around in. after all, if the abuse is recorded and posted to media - and as the audience we're watching it without interfering - the story is now about us. it asks us who we are comfortable bullying.
it's okay if you feel like you don't have the writing chops to talk about how many religions are abusive and tacitly enable domestic violence. it's okay if you feel like you couldn't write a believable teenage bully. it's okay if you're just interested in "scary girl has scary powers."
but maybe, i don't know, choose a different fucking story?
heyyyyy itās october again which means itās time for
āØYetoās Superb SoupāØ
I had posted a recipe in the comments last year, but I decided to make a better version
Ingredients:
one 2lb kabocha (you can use an equal-sized pie pumpkin, but in my opinion kabocha has a much butterier texture and nuttier flavor. Also the yeti uses kabocha in the game so it gets points for accuracy)
1-3 carrots (last year the store had the fattest carrot I had ever seen. This year I needed 3 carrots to match that volume. Listen to your heart)
2-3 celery stalks (equal to the amount of carrot)
1/2 white onion
6 garlic cloves
(optional) 2 habanero peppers
mirin/cooking wine
1 box of fish stock (if you want it vegetarian, use kelp dashi stock)
1 box of vegetable stock
4oz goat cheese. Iāve tried making this with cream cheese and feta, but the flavor really doesnāt land right without the goat cheese.
1 cup? (<- it was eyeballed) heavy cream
.7lb filet of salmon
??tbsp olive oil
6 tbsp butter
a few pinches of flour
thyme, paprika, nutmeg, red pepper flakes salt & pepper
(optional) gronions to garnish
Step 1) Preheat oven to 400Ā°F/204Ā°C. Slice and deseed kabocha
Step 2) coat the pumpkin in a thin layer of olive oil. Season with thyme (I like dried thyme but fresh is better!), ground nutmeg, paprika, red pepper flakes, salt & pepper.
Bake for 30-50 minutes until itās soft enough to scoop off the rind with a spoon. Thinner kabocha might only take 30 minutes, and thicker kabocha (like below) or a cake pumpkin may take 40+ minutes.
note: if your kabocha/pumpkin is especially thick, your soup may end up tasting sweeter. If you want it more umami, use less of your chosen gourd or maybe add a splash of soy sauce to the broth? Havenāt tried that but itād probably work
Step 3) Prep all your other veggies while youāre waiting for the pumpkin to bake. Dice the onion and set it aside. Chop the celery & carrots into Chunks and mince the garlique
Step 4) Wait until the timer for the pumpkin has 20 minutes or less left. Heat up your pot/dutch oven on high/med-high heat, melt 2 tbsp of butter, and add the onions. After about 6 minutes, add the garlic. After another few minutes, sprinkle flour and stir, and keep frying until it browns.
Step 5) Add the rest of the butter, the rest of the veggies, and stir. Deglaze the pan with a splash of mirin/cooking wine.
If you timed it right, the pumpkin should be about done. Using a spoon, scoop the rind off the pumpkin. While you do that, periodically check on the veggies, adding another sprinkle of flour and a some of the fish stock as it gets dry. Itāll create a sort of paste and the onions will be pretty browned at this point.
Step 6) Chop the pumpkin & add it to the pot. Add the rest of the stock. If youāre using habanero, slice it and add it now. Add any other seasonings (it may need more salt) to taste. Once the soup boils, turn the heat to low and cover.
Personally, I prefer soups with Chunks in them + I think itās more authentic to what the yeti made, but if you REALLY feel compelled to blend your soup, do it now.
Step 7) While the soup is heating up, get out a frying pan and add a tablespoon or two of some olive oil/butter on med-high heat. Add the salmon filet to the pan (scale side down) and just let it sit there. Donāt touch it. When it turns opaque halfway up, flip it until itās fully cooked.
Once itās cooked, remove it from the pan, remove the skin, and shred it into bite size pieces. If your salmon was really thick like mine was, and some parts of it are still pink, then toss the pink parts back in the pan to let them cook a little longer.
Add the salmon to the soup.
Step 8) Once the soup has been simmering for a few minutes and youāre too impatient to keep waiting, remove it from heat, add the goat cheese & heavy cream, garnish with gronions or whatever herb of choice, and enjoy!
In the game, this soup restores eight hearts, and it truly does feel that replenishing. This soup could cure any disease.
