Some kind of weird bird

glassamphibians:

fragranticareviewers:

(via jelloapocalypse)

superchat:

superchat:

there was a great study a few years that went into the whole “ppl online are bigger jerks than irl cuz theres a virtual wall and no repercussions” and the researchers were expecting to see that be the case but it turns out that people who were really angry or argumentative online were also found to just be assholes in person and people who were pretty patient and nice online were found to be patient and nice in real person as well

and it just debunked that whole cynical idea that people will naturally be mean if theres no punishment for it

source another source

the researchers found that being online didnt make people more hostile, but that being online allowed already hostile people to dominate forum conversations, and the less aggressive people were much less likely to reply or engage, ending in just the aggressive people bickering at eachother

(via beetlebreakfasts)

ava-deb:

ROBERT PATTINSON as MICKEY 18
MICKEY 17 (2025) dir. Bong Joon Ho

(via fazmid)

n-jay81:

Part 2 of Gravity Falls people.

Just love drawing them faces @.@

Here is the previous ones : Part 1

(via crazy-cipher)

zenpencils:

BILL WATTERSON ‘A cartoonist’s advice’

(Source: zenpencils.com, via gayairbud)

derinthescarletpescatarian:

libraford:

vaspider:

toastyglow:

toastyglow:

why be radically exclusionary abt queerness when you could be radically inclusionary instead. let’s inflate the numbers. let’s become the majority. the sky’s the limit

“we can’t let just ANYONE call themselves queer!!” what are you talking about. I’m steepling my fingers and gleefully cackling every time we Get Another One and you should be too. lock in.

Fuck yeah, let’s make this little raft we’re surviving on big as hell. If I bring my bit of driftwood and you bring yours and we let as many people join in as want to, we might end up with a functional boat.

I heard someone say ‘queer is that which accepts queerness’ a few weeks ago and I’ve been thinking about it ever since.

Back when I was active on AVEN (I have no idea what it’s like now), we had two definitions of asexual – an external definition and an internal definition. The external definition, the one that’s on the wiki and the press material and that everyone uses when talking about asexuality, was of course “an asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction”. The internal definition, the one we kept in mind when talking to each other, was “an asexual is someone who calls themself asexual”.

The reason for this was very simple and very practical. In the very early AVEN and immediately pre-AVEN days, back before my time when the disparate ace communities were first finding each other and creating a public online network, there was a fair lot of exclusionist discourse. There are a lot of ways to be asexual, and the early community of course fell prey to the usual infighting about whether someone with a libido counts as asexual, whether someone who chooses to have sex can be asexual (usual tiring Purity Brigade Bullshit), whether someone without a libido counts as asexual (after all, if you have no sex drive, are you sure it’s a matter of sexual orientation?), whether ace people count as lgbtq, all the usual nonsense. This worked out the way it pretty much always does – the inclusionists “win”, because exclusionists always break off into smaller and smaller communities so the largest group is, of course, the one where all different kinds of people stick together and welcome each other. And that was AVEN.

And when you’re trying to have a strong community and somebody shows up at the gates saying, “hi, I think I’m asexual”, it’s a fucking horrible idea to start doubting their credentials. They saw the public definition and started calling themselves asexual; they’re here, and now they’re under the internal definition. An asexual is somebody who calls themself asexual. Sometimes, these people would be frustrated allosexuals, or people choosing to swear off sex, who might not fit the external definition of the term. We made sure that everyone knew the external definition, and there were always conversations about asexuality and how it affected our lives, if they asked us directly what we thought then we’d say “only you can know for sure” and then give our thoughts on the matter for as long as they asked for them, and other than that it wasn’t anyone else’s fucking business or anyone’s place to judge. If people weren’t nasty and didn’t create problems, they could stay and call themselves whatever they wanted.

Many of these people who didn’t fit the strict definition eventually left after receiving support and discovering more about themselves. Some stopped IDing as ace but became allies to the community. Some people who came in with the most “I’m a heterosexual girl who is angry at my boyfriend” intro posts you’ve ever seen in your life discovered that they were in fact ace and that the messages that society had taught them about sex and romance were simply not for them – these are people who, in a gatekept community, would have been incorrectly ousted immediately.

And then there were people – a LOT of people – who found themselves in grey areas. People who said “okay, this community makes sense to me and is useful to me and I have so much in common with a lot of you, but not EXACTLY like you. However, what I experience may not be the strict default definition but it’s an awful lot like these other members on the forum.” And they formed sub-communities. The grey aces. The demisexuals. The aromantics and greyromantics. Through these dialogues, between subgroups who in a more exclusionary community would be arguing about who the “real” asexuals are and splintering off into their own communities away from all those stupid cishet fakers, we developed language to describe our similarities and differences. The sexual/romantic/aesthetic attraction model came out of these dialogues and it became so massively important to our understanding of asexuality that basically everyone in the ace/aro community describes themselves by it, as do a large number of people outside the community. The community made massive leaps ahead in just a decade or two by, well, being a community. By being a place where anybody who called the place home, and didn’t bully other people in the home, was right. By being somewhere where anybody who saw “asexual: someone who doesn’t experience sexual attraction” and thought “that sounds like a term with some use for me” was allowed to use it.

