Pinned
et Afdeling Q Julemysterie
bonus: 31. december
Reblogged jabberwockypie
always blows my mind as a european when people talk about states like “yeah theres nothing in ohio/montana/wyoming/etc” because i look at a map like but. but theyre so big. every state could qualify as its own country what do you mean theres nothing there. and then i ask people from those states and theyre like “yeah theres nothing here” what do you mean theres nothing there!!!
What’s in the steppes of Russia, or the northern forests of Scandinavia? What’s in the Sahara desert?
id like us to sit here and identify some key differences between the sahara desert and ohio for a moment
as a former Ohio resident I think that the key difference is that the sahara probably has more jobs unrelated to meth
untapped meth market in the depths of the sahara desert
#‘what’s in the forests of northern Scandinavia’#people. many of them indigenous#these are not vast uninhabited areas#sure there are national parks and shit#but there are also roads and towns#in the USA it might be possible to drive for hours without coming across a human settlement#and you probably do have huge forests that have never been inhabited#but Scandinavia is small in comparison and there is probably a road cutting through any given forest to connect two towns#I still wouldn’t want to be lost in one. there ARE bears there#and wolves#but comparatively I’d probably be fine
Reblogged ruffboijuliaburnsides
it is so wild to me the fashions that are called “emo” today. especially given the fact that probably 80-90% of it is actually scene, not emo. this would have started full on wars 15 years ago
whenever people call this
emo it drives me BANANAS. no! this is not how emos did their hair. this was a scene look!!! some people might have gone from emo to scene depending on their age when new trends happened but they’re DISTINCT
this is getting more popular so i want to clarify, the above are obv scene queens and were what all scene kids aspired to HOWEVER. all of this⤵️? absolutely would have been considered scene in the late 00s (all photos from searching “emo” on pinterest)
whereas these are more emo⤵️
you will note that the scene kids wear brighter pops of color, especially neon pink and green. there’s a lot of pop culture references, patterns and texture. miniskirts very popular, the more layered the better. the emo kids are more simple, the black skinny jeans are a staple obv and usually dark hair and a band shirt, maybe some stripes but not anything crazier than that in terms of patterns. maybe a few accessories, but not so many that you hear them coming from a few miles away.
now THESE three are more in the middle. personally, i would categorize the first as scene, and the #1 giveaway there is the domo necklace- a scene icon- and the multitude/stacking of accessories backs it up. the middle is harder- the front of the hair and band shirt suggest emo, but the pink, layering, and the hair bow are decidedly scene. i think you could probably call it either way but i would lean scene. the last one is also hard- the hair highlights and amount of accessories are more scene, but the color scheme, especially the silver and black for the accessories as opposed to patterns, make me lean emo.
(source: i was in middle school in 2008)
extremely important addition from @death-g-reaper:
[screenshotted tags: #a key trait of emo is a certain kind of androgyny it’s why emos were getting hate crimed for being gnc in the 2000s #it sounds silly now but there was a moral panic about the boys shopping in the girls section for pants #my partner was a 2000s emo/goth kid and he says that before the term skinny jeans came out #they just called them girl pants because they were getting them from the girls section #i feel like scene is way more girly than emo is traditionally like you can have girly emo but it’s more scene’s schtick]
very important and true!! a huge huge part of the hate that “emo” got was because instead of the popular skater style/oversized fashion they were opting for tighter clothes and specifically women’s jeans (which, before jean companies realized they could profit off of it and started selling skinny jeans for men, were just from the women’s section) and it was a WHOLE thing. the long styled hair and occasional makeup AND talking about your feelings?? this is why so much of the emo scene was written off by larger culture and even within hardcore/punk culture as, essentially, faggot music, for girls, stupid, etc.
#im sure this is true#I recognise much of it#mostly from being online in the 00s#lately I’ve been thinking of the whole ‘is he gay or European’ thing#because (and I’m not sure i’d have noticed this if I hadn’t spent the past five years in the uk)#I keep clocking men as queer and then having to recalibrate#because the men I question I know for a fact are straight#they’re just… Danish.#their body language and fashion would#in the UK context I’ve been existing in#be queer. except here it’s not#which is to say that back in the mid to late 00s when I was a teenager the boys around me all wore skinny jeans but they weren’t emo#or scene#or queer#it was just the fashion at the time#I can think of a small handful of the boys around me who were intentionally adopting style cues from emo/scene but they also did that with#metal and rock#because they were musicians#I really did like the emo and scene look but I couldn’t afford it (hot topic is American. I only know of it because I was online.)#so I leaned more diy glam when I could. it was cheaper#anyway. this got away from me#I can’t remember what point I was making
Reblogged so-i-did-this-thing
update on my latest knitting project…
colorwork in stockinette is so evil but hopefully it will be worth it? i WILL be learning to steek before i knit another vest though
Reblogged eatingfireflies
Anonymous asked:
Do you think authors sometimes don't realize how their, uh, interests creep into their writing? I'm talking about stuff like Robert Jordan's obvious femdom kink, or Anne Rice's preoccupation with inc*st and p*dophilia. Did their editors ever gently ask them if they've ever actually read what they've written?