There's got to be some tight pussied tboy twink out there who refers to himself as "the bear trap" and thinks he's the funniest motherfucker in the world
Neighbors to the north, I know weāve had beef recently but please avoid burning down.
On a serious note, if anyone has any donation links to help the communities under evacuation orders like the Mishkeegogamang First Nation, Iād love to share those.
Individuals who support the goals and vision of AN7GC can make a donation. The ways to donate: call us, mail your donation, use Paypal or Ca
100% of donations are dedicated to supporting Namaygoosisagagun emergency response and community recovery efforts.
Supporting Indigenous menstruators across Turtle Island by ensuring they have access to menstrual products, and by providing vital menstrual
Donations go towards making sure communities have access to menstral products during times of crisis.
True North Aid provides practical humanitarian support to northern and remote Indigenous communities in Canada through community-led project
True North Aid has a Wildfire Relief program and provides practical Support to remote indigenous communities.
Learn how the Ontario SPCA and Humane Society helps animals during emergencies with disaster response, preparedness resources and emergency
Ontario SPCA and Humane Society is helping with emergency food, supplies, transport, and first aid for displaced animals and are helping families keep their pets when they are displaced.
(A bit more context for readers: The people of Namaygoosisagagun First Nation got no official warning or government help with evacuation and had to escape the fire in small boats. A lot of them got out with nothing but their pets and the clothes on their backs. The buildings in the community have suffered 'widespread destruction' (direct quote). The provincial and federal governments are already bickering about who's going to be funding the recovery, etc.)
theres no difference between exercise and black magic both of them hurt your body at first and drain you of energy but the more you dabble in it the more powerful you become
I get in theory why people complain about het ships or whatever, I get wanting to watch queer media I really do, but I guess where yāall lose me is like. I saw some asshole on a post about Sinners complaining it was āhetslopāāthis person was specifically doing so while also claiming Remmick was a queer character and thus they were justified in caring more about him than the Black protagonists. which is a whole other disgusting can of worms that has been well addressed by others at this point. but even in the absence of that part of the argument, like, no, i actually donāt think that a hunger for queer stories is an especially good excuse to deride and dismiss a piece of landmark Black filmmaking, especially as a non-Black person. I have a post thatās been going around encouraging folks to engage with more Native stories and characters, and I had someone come onto that post saying in the tags that theyād need these stories to be queer in order to care. and I just think that, you know, sucks! like obviously as I queer Native also want to see more of those stories too. but idk how else to put it other than to say that Black people and people of color shouldnāt have to be like you in order for you to care about our narratives and experiences. and I think some of yāall are using this disdain for heterosexuality as a cover for your unexamined racial biases. itās not okay to be racist to people just because those people happen to be straight, and you continue to be white before you are queer.
When I lived in London there was a murder of crows that lived near me. I fed them often, they brought me presents (shiny rubbish and cigarette butts they found on the floor to thank me.)
When I moved, Iām certain they understood I was leaving because I had all my stuff and gave them lots of food and compliments.
But, they chased down my friend who lived in the next burrough over. They had recognised that friend with me several times and followed them to their house when they couldnāt find me.
They adopted my friend and it was now my friendās job to bring them snacks and receive the presents.
This was maybe 6-7 years ago.
I visited London last year. Went to see my friend. The crows all not only recognised me, they tracked me down. We got into my friendās flat and not twenty minutes later there was chaos on the balcony.
We open the curtains, the entire fucking murder is there shouting because they wanted to see me.
You wake up one morning, and feel something is off. Your pillow smells strangely sweet. Youāre still groggy with sleep, and try to hug your pillow closer. A piece of it simply breaks in your hand. It is made of chocolate.
You try to pull the blanket off of yourself, and you realize that, it too, is made of chocolate.
You try to shake it off, and step out of bed. Your carpet feels strangely spongy. You look down, only to realize itās actually cake. Lovingly baked, and smelling of sweet fruit. You grab a piece, and cautiously take a bite. It is one of the most delicious cakes you have ever eaten.
You get up, confused, and exit your room to see if the rest of your house is like this. The door handle melts in your hand as you hold onto it, and covers it with dark chocolate carefully painted gold.
The rest of the carpet on the floor is still cake, the guardrails on the stairs leading down are tempered chocolate, the tiles on the floor are the same, the windows are sugar glass, everything is edible.
You run outside, knocking over the lovingly crafted chocolate front door in a panic.
You realize, in horror, that your house was not an exception. The bushes, the grass, the asphalt on the road, the trees, birds, the world itself, is chocolate.
