I’m p
Yes I’m
Yes hmmms ow
Eh
Tnhk
justmice
Tumblr wouldn’t let me upload the video but I let the mice write a tumblr post for me and this is the result :^)
i thought that was just. a regular tumblr post and accepted it
My emotions are valid*
*valid does not mean healthy, or good, or to be privileged above common sense and kindness
undastra
A distinction for anyone who is young and hasn’t figured this out yet:
You are allowed to have whatever emotions you want. No one can control your emotions. Emotions are healthy responses to things.
You are not allowed to have behaviors that are harmful just because you have certain emotions. Your behaviors are what you can control, and they are far easier to control than your emotions.
You can be jealous about someone or their talents until you turn green, but it is harmful to yourself and to that person if you try to sabotage them because of it. You can be so angry you can literally feel your temperature rise, but this does not give you permission to rage at others.
Your emotions are valid. They are always valid. You are a person of value. However, you behaviors are not always justified just because of those emotions. You may not be able to control you emotions, but you can certainly control your behaviors.
and this one, i beg you to learn before you become right-wing fundamentalists: just because something gives you revulsion feelings does not mean it’s morally wrong.
you may be sex-repulsed; that doesn’t mean sex is dirty and bad. maybe you were bullied by teenage girls; that doesn’t mean teenage girls are a force of evil. perhaps a villain in a work of fiction reminds you of someone who abused you; that doesn’t mean people who enjoy that character or that fiction are abusive. your feelings about those things are absolutely valid, and it’s not right for people to tell you you shouldn’t feel that way. but it’s also not right for you to act out against others based on those feelings.
that instinct to generalize served our species well when we were hunter-gatherers living in small bands in a hostile wilderness. you nibble a delicious-looking berry, you throw up, you know that berry is BAD and you make the yuck face whenever you see it so the other hominids know it’s a bad one. but in the modern world, in the information age, there are so many complex things you might encounter, you’re going to have badfeels about a lot of things that aren’t actually across-the-board bad.
you need to not be ruled by your hominid yuckberry instinct. that’s where bigotry comes from.
That last line deserves to be an iconic tumblr quote.
200 Tokyo Street Styles in Under 60 Second
We shot all of these and many more for Vogue Magazine during the recent Tokyo Fashion Week.
Oh, to massage the thoughts out of a cute little thing's head as they melt in my lap. Fingertips tracing gentle circles and spirals along their scalp and forehead... taking my time to trail soft, slow scratches down the back of their neck... feeling them relax more and more against me with each and every touch and caress, their eyes fluttering as they lose themselves to my touch. Hearing that soft sigh as the last remaining thoughts finally escape their pretty little heads... perfection.
must we pit two kings against each other
reminds me of when some old church in Sweden was cleaning out their storage and they forgot they had left like 80 medieval corpses in some ikea bags during renovations so somebody opened a closet door and it’s just
Sans sweep was so powerful the residual shockwaves accidentally killed the fucking queen
An Update:
Also, happy Antifa mob anniversary
Hands up if you were the child that read thousands of books and as an adult you hit burn out and now only read stories about the same 2 idiots falling in love over and over as you don't have the brain power to get emotionally attached to new characters.
[id: TikTok video by @/_cairde as a reply to a comment by hannahd2906 reading "Could you pls go outside Buckingham palace that would actually be brilliant". Then the video shows five men Irish step-dancing to the tune of Queen's "Another One Bites The Dust", in the park in front of Buckingham Palace.]
“How can you not be angry?”
“I am angry,” the werewolf said. “But unlike you, I don’t have the luxury of showing it without being called a monster. Without someone taking it as a sign of proof that I need to be put down like a rabid dog, that I’m just like what the stories tell you.”
“But everyone gets angry…that’s human.”
“Up until the point when you’re not human.”
such a wonderful metaphor for anyone Othered by society
Sorry but the "a woman just died and her family is mourning" speech doesn't really apply for the woman who's responsible for almost half the world's colonisation and the death of millions of people everyday for like 70 years
I hate the monarchy but.... She is not "responsible for half the world's colonisation". Do you think colonialism happened in the last 100 years? Do you know anything?
"Do you know anything?" Really now. Did you even look into it before defending this bitch
Um, no. They're not "defending" her by pointing out the original statement is inaccurate—that's just correcting misinformation. I mean, I am extremely vocal on this blog about my anti-monarchy views, especially in regard to my distaste for British imperialism as somebody of South Asian descent. But the OP is misleading at best, and just flat out wrong at worst, and I honestly find it kind of offensive that people would disregard the actual, real-life violent history of British imperialism in favour of some half-cocked statement that lets so many responsible parties off the hook for their crimes.
