There should be a shop where they have a boob scanner that 3D prints the perfect bra for you.
official boob post
Source: reddit.com
wild that "you can't delete things from the internet; it's there forever" used to be just common wisdom and now we're at risk of losing extensive internet archives and tech companies are starting to wipe out huge swathes of inactive accounts and old data as well as delete and censor things they arbitrarily deem "inappropriate"
meanest person you've ever met: i'm so sick of being nice
Honestly we really need to stop being weird about older adults who are virgins.
& not even purely in a "I'm sex repulsed &/or ace &/or not into the idea of so I willingly didn't have it" but also in a "I'm 80, I would've loved to have sex, but it takes two to tango & no one wanted to have sex w/ me-" and in a "I'm 60 & I wanted to, but I had anxiety so bad I just didn't put myself in a situation where I could've" way, etc. [But yes also the people who are like "I'm a virgin because I never wanted to have sex"]
Someone made a post about having their 40th birthday & still being a virgin & someone commented about how it was heartbreaking... [The OP talked about all their other achievements they reached & how they were happy - just never had sex btw. They weren't lamenting about how they never had sex]
You don't need sex/sexual intimacy to be happy. You don't need romantic intimacy to be happy. [Obviously having those may add happiness, but like you won't live a sad depressing empty life if you're single forever &/or never have sex]
happy pride month to lgbt people who are really boring. we deserve love too
Spider-Punk demonstrating that deep down, he really is just a Spider-Dork like all the rest of them.
i want to thank the 1920s-1930s third wheel who saw their two friends lying in bed together in their underwear and stocking garters reading a book with their legs wrapped around each other and said “i am going to take a photograph of this”
i hope wherever they are now that everyone involved in the taking of this photograph knows how much joy it is bringing me 80-100 years later
Never before published images of men in love between 1850 and 1950 by Dee Swan, Hugh Nini andNeal Treadwell (Washington Post)
flitwickslittlebrotha
Reblogging this again because please, please click the link and look at the other photos but more importantly read the words written by the owners of the collection because it’s so touching and heart-warming
im never gonna get behind the inane handwringing of shows who are purposefully writing about shitty people "aghaggh what if people see my teevee show and think being BAD is OKAY". suck it up you pussy have some belief in your understanding of creating themes and communicating ideas. you are a coward.
vaguely liberal creators who supposedly want to make challenging and complex content always lose their nerve at the idea of one (1) person not feeling their moral staunch moral fiber thru the screen. can't emphasize how fundamentally insecure this way of creating art is and it makes u look like it
gun to your head which of the 7 dwarves are you fucking
Well apparently he's fucking grumpy
I love The Golden Girls.
Ya’ll don’t have any idea how fucking brave and needed these plot lines were.
This was before Ellen came out.
This was before civil unions.
This was before Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
This was when your ass could be fired, blacklisted, and shunned with no legal protections for even being hinted at being gay.
And the Golden Girls said “Fuck you, Fuck this, we’re doing it anyway.”
transdankovsky
I think it should be noted that Blanche’s quote about AIDS is also “It is not god punishing people for their sins” and that the episode also deals with slutshaming.
I don’t know if people realize how much activism these women did for gay right and during the aids crisis. If you think about it they were all long established in Hollywood and Broadway. They had tons of friends personally affected and dealing with the aids crisis. Estelle Getty lost a nephew. I think they helped plant seeds in people who watched Golden Girls that helped make things a little more normalized and mainstream.
For context, there wasn’t a viable treatment for AIDS until 1997 or so. (Not a cure–there is still no cure–but a treatment that would let patients live relatively normal lives.) Until then, it was a disease you got and it ate you from the inside out and people told you you were going to hell and then you died and your friends had to schedule your funeral around all the other funerals.
In 1996, my mother was told that I would not be allowed to attend middle school unless I could prove, via blood test, that I was HIV-negative. I’d had an unscreened blood transfusion as a premature infant in 1984, and there was a slim chance I could have gotten HIV from that. And if I had HIV, even from something as innocuous as a blood transfusion during a medical emergency, I would be considered a bad influence who could not be allowed near other children lest I infect them with gayness in math class.