Somewhere, not too far away, stands a man. Amaury fucking Guichon.
I really donāt want to open this can of worms because Tumblr hath no fury like people called out on their political performativeness but it is literally driving me up the wall to watch people react to Serkisā ākeep Tolkien whiteā commentary by insisting twice as hard that Tolkien would descend down to earth and dropkick the entire Republican party to hell or whatever, just because they want to ensure that a piece of media they enjoy isnāt seen as being morally impure. Case in point: I have seen at least five instances of Tolkienās āI hate apartheidā valedictorian address being used as a ācounterā to Serkis being racist, including by actual news outlets.
Except itās only ever the āI hate apartheidā line thatās shared, and not the actual quote in its full context. Because here it is:
If we consider what Merton College and what the Oxford School of English owes to the Antipodes, to the Southern Hemisphere, especially to scholars born in Australia and New Zealand, it may well be felt that it is only just that one of them should now ascend an Oxford chair of English. Indeed it may be thought that justice has been delayed since 1925. There are of course other lands under the Southern Cross. I was born in one; though I do not claim to be the most learned of those who have come hither from the far end of the Dark Continent. But I have the hatred of apartheid in my bones; and most of all I detest the segregation or separation of Language and Literature. I do not care which of them you think White.
Which is to say. This isnāt exactly the antiracist quote of the century, to say the least. This is a white South Africa born man and a white Australian shaking hands and going āomg we relateā and expressing what is a very, very mild āsegregation is not greatā opinion in order to convey his thoughts on an academic subject, ie the confluence of language and literature. Using race to make a point about his own subject of interest, in his own interest, which is, amusingly enough, what a lot of ostensibly well meaning progressive seem to be doing.
I also think that some of the general surprise around āwhat do you mean large swathes of the Tolkien fandom are incredibly conservative!?ā in lib/left Tolkien fandom is the result of a tendency in said parts of the fandom to transpose oneās own progressiveness onto Tolkien and turn a blind eye to things like, say, the Shire being a very specifically mid-century British racist construct that is very, very clear in its politics, often going so far as to insist itās anarchist or an ideal society or whatever the fuckā¦ and then getting really Pikachu-meme ābut theyāre misreading itā every single time a conservative explains exactly what it is about the legendarium that they really love, and get surprised when someone uses the Shire being a racist construct to do more racism. It is 2026 let us do away with āI donāt see colourā interpretations of media, I beg. Nobody is cancelling you for enjoying a book that is not kind to race. Most of the books I love are not kind to race.
I genuinely donāt have the energy to go deeper into it now because I and others have been beating this drum for ages but like man. Man. Iām not surprised by Serkisā comment. I donāt really give a shit about what Andy Serkis says and does because if I was the kind of person who gave a fuck about Andy āI felt like an ethnic minority on the Black Panther setā āI somehow interpreted Animal Farm in the most ridiculous way possibleā Serkisā opinions on anything, let alone race, my life would be much sadder. I think the adaptation will be an enshittified money-grab, and I will probably embrace cannibalism when McDonalds inevitably starts giving out little Gollums with every Happy Meal. Again.
What I am surprised and disappointed by is how the liberal-left reaction to this shit is to always and forever just either pretend it doesnāt exist in the text, or is the result of a complete misreading. So seldom is the response āfuck me, this book has some real wild thoughts on race, letās see how we can engage creatively with that in an adaptationā. Which has never happened. In fact, all your thoughts on Amazon and lore faithfulness and other adaption criticism or applause aside, TROP, the only Tolkien interpretation that has directly engaged with race has thus far done so very, very badly, and only on a surface level. Why?
Because the loudest parts of liberal Tolkien fandom is not interested in exploring race as it exists in the text, to explore it progressively, to engage creatively with the structural conservatism present within the very construction of Middle Earth. Theyāre interested in concessions that change very little: you can have your brown elves, as long as we donāt have to think about the implications of foundational aspects of our beloved world, which we relate to greatly and do not wish to think about why we relate to it beyond our own experience of encountering the text.
No, itās always either an insistence that the Racists are Wrong because the Text is Pure, or a slight, grudging concession that Tolkien had āa few racist elementsā but ānothing like the racism of todayā. Of course itās nothing like the racism of today. Tolkien isnāt writing in 2026. It was the racism of yesterday, and it is very clearly written into the text. Tolkien is not your mildly problematic grandpa. Tolkien was an Oxford don with an enormous, wide-ranging cultural impact, and refusing to acknowledge that is the misreading, not the pointing out of or engagement with structural racism within the text.
