I wanna bf that has a life like those characters from fast & the furious and he come home n I bandage his knee and urge him to b careful out there bc I’m pregnant
Idk why I said this. I need an accountant
String identified: aa tat a a t caact at & t a c aag a g t ca t t c ’ gat a t. a acctat
I love birdwatchers they’re like “I just saw my ALL TIME FAVORITE BIRD SPECIES! I’ve always dreamed of seeing one in the wild! I am ECSTATIC!” and it’s the most boring looking little brown bird you’ve ever seen.
And I’m watching the video like “whoaaaa what’s it going to be! woodpecker? red-headed woodpecker? eastern whip-poor-will? northern mockingbird? it’s a Bachman’s sparrow? oh, okay. neat.”
I feel like I need to show you a Bachman’s sparrow for this post to truly land.
Oooooh the most bird ever.
omg this is so me my favourite bird is the short-toed treecreeper and.
like. yea…
I’m sorry to admit this and I would never do it in real life because I have an immense respect for wildlife and specifically the delicate nature of birds. That is the most grabbable animal I have ever seen. It looks free for the taking.
I found this in an old sketchbook. I wanted to try and figure out how the skull of this anime person would look since her mouth is almost in line with where her eyes start.
If your immediate response to “trans men are capable of benefiting from male privilege” is “trans men are not The Enemy!!” I don’t think u should be discussing feminism or intersectionality at all lmao
Like the “vibes-based politics” of this website (and others!) has led a bunch of people to thinking that “has privilege” is synonymous with “is an Oppressor” and that “is an Oppressor” is basically synonymous with “ontologically evil,” and thus only the straightest whitest richest most cisgender men of all time can be Privileged. But the entire purpose of intersectional thinking is to acknowledge that privilege doesn’t work like that, being privileged in one area does not mean you can’t be marginalized in other areas, and being privileged does not make you “the enemy” lmao who are you a 2016-era “anti SJW”. I would say “imagine if people responded to discussions about white feminists with ‘white women are not the enemy!!!’” but people do do that lmao
My 14 year old brother just took a drink of hot chocolate and hissed like he’d knocked back a shot of vodka then set it down and went “ah… that’s the good stuff.”
Just watched him lose a card game as badly as he could on purpose for the sole purpose of annoying the guy trying to run the game and when I was like what is wrong with you all he said was “that’s how we do it down in Vegas”
I told him that this has 2k notes and the people love him and he completely deadpan went “wow it’s everything I ever wanted” and then immediately accidentally set himself on fire in skyrim and died
newbie asked if we’re supposed to look out for ‘red flags’ in interlibrary loan requests in reference to a request a patron had made for a book about cannibalism. she was looking expectantly at me like she was expecting me to be equally aghast at this……..girl why would you work at a library if you want to play book police
I’m fascinated to know what kind of world this girl lives in. For what reason are those books in the library at all if not to be checked out and read? Are they there as honeypots for Problematic People™? If you check out a Red Flag Book™, you’ve fallen into the Evil Person Trap™ and need to be taken in for reeducation, I suppose.
On the other side of this, I love the mental image of a guy who’d really like to get into cannibalism but doesn’t know where to start, so he heads down to his local library for some pointers.
#yeah don’t be weird about what they read — but like um — asking for a book on how to abuse your child is kind of a request that I#dont want to complete and I’m glad to not be there anymore#like I’m a mandatory reporter and have been asked to get a book on how to abuse children — um — conflict of interest no?#and this is not a case of my exaggeration — that book when searched had news articles and lawsuits because children died#it wasn’t in our system so I had to send it to the ILL person and it was their judgement call#but yikes
So I understand having a reaction like that on a gut level (I’m guessing the book was To Train Up a Child, as I’ve read several news articles about abuse cases in which it was mentioned), but here’s the crucial thing that we learn in our very first semester of library school:
You do not know why somebody wants to read a particular book.
Is it possible they wanted to read it for terrible fundamentalist Christian parenting advice? Sure. But it’s also possible they read the same news articles about the abuse cases that I did and were simply intrigued about what the book actually said. It’s possible they were doing research on fundamentalism or abuse and thought it was an important piece of material to include. It’s possible they suspected their own parents used were inspired by the book and wanted to have a better understanding about what happened to them as a child. It’s possible they actually wanted How to Train Your Dragon and got the titles confused. You just don’t know!