Like, firstly, if you're really dead set on solely laying the blame for expansion of the British Empire on one single member of the royal family, then that person, without a doubt, should be Queen Victoria. To quote this article, she was the "matriarch of the British Empire," as well as a major propopent of its expansion. Between 1814 (just 23 years before Victoria ascended the throne) and the heyday of her reign in 1881, the population of the British Empire literally QUINTUPLED in size. By the time she died in 1901, Victoria was ruling over roughly 400 million "subjects," in British-ruled territory that covered approximately 25% of the globe. It hit its peak in 1919 (7 years before Elizabeth II's birth) under the reign of George V, after Britain acquired a bunch of German territories under Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI. By contrast, when Elizabeth took the throne in 1952—about five years after India & Pakistan kicked off a major wave of decolonisation efforts—Britain's global territory had shrunk by approximately 68%. By 1970, it had decreased even further:
Now, there's absolutely no disputing that Queen Victoria's imperialism is part of Queen Elizabeth's family legacy. That's true both from a historical and financial perspective, and something about which I am extremely salty! Victoria fucking ransacked India, and today's royals still have the spoils. If you want to join Desi people in hating Liz & Co. for never giving us our fucking stolen diamond back, be my guest. In fact, we will make you cups of chai and feed you rotis while you bitch about it with us. But saying that Elizabeth II was directly responsible for colonising half 1/4 of the globe is not only factually incorrect, but factually incorrect in a way that either outright erases the most devastating periods of British imperialism (if you're only including events from 1952-present), or effectively absolves the people who actually engineered the violence (if you're mentally replacing Liz for Vicky). Now, I admittedly have more beef with Queen Victoria, because my grandfather and great-aunties on the Indian side were literally born under her reign (yes, really, I'm old), but even so, it seems weird to just... rewrite the whole thing.
And speaking of absolving people, like... yes, the monarchy is a ridiculous fucking institution built on ill-gotten wealth and oppression of the working classes, no argument from me there. But they are not solely responsible for colonialism, and I don't like the implication that it was masterminded single-handedly by one figurehead with a crown whose political role is largely ceremonial. Like, first of all, look up the fucking East India Company, an evil-from-the-depths-of-hell-level corporation built on greed and human suffering. They were acting as agents of British imperialism across swathes of Africa and Asia, eons before Queen Victoria was even born. The British government only got dominion over India after they intervened to stop the East India Company from exerting too much political and commercial control. Like, read up on Robert Clive and the Battle of Plassey sometime, and then imagine Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk buying the French army to invade the Indian subcontinent. While we're talking about ye olden colonising CEOs, ever heard of Cecil Rhodes? Of course, he had a lot of help in fucking over South Africa from the PM, Lord Salisbury. It was actually Disraeli's idea to confer the title of 'Empress of India' on Queen Victoria. It's estimated that around 3.8 million people died during the 1943 Bengal famine, which was basically the result of a Winston Churchill policy failure. And it was not any monarch, but Secretary of State for the Colonies Joseph Chamberlain, who said "I believe that the British race is the greatest of the governing races that the world has ever seen… It is not enough to occupy great spaces of the world's surface unless you can make the best of them. It is the duty of a landlord to develop his estate." Like, yeah fuck the monarchy for the role they played, but don't act like one single hand-waving, ribbon-cutting inbred royal was the British Empire's master architect, when this was very much one of history's worst fucking group projects.
Finally, a smaller correction, but that above "List of sovereign states headed by Elizabeth II" is mostly comprised of former colonies/Commonwealth countries. Now, is the Commonwealth a vestige of Britain's bygone colonialism? Absolutely, no doubt. But nonetheless, that's still a list of independent nations with their own governments who—at some point between 1952-present—chose to have the monarch as a state figurehead (albeit not a choice I understand). Also, if you actually look at the chart, it's presently only a total of 15 countries who still have the monarch as a ceremonial figurehead (including the UK itself, Canada, and Australia). You'll also note that more than half of these countries have severed ties already, including Barbados, who just became a republic last year (way to go, Barbados!), and I'm hoping that Charles's relative unpopularity will see more nations follow suit. Still, the point stands: It doesn't really make sense to post that as "evidence" of the fact that Elizabeth herself was personally responsible for "half the world's colonisation," when 1) It only dates back to 1952, well after the peak of the empire 2) None of the nations listed are current British Overseas Territories 3) The linked chart actually shows a decline in independent states using the monarch as a figurehead since the late 1980s. It's quite literally making the opposite point as intended.
Anyway, as somebody who doesn't like the monarchy, and thinks a lot about the irrevocable damage wrought by British colonialism, I am begging you guys not to downplay or rewrite its actual history for the sake of a pithy sound-byte on Tumblr dot com. "Queen Elizabeth spent a lifetime benefiting from the spoils of her family's imperialist endeavours, and may have recently used some of that tainted wealth to help her son pay out a settlement to the woman who publicly accused him of sex trafficking" is a perfectly accurate, and scathingly damning statement; you do not need to rewrite British history to make it sound like the woman personally conquered India with an army of bloodthirsty corgis just to make your point.
elsie K fisher picking up the evil paddington bit again bc the official paddington account posted a kind memorial about the queen is so funny
best use of your ongoing twitter bit 10/10
truly avenging the fallen