There's also a version of this where people cite Tolkien's 1938 letter to the German publisher, ie the one where he refuses to confirm he's of "Aryan" descent and basically tells them to fuck off, as the other canonical "proof text" that Tolkien Was Not Racist, and it does the same flattening as the valedictorian quote. It's a great letter, very āget thee gone from my gateā but it is also a letter about refusing a specific, legally coded Nazi racial category, not a statement about the internal racial logic of his own fiction.
Nobody is saying Tolkien was a fascist white supremacist Nazi. Hell, Tolkienās own thoughts on military atrocity in general is pretty clear in the depictions of the escalating kinslayings. But people love to conflate "hated actual fascism, said so on the record and is very evident in his fiction" with "therefore the legendarium contains no racialised hierarchy," as though those two things have to rise or fall together, when they don't. You can be sincerely, personally opposed to Nazi race science and apartheid violence and still write a mythology where moral and aesthetic worth consistently map onto a Northern-European somatic ideal. Because the racialisation Tolkien both inherited and passed on wasn't Nazi race science, it was the broader Edwardian/interwar philological raciology he was actually swimming in, hell, drowning in, considering the Oxford environment. And I find it so, so frustrating how fandom keeps failing to make this distinction: structural racialisation and personal bigotry are not the same axis, and refusing to be measured on one doesn't clear you on the other.
The Southrons/Easterlings material is obviously the part most quoted when it comes to Tolkienās āproblematic elementsā except it's imo super telling how rarely it actually gets quoted compared to how often it gets vaguely waved at (except Charles E Mills. I love you Charles E Mills). Anyway āBlack men like half-trolls," swarthy, slant-eyed, riding out of the south and east to serve Sauronā¦ itās the same mapping of good-north/evil-south-and-east you get in a dozen other early-twentieth-century adventure texts. And this imo actually undermines the "it's just medievalism, calm down" defense, because medievalism is a selectively retrospective construction of which past you're claiming and which one you're othering, not some sort of static, neutral historical styling.
Tolkien's medievalism is specifically Northern European heroic-elegiac medievalism, the "Northernness" he talks about loving as a kid, and that aesthetic preference is not extractable from the racial hierarchy it produces on the page. You cannot keep the aesthetic and disclaim the politics because as in all art, the aesthetic is the politics, that's what "structural" means as opposed to "incidentalā, and I just wish that many extremely clever people who understand this in a contemporary sense would allow themselves to feel uncomfortable and look at it in a beloved text.
Jackson's trilogy didn't invent racialisation in Tolkien, hell I think he even softened some of it because the Scouring is straight up impossible to adapt without it being very clear about its politics, but his adaptation does go quite some way make the existing racism legibleā¦ casting, costuming, choreography and cinematography does the same racialised sorting the text does, and does it visually: Uruk-hai as a kind of grunting brutalised, brutalistic mass, Haradrim on oliphaunts as a fairly straightforward Orientalist boogeyman, and the Fellowship itself photographed like a Pre-Raphaelite fantasy lmfao. Serkis isn't introducing a new interpretive layer with his commentary, hell Serkis was in all those Jackson films as well! Serkis is being very clear about what aspects of the legendarium matter to him, and that aspect happens to be the whiteness of it all. And I genuinely cannot understand why the huge āscandalā around his comment is not that someone said the quiet part, but that saying it out loud is what became the scandal, taken as some kind of transgression against Tolkien and all his readers with Good Politicsā¢ļø, rather than the quarter-century of adaptations, readings, and analysis of the text that wordlessly encoded the racism and got called faithful and dedicated for it.
I didnāt want to go to author is dead territory but. Fandom discourse keeps reaching for authorial intent as the arbiter of textual meaning in exactly the way most of these same people would reject in any other context. Everyone is a massive New Critic the second the author in question is someone they love. But Tolkien doesnāt need to have consciously intended a racial hierarchy or a white nationalist mythology for the text to functionally produce one, for it to be so loved by conservatives and ethnonationalists who come fifty years after his time.