Like, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had somebody ask for materials on topics that I find unsavoury, only to learn later that said person was doing research on extremism, denial, etc. and very much didn’t agree with the materials in question. Hell, sometimes I have students coming in saying “I need help finding scholarly articles on why vaccines are bad/gay marriage shouldn’t be legal/Women don’t deserve equal pay/etc,” only to have it turn out the student is actually making the opposite argument in their paper, but were told by the instructor they need to have one credible opposing source.
The reasons people have for reading things are not cut and dry, and even if somebody is more inclined to have a certain viewpoint, you still can’t know with any certainty what they’ll actually think of the book once they’ve read it. They could agree with the premise. They could disagree with it. They could find it boring and not absorb much of the content. They could forget to read the book before it’s due back and return it without even cracking the spine.
We cannot presume to know the intentions of our patrons based solely on the content they’re requesting. That kind of logic is for cops, not librarians.
You do not know why
somebody wants to read a
particular book.
Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.
newbie asked if we’re supposed to look out for ‘red flags’ in interlibrary loan requests in reference to a request a patron had made for a book about cannibalism. she was looking expectantly at me like she was expecting me to be equally aghast at this……..girl why would you work at a library if you want to play book police
I’m fascinated to know what kind of world this girl lives in. For what reason are those books in the library at all if not to be checked out and read? Are they there as honeypots for Problematic People™? If you check out a Red Flag Book™, you’ve fallen into the Evil Person Trap™ and need to be taken in for reeducation, I suppose.
On the other side of this, I love the mental image of a guy who’d really like to get into cannibalism but doesn’t know where to start, so he heads down to his local library for some pointers.
#yeah don’t be weird about what they read — but like um — asking for a book on how to abuse your child is kind of a request that I#dont want to complete and I’m glad to not be there anymore#like I’m a mandatory reporter and have been asked to get a book on how to abuse children — um — conflict of interest no?#and this is not a case of my exaggeration — that book when searched had news articles and lawsuits because children died#it wasn’t in our system so I had to send it to the ILL person and it was their judgement call#but yikes
So I understand having a reaction like that on a gut level (I’m guessing the book was To Train Up a Child, as I’ve read several news articles about abuse cases in which it was mentioned), but here’s the crucial thing that we learn in our very first semester of library school:
You do not know why somebody wants to read a particular book.
Is it possible they wanted to read it for terrible fundamentalist Christian parenting advice? Sure. But it’s also possible they read the same news articles about the abuse cases that I did and were simply intrigued about what the book actually said. It’s possible they were doing research on fundamentalism or abuse and thought it was an important piece of material to include. It’s possible they suspected their own parents used were inspired by the book and wanted to have a better understanding about what happened to them as a child. It’s possible they actually wanted How to Train Your Dragon and got the titles confused. You just don’t know!
Like, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had somebody ask for materials on topics that I find unsavoury, only to learn later that said person was doing research on extremism, denial, etc. and very much didn’t agree with the materials in question. Hell, sometimes I have students coming in saying “I need help finding scholarly articles on why vaccines are bad/gay marriage shouldn’t be legal/Women don’t deserve equal pay/etc,” only to have it turn out the student is actually making the opposite argument in their paper, but were told by the instructor they need to have one credible opposing source.
The reasons people have for reading things are not cut and dry, and even if somebody is more inclined to have a certain viewpoint, you still can’t know with any certainty what they’ll actually think of the book once they’ve read it. They could agree with the premise. They could disagree with it. They could find it boring and not absorb much of the content. They could forget to read the book before it’s due back and return it without even cracking the spine.
We cannot presume to know the intentions of our patrons based solely on the content they’re requesting. That kind of logic is for cops, not librarians.
You do not know why
somebody wants to read a
particular book.
Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.
men fabricated the idea that they are the default sex to compensate for their biological inferiority and general superfluousness
this is not just the “natural order” this is the language of a patriarchal culture
Omg no, you are wrong on so many levels and as a linguist this makes me ache something terrible. In my linguistics class in undergrad, we actually made fun of people who think like you along these lines and for good reason, because you are wholly ignorant and are choosing to spin narratives about things and fields which you know completely nothing about yet pretend you do.
She: This word evolved naturally from Old English from seo/heo which were just words to refer to feminine-female people evolving from Proto-Germanic words meaning ‘that/there’. He as a word evolved from the same ideas but Proto-Germanic words for ‘this/here’. Your idea of “patriarchal language” further falls apart when you compare this part of English to other Germanic languages, of which English is related, the words in German