And there were Golden Girls reruns on TV after school, normal as anything. They were a much-needed voice in communities like mine.
important message for trans girls taking estrogen as well as anyone who has breasts developing right now,
IT'S PERFECTLY NORMAL TO HAVE ONE BOOB GROWING FASTER THAN THE OTHER
IT'S PERFECTLY NORMAL TO HAVE ONE BOOB THAT IS A DIFFERENT SHAPE THAN THE OTHER
IT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL TO HAVE NIPPLES THAT LOOK DIFFERENT THAN EACH OTHER
literally nobody talks about this because people are afraid of Sex ED but PLEASE for the love of tits do not stress over not being perfectly symmetrical, you are beautiful.
SPECIFY WHICH SPECIFIC TYPE OF CREATURE TO THE WIZARD IN THE TAGS BELOW, IF APPLICABLE, OR ELSE HE WILL DECIDE RANDOMLY. YOU GET ONE SHOT AT THIS.
Funtime for Mischief
A comic based on my friend's cat named Mischief, who lives up to her name.
—
To see art like this a month in advance, consider joining My Patreon (PG-R Rated) and get free art and discounted commissions!
“Some scholars observe that, in classrooms today, the initial gesture of criticism can seem to carry more prestige than the long pursuit of understanding. One literature professor and critic at Harvard - not old or white or male - noticed that it had become more publicly rewarding for students to critique something as “problematic” than to grapple with what the problems might be; they seemed to have found that merely naming concerns had more value, in today’s cultural marketplace, than curiosity about what underlay them.”
I have indeed noticed this in online discussion and “discourse”. And it’s frustrating as fuck.
Identifying that a problem exists is only the first step in solving it. If you don’t then analyze the details, determine what is and is not working, why it works the way it does, and then how to change those things for the better etc. you are not actually working to solve the problem.
Identifying problems also means understanding why something’s a problem.
People’s explanations for why something’s problematic often begin and end with, “It’s problematic because it’s bad, and if you don’t agree that it’s bad you’re a bad person.”
But this isn’t an answer that helps anything.
Guilt-tripping only motivates people to work on the problem inasmuch as it takes to demonstrate they’re not a bad person, rather than motivating them to work on the problem until it’s solved.
No one’s a bad person for being clueless about an issue, but anyone trying to educate others about it ought to understand it themselves, and ought to explain the problem in a way that imparts comprehension to other people, not guilt.
Exactly exactly! And I’m also incredibly concerned about how this has become the de facto style of interacting with anything because honestly? It’s not just that they fail to impart comprehension to others, it’s that most of them don’t comprehend it themselves. They have heard the grapevine say x thing is ~problematic~ and they are so deathly afraid of the social ostracism that would come if they were ever accused of being problematic/supporting problematic things/not adequately performing outrage about problematic things that they parrot it without thinking about it, and then go around and bully others into expressing the same opinion without ever really arguing for or understanding that opinion.
Also, I think what too many people on the internet have lost sight of is that “critical thinking” does not mean “only say negative things/have a negative judgment.” That is not what “critical” means. It actually means the opposite, because it’s about putting aside your judgement and emotional reactions, sometimes even your moral reaction, to look at something holistically, objectively, and in context, with the goal of understanding why it is the way it is, how it works, and what effects it might have on other things, not to come to a simple answer of “this is kosher for people of xyz cause” or “this is universally condemnable and anyone who interacts with it in any way is guilty by association.” But people have completely missed this, so instead we have even more judgment and less critical thinking, and we have also created this environment that is simultaneously cynical and shallow, where it’s cool and progressive to be negative about things but never to say “yeah of course it isn’t perfect but it has value both despite and because of that.” It’s not a coincidence that you hear “x show is problematic and if you watch it you’re a horrible person” or “teaching about y is always bad” a hundred times more frequently than “hey x show does a pretty good job actually.” We devolved from “there are shades of grey to everything” to “everything is black or white” to “actually everything is bad all the time and if you ever say anything is good or neutral you’re part of the problem and you must support every bad thing I hate.” Tearing things down is seen as activism and awareness, but fixing things or building up the things that are good is not valued because it doesn’t give you the same social justice street cred, and that’s all it’s about anymore.