Intent is not even a contested position in literary theory, it's just the very basic understanding that "text has ideology independent of authorial intent". The insistence on relitigating Tolkien's personal feelings as though that settles the structural question is wild to me, and I find it so extremely unproductive how liberal fandom reaches for this constantly, repeatedly chanting Tolkienās few vaguely liberal statements that read far less liberally in context. But I guess the alternative, ie reading the actual construction of race in the legendarium on its own terms, requires giving up the fantasy that the thing you love is politically inert. And itās just so sad man. Like I fucking love the legendarium, and I think insisting on its moral purity is the worst thing you can do to it.
I think my entire argument can be summed up in a few questions. Why do conservatives keep saying "I love Tolkien" completely unashamedly, in a way they donāt realy say about most other ācanonicalā twentieth-century texts, while we on the left have to perform a whole apologetic dance before we say it? What is it that they embrace about the text, that we have to occlude in order to express an unproblematic āloveā? Why do we have to disavow parts of a text to claim we love it? Who are we performing to? What are we losing in focusing so hard on this performance?
This is why the Serkis-style comment, or the Rings of Power casting discourse, ends up being the deepest engagement we collectively get in fandom terms. Because both "sides" of that fight are actually shallow in the same way, just from opposite ends. The right-wing backlash to diverse casting is, repulsively, responding to something absolutely present in the text: a defensive crouch around a racial aesthetic it identifies as being under threat. The liberal-left response, the "just add brown elves" gesture, claims the problem to be one of representation and casting rather than structure, which is precisely why the racial elements of The Rings of Power satisfies no one and changes nothing.
You can put actors of colour in NĆŗmenor and Harfoot villages and yet the underlying moral framework of who is coded as inherently noble and who as inherently monstrous, whose skin colour the textual narrative uses as a standin for corruption, stays completely untouched. Again, see my TROP link above, with the jihadi-coding of the villains. Because that framework isn't located in the casting of an adaptation, it's located in the construction of Arda itself and physiognomy-as-morality at the level of the prose itself, constantly present throughout the text. Casting a Black actor as an elf doesn't do anything to the fact that "evil race coded as racially other" is still sitting right there in the Southrons and the orcs, unadapted, undiscussed, doing exactly the same work it always did, and this work takes on a new look in post-2001 adaptations.
So what you get is two adaptations of the same tiresome insanemaking discourse rather than two different arguments: the right defends the racial aesthetic as the substance of their love, and the liberal mainstream defends the fantasy that representation-level tweaks constitute engagement with race. And so, nobody actually produces the adaptation that takes seriously what nonwhite Tolkien scholars have been saying for decades, which is that you'd have to touch the orc/Southron/Valar/Valinor/blondeness architecture itself to ever productively have this conversation. Not diversify who plays the good guys, but interrogate why "evil" in this legendarium has a face and a hair colour and points compass east.
But if the talk about this goes on as it does, and continues between Tolkien the Pure versus Tolkien the Misread, there will never be anyone willing to make that adaptation, and weāll go on forever in a sisyphean climb, where both the reactionary embrace and the progressive denial are just two versions of refusing to read the same damn book. Basically, I think we on the left etc need to stop treating "is Tolkien racist" as a yes/no gate you have to clear before you're allowed to enjoy the books, and stop acting like enjoying problematic media makes you a fascist. We need to start treating the racialised architecture within Tolkienās world as the actual object of study, same way you'd read imperial romance or Forster or Kipling or Haggard, without needing to acquit or convict the author first.
Which means we have to name the conservatism specifically rather than gesturing at "some outdated attitudes," trace where it comes from historically (the philological Northernness Tolkien grew up steeped in, not some special personal failing that reflects badly on you), and then ask what an adaptation would look like which dramatised that rather than smoothing over it or weaponising it. We have to let go of the idea that critical engagement is disloyalty, and let go of the idea that loving something requires defending its honour. We need to get the resilience needed to engage with the idea that a work can be both formative and ideologically compromised at the same time.
We donāt need to resolve that tension into either adoring hagiography or totalising cancellation. If we do, we're going to keep getting ākeep the Shire whiteā Serkis soundbites and āhooray we cast a brown elf in our we-invented-elf-jihadis show!ā news cycles standing in for a conversation that hasn't actually started yet, and ngl buddies I have to say I personally will be biting people the next time I see yet another rendition of the same damn response-reaction cycle start again because everyone, both the conservatives and the left, wants the things they love to be a reflection of themselves, and will twist themselves into pretzels to ensure that remains the case.
origamiaround
kianamaiart
discoholicmusic
vaporwave
turnnoffyourmind
jacobvanloon
