Avatar

currently catatonic with grief

@autisticdrizzt / autisticdrizzt.tumblr.com

orchid // 24// autistic// intersex i only have two personality traits, gay and miserable.

you don’t gotta tell me to boycott the Nintendo prices by not buying bc i don’t have the money to get them anyways

‘guys don’t spend 600-700 dollars on the new nintendo products to send a message’ im way ahead of you man

not being able to borrow an ebook because someone else has it on loan is stupid as hell. like babe this is Document. these are pixels.

Everybody driving a car thinks they're the main character of the car. This is an ideologically bourgeois attitude. You know who doesn't ever feel like the main character of the vehicle they're in? Literally everyone on the bus. You're on the fucking bus. And the bus driver doesn't feel like the main character of the bus because she's at fucking work. The bus is the most ideologically proletarian form of transport.

this is such a profoundly stupid thing to be mad about but. i periodically think about how banksy made one of my single favorite pieces of art of all time, and everything else he's ever done has sucked. man, how did you nail it once

It's this piece, titled The Banality of the Banality of Evil. Because on first glance, you're like. Yeah, okay, it's obvious what it's saying. Even nazis, even evil people can appreciate beauty, too. But then you learn its name, and suddenly the interpretation shifts a bit. The idea that evil is banal has in itself become banal. my first response to seeing a nazi on a bench is "oh it's about the banality of evil" and not "jesus christ there's a nazi on the bench."

and like. i dunno i think that's a really interesting way for a title to recontextualize a piece. it's finding nuance by tearing out the nuance you want to project onto it. it's not the greatest piece of art ever made, but i'd be lying if i said i didn't have a huge soft spot for it

they should legalize polyamory. everywhere. and im not kidding at all. if someone wants to marry multiple people they should be allowed to. for any reason.

before anybody tries to say some bullshit about this, extending the definition of marriage to include multiple people would give members of religions forced into abusive polygamy the same rights any divorcing spouse would have without putting them at risk for being charged with bigamy. this would make it easier for people to leave abusive plural marriages.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.