Reblogging this last addition, because it eloquently points out the vital discernment processes that “peer-pressure morality” is trying to undermine.
And it’s late so my brain’s checking out, so I’ll leave it to someone else to explain deeper…But this entire problem is very much the result of Protestant social engineering.
I shit you not, I wish I was making this up…but it’s literally no secret that Evangelicals have been doing things like buying up Top-40 radio stations and maneuvering into positions of government with the intention of indoctinating the nation. It’s been stated as much in leaked in email correspondences. There was even a post going around recently citing how Republicans utilize fandom wars to give credibility to their talking points.
I forget the details, but I welcome others to investigate this because it paints a truly alarming picture.
This kind of societal-level undue influence is very real and is exactly why a skill like critical thinking—as defined above—is neccessary. It helps keep you keep your agency over your own mind.
I’ll do it; it’s a topic I’ve written many, many posts about over the years and have never published for reasons that you can probably guess, but which a lot of people would probably be better off for hearing.
We have already seen many times how a reliance on the “letter of the law,” in this case the correct jargon or performance, without an understanding of the “spirit of the law” is quite dangerous because of how open it leaves things to infiltration and manipulation
The case that comes to mind is the male celebrity, can’t remember who, who would tweet about #MeToo and say all these feminist things, but who turned out to be a misogynistic creep in real life to the real women around him. There was a similar incident a couple years ago about someone who was an outspoken advocate for racial and gender diversity in the medical field but ended up being weirdly bigoted and, when push came to shove, put their own career interests above anything else. But at least these people can only be said to be selfish.
There have absolutely been coordinated efforts to deliberately exploit the ways these well-meaning but inexcusably ignorant people in progressive scenes rely on buzzwords and “correct” framing and have basically no idea how to examine content; I was there and I was good at it. It was considered a great sport to tie social justice types into knots by arguing the kinds of things that have now firmly infected some of these circles, like “actually, supporting trans people is extremely sexist, because you’re saying that gender is based on stereotypical traits, and all these AFAB people calling themselves nonbinary or transitioning are selling out women everywhere by buying into the patriarchal essentialist assumption that anyone who likes certain things or wants to dress/act a certain way must be a certain gender, and saying you’re nonbinary is just saying you ‘aren’t like other girls.’ People only want to transition because of patriarchal trauma and violence against female-coded bodies and by normalising transition you’re just sweeping the real problems under the rug and encouraging mental illness, which is ableist.” These are just standard TERF talking points now but they came from the alt-right, and it wasn’t from people who actually gave a shit about “the patriarchy.” Another one was “actually, people should never have relationships outside their race, because there will always be a difference of social power, and by encouraging race mixing what you’re really doing is saying you want cultural distinctiveness to be erased, which is ethnocidal and will only ever benefit the oppressor,” or its reverse, “cultural appropriation isn’t real and complaining about ‘microaggressions’ is essentialist and segregationist.” These arguments are opposite; it doesn’t matter, the point wasn’t for us to win but for you to lose. We just knew that if you use the right buzzwords, there’s a lot of people who are conditioned to immediately accept it as true and it was funny to watch them scramble to reconcile convictions like “patriarchy=bad” and “supporting minorities=good” that these arguments put at irreconcilable odds — if you take them at face value, which they always did. And the biggest goal was to make them look stupid in public, to get them to contradict themselves and hang themselves with their own political correctness so that the entire movement would be discredited, or else to change the courses of these movements without their advocates ever even having to see themselves as right-wing.