Firstly, a reminder: This is not tiktok and we just say the words incest and pedophilia here.
Secondly, I don't know if I would call them 'interests' so much as fixations or even concerns. There are monstrous things that people think about, and I think writing is a place to engage with those monstrous things. It doesn't bother me that people engage with those things. I exist somewhere within the whump scale, and I would hope no one would think less of me just because sooner or later I like to rough a good character up a bit, you know? It's fun to torture characters, as a treat!
But, anyway, assuming this question isn't, "Do writers know they're gross when I think they are gross" which I'm going to take the kind road and assume it isn't, but is instead, "Do you think authors are aware of the things they constantly come back to?"
Sometimes. It can be jarring to read your own writing and realize that there are things you CLEARLY are preoccupied with. (mm, I like that word more than concerns). There are things you think about over and over, your run your mind over them and they keep working their way back in. I think this is true of most authors, when you read enough of them. Where you almost want to ask, "So...what's up with that?" or sometimes I read enough of someone's work that I have a PRETTY good idea what's up with that.
I've never read Robert Jordan and I don't intend to start (I think it would bore me this is not a moral stance) and I've really never read Rice's erotica. In erotica especially I think you have all the right in the world to get fucking weird about it! But so, when I was young I read the whole Vampire Chronicles series. I don't remember it perfectly, but there's plenty in it to reveal VERY plainly that Anne Rice has issues with God but deeply believes in God, and Anne Rice has a preoccupation with the idea of what should stay dead, and what it means to become. So, when i found out her daughter died at the age of six, before Rice wrote all of this, and she grew up very very Catholic' I said, 'yeah, that fucking checks out'.
Was Rice herself aware of how those things formed her writing? I think at a certain point probably yes. The character of Claudia is in every way too on the nose for her not to have SOME idea unless she was REAL REAL dense about her own inner workings. But, sometimes I know where something I write about comes from, that doesn't mean I'm interested in sharing it with the class. I would never ever fucking say, 'The reasons I seem to write so much of x as y is that z happened to me years ago' ahaha FUCK THAT NOISE. NYET. RIDE ON, COWBOY.
But I've known some people in fandom works who clearly have something going on and don't seem to realize it. Or they're very good at hiding it. Based on the people I'm talking about I would say it's more a lack of self-knowledge, and I don't even mean that unkindly. I have, in many ways, taken myself down to the studs and rebuilt it all, so I unfortunately am very aware of why I do and write the things I do most of the time. It's extremely annoying not to be able to blame something. I imagine it must be very freeing. But it ain't me, babe.
Anyway, a lot of words to say: Maybe! But that might not stop them from writing it, it might be a useful thing for them to engage with, and you can always just not read it.
Also, we don't censor words here.
Props to OP for answering so gracefully, but I'm not going to answer gracefully. It is more important than ever to call out fascism whenever you see it -- especially the quiet, soft, poisonously insidious kind that Anon is practicing here.
Anon ostensibly wants to know: "Do authors realize that they're writing about things that some people might find disturbing, horrific, upsetting, repulsive, or simply just TMI?" (Yes, obviously they know. Authors are not stupid; that's usually a requirement of the job (not always. But usually).)
But what Anon is actually asking is, "Why don't authors stop themselves from doing a Bad Thing? Why doesn't anyone else stop them?" The assumption underlying that question is: "Surely if they realized that they were doing something disgusting, they would stop immediately." Even more covertly implied: "I think writing about certain things automatically taints you with moral degeneracy--that is, it marks you as a possible or potential criminal."
To that I say: My friend, writing is just thoughts copied onto paper, and thinking is not a crime. Only actual actions can be crimes. What does it matter what other people think about? Literally so what? Why do you want people to be stopped from thinking about those things ("did their editors ever gently ask them...")? Why do you care? Do you feel that an author should provide a list of justifications and excuses before it's permissible for them to write about something? Why? And who do you think should be in charge of that? The government???? YOU???????