An asexual is somebody who does not experience sexual attraction.

An asexual is somebody who calls themselves asexual.

These definitions are not in conflict – they are both, in concert, fundamentally necessary for a safe and vibrant community where we can protect, support, and learn about each other and ourselves.

And that is absolutely not exclusive to asexual communities.

(via scribbleboxfox)

the-uncanny-dag:

museoftragedies:

captainlordauditor:

marzipanandminutiae:

jg-piff:

starshine-honey:

jg-piff:

starshine-honey:

fakewant:

mycoolstoryworld:

saintemiliosandoz:

y’all really recommend books like: title, there are gay characters, enemies to lovers, young adult, written by poc

not once do i ever see a summary

What more info do you need?

A SUMMARY

WHAT DO U MENA SUMMARY WHAT ELSE MATTERS ITS GAY POC AND ENEMIES TO LOVERS HOW OFTEN DO U CONE ACROSS THAT

i want to know what its about mainly. is it a romance? is there plot besides the romance? is it realistic fiction? sci fi? fantasy? historical? future? alternate history? whats the tone? what are the themes? what are the main characters’ NAMES?

I- it’s gay the gay

i value queer characters too. but i also want to know WHAT THE BOOK I’M READING IS ABOUT.

“GAY AND/OR RACIALLY DIVERSE” IS NOT A GENRE. nor is it an indicator of quality

do you know how many times I’ve been recommended a book solely because “it’s queer fantasy!”

do you know how many times those books have been so poorly written that I couldn’t finish them

Mostly, I want to know the tone. A 19th century war story isn’t gonna do it for me when I’m in the mood for a lighthearted austenesque romance - and those are both historical. A star warsy space romp isn’t gonna do it if I want to read about interplanetary political negotiations - and those are both sci fi. A fun gratuitious don’t-think-about-it-too-hard action story is not the same as a dark and complicated mob drama. A suspenseful thriller will bore me if I’m looking for a fast paced spy novel.

not providing a summary literally just shows how you treat marginalized people and their representation as this token woke thing that you can show off like a shiny trophy. no, people aren’t going to read something just because it has representation! that’s not how it works!

Artist bio by Anna Daliza

(via eziocauthon89)

tiktoksthataregood-ish:

(via captainsaku)

slipping-into-madness:

(via sevintheskywithpumpkins)

freshhotflavors:

twofingerswhiskey:

tyrannosaurusrachh:

hungwy:

aquarium advertisments say stuiff like discover the longtooth grouper this friday

I see that, and raise you my local aquarium’s advertising.

Vancouver Aquarium has similar ads!

They also have some SERIOUSLY inventive ones:

(High and Low Tide ^)

the only type of advertising that should exist: “ooooohhhh you want to come look at the animal”

(via itsclydebitches)

annabelle–cane:

straight people are so fascinating even when they aren’t actively trying to be homophobic. I had a class a few years ago where one assignment was to summarize some eighth century arabic poetry about going out for drinks with the lads before indulging in some gay sex and like half the class came in and said “I’m sorry idk what was happening in this one, they mention having sex with a servant but they also say the servant’s a man? where’d the woman come from? I’m so confused.” and a few days ago in a shakespeare class I made a comment about how cleopatra and octavius caesar are kind of parallel characters in possessively bartering for mark antony’s attention and one of my classmates responded as though I’d been talking about octavia and not caesar, despite the fact that I said “caesar” and “him” multiple times while describing the actions he specifically took. fully incapable of comprehending of anything that’s even a little bit gay.

(via scribbleboxfox)

podcastwizard:

dnd jokes that will always be funny no matter what your dm tells you

• “jesus christ” “who’s that”
• “this is just like (tv show/movie)” “that’s my favorite play”
• referring to famous musicians or actors from the real world as “bards”
• adding the word “fantasy” in front of modern things (i pull out my Fantasy iPhone and open Fantasy Tinder)
• “how hurt are you” “on a scale of one to twenty-eight i’d say i’m at about a nine.”

feel free to add more

(via jayofolympus)

piedude:

shoku-and-awe:

shoku-and-awe:

This screenshot from a gardening Facebook group has been on my phone for several years and I’m not sure I’m ever going to be able to delete it. Apparently it comes from a British gardening book from the 80s. I know we all joke that the English are afraid of flavor, but I assure you, you are not prepared for this.

Keep reading

That last paragraph HAUNTS me. How am I supposed to sleep at night picturing Paul Hollywood — sobbing, hands trembling — alone in his kitchen, gingerly rubbing the edges of a salad bowl with a single clove of unskinned garlic, wondering if he will ever be brave enough to do the same to a roast chicken?

No wonder Dracula wanted to come to England

(via jayofolympus)

revvethasmythh:

sam came on this show to say that veth is a bitch and luc is a loser. this is why he’s my favorite

(via bravenot)