I personally learned these tactics under evangelicalism, although they have spread to a lot of ideological groups. It wasn’t just passively, either. It was explicitly taught. We were taught that cultural relativism and subjectivity were some of the worst evils out there, while at the same time being taught basically to exploit the fact that our opponents didn’t think that. For instance, we were supposed to make creationism accepted, and the first step to do that is to give it attention and to make the general public believe there were actually two sides of equal validity, and we framed it as “teach the controversy.” There really isn’t a controversy in the scientific community, but it doesn’t matter; you can say anything you want and people will believe it. The idea was to get people to “hear out” the creationists, to get creationists a platform to debate scientists with actual credentials because even when the creationists inevitably lost the debate, they will have made headway, because now they are putting themselves on the same level as respected scientific experts, and then they goad the evolutionists into losing patience or sounding smug and looking like the assholes. They lose the battle but it’s strategic, because they are controlling the perception the general public has of the “fight” they made up. But to even get to that point, they appeal to the leftist paradox of tolerance and belief in cultural relativism, by saying that it isn’t fair to keep the “intelligent design” crowd silent, that people have a right to their spiritual beliefs, and that it’s morally wrong to deny people that right. Of course they don’t really believe that! Those people think cultural relativism and multiculturalism are evil! They would have no problem denying evolutionists the right to question creationism if they had the theocracy they want, but they know that it is most strategic for them to use the other side’s own logic against them. This has been going on a long time, but it is a tactic the alt-right went on to adapt and perfect for the social media age, and it worked so well because we knew that you were playing by rules we had no problem discarding as soon as it suited us. It was all for the greater good, as we saw it. We could use cultural relativism as a means to an end where we could discard it, knowing that our opponents would not be able or willing to fight that argument.
As long as you rely on simple heuristics to tell you whether an argument is good or bad (both in terms of logic and in terms of morality), you will always be vulnerable. Just because someone says that x is an antiracist or feminist or queer-liberating position doesn’t mean it actually is, and you aren’t obligated to treat it as such just because they say so. Furthermore, you don’t actually have to try to reconcile what they’re saying, and a lot of times the best course of action is to not try to do so at all, to not engage, because again, they aren’t trying to win points for their argument, which they may or may not even believe, but to make sure that you lose, and as soon as you engage with them seriously and at face value, you’ve already lost. But people are so paranoid that if they say the wrong thing or don’t adequately publicly condemn something, that makes them just as guilty, which is not true, and subject to losing the approval of their entire social circle and cast out for their social justice sins. They’re too afraid to do anything but believe it.
Fear is one of the most useful tools an ideology can wield, and it’s not just the more obvious fears like fear of change, fear of obsolescence, fear of unfamiliarity, which the ideology may directly offer a solution to. It is also the fear of questioning, doubt, and independent thought. No matter where that ideology falls on the political/religious/social spectrum, an ideology that employs this against its adherents is dangerous and so easily manipulated by both intrinsic and extrinsic forces, and it will never be in your best interest. If you are afraid to toe the party line because of social or other consequences, you’re in a cult, and it doesn’t matter if you agree with the other positions or not. You can be feminist or socialist or whatever without falling into the cult (which is often what they tell you you can’t do — you can’t be a good x if you don’t immediately swallow y unquestioningly) but you need to be aware of it and learn to trust your own ability to evaluate evidence and arguments without relying on others to tell you your opinion, because otherwise that opinion will always be a liability to you and to the movements you claim to support.
I want to thank you so, so much for this generous insight, and for speaking up about this issue. For what it’s worth, it’s been a burning hot iron in my mind as well.
For those scrolling:
Scroll back up and read this thread. I know it’s long, but it’s important.
And if you need additional context to understand the architecture of everything outlined here, I recommend looking up these resources:
- The B.I.T.E. Model of Authoritarian Control
- NATO’s definition of Cognitive Warfare
- Behind the Bastards Podcast
definitely something that would be used to help people and not anything else
Every day scientists excitedly announce that they've created yet another new dystopian horror for us all for suffer from and yet somehow nobody ever shoots them for it.
i think we should teach drones how to hunt down questionable scientists