To any person reading this post: If the above questions are personally upsetting to you, if you find yourself huffily thinking something like, "Well, I care because it could normalize--", NOPE, STOP RIGHT THERE. 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩 This is a big red flag: You (much like the Anon) are exhibiting some early warning signs of Fascism, and that is not something to take lightly in the current political climate. There are some drugs you shouldn't experiment with even once, and fascism is one of them. Repeat as often as needed: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THOUGHTCRIME. WE DO NOT LIVE IN GEORGE ORWELL'S 1984.
But we already talk about thoughtcrimes now and then, don't we? I can't remember seeing someone talking about crimestop (also from Orwell's 1984):
In the Newspeak vocabulary, the word crimestop denotes the citizen's instinctive desire to rid himself of unwanted, incorrect thoughts (personal and political), the discovery of which, by the Thinkpol [Thought Police], would lead to detection and arrest, transport to and interrogation at Miniluv (Ministry of Love). The protagonist, Winston Smith, describes crimestop as a conscious process of self-imposed cognitive dissonance: The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak. . . . He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions—'the Party says the Earth is flat', 'the Party says that ice is heavier than water'—and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. Moreover, from the perspective of Oceania's principal enemy of the state, in the history book The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, Emmanuel Goldstein said that: Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
Read that twice, and then reread the Anon's question. Translate it through that lens: "Why," says the Anon, delicately disgusted, "are these authors not practicing better crimestop? I practice it all the time. Why aren't they?"
Great question, Anon. Why AREN'T they? Turn off your crimestop and give it some real thought.
(Hint: If the answer you come up with is "Because they are moral degenerates" or anything in that neighborhood, you are unfortunately still doing fascism. Try again. If you have tried several times and the only answer you can manage to come up with is a still a synonym of "moral degeneracy" then this is above my paygrade and I would recommend talking to a trusted grownup, a therapist, a spiritual leader, or possibly your least-online friend.)
I also think it's somewhat reductive to be like "X keeps showing up in a writer's work, therefore they must be obsessed with X". Maybe they are, especially if they keep shoehorning in something really specific, but often it's also just... the simplest and most direct way that they know of to explore something. Fantasy is saturated with depictions of killing and violence; is every fantasy writer obsessed with killing? No. Violence is a very direct and simple way to include conflict with high stakes that you can fill with tension and excitement. Fantasy is also chock full of slavery. Are fantasy writers super into slavery? No. Stories are about power and power differences. Putting a protagonist in chains or giving them an enslaved bodyguard or tangling them up in a slave revolution is a very direct and simple way to explore that dynamic. Authors will usually repeat the tricks that they're used to, and that work. So fucking many of my stories hook the reader with a random inexplicable corpse. So many of my climaxes are like "actually that super special power/big conspiracy/grand prophecy that this entire quest has been about? Fake. Whole thing was a lie this entire time and what's actually going on is something completely different. You've got half a chapter to adjust."
Maybe a writer keeps writing about incest because he actually likes to explore romantic relationships between close family members. Or maybe he keeps writing about incest because he wants to frame the situation as disgusting, and he knows that incest disgusted most of his audience the last three times he wrote it.
Reblogged thepersephonecabin
hey everyone its april fools. but dont worry i dont have anything planned. just going to sit here and...
I LIED !!!! GET PRANKED
POST BELOW ME GET FUCKING WET
Reblogged thepersephonecabin
Hey guys! Check out this block of pure sodium that I got!
Reblogged icanhazsims
happy 12 year anniversary to the most memorable event in tumblr history
Reblogged thepersephonecabin
it’s turned out to be a gay thing tuesday guys
Reblogged andiftheycare
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.
Reblogged jabberwockypie
hey jason isaacs what the fuck
good for him
Oh dear god
Reblogged eatingfireflies
Alien Scientist: No, you don’t understand. Humans will pack bond with anything.
If you are trying to overcome a fear of spiders I can’t recommend this TikTok enough. They never post jump scares and always put warnings if a spider moves fast in a video. All of the videos are super cute and portray the spiders in a very positive and non threatening manner. 11/10 would recommend.
Reblogged jabberwockypie
honestly kudos to Elementary for gender swapping John Watson in what we all thought was an attempt to make johnlock palatable to the masses and then proceeding to not only make them entirely platonic but also become the ONLY modern adaptation where i actually feel like them being platonic makes complete sense
Reblogged farenmaddox
The difference between a fetish and a kink is that a fetish grows down from the ceiling but a kink grows up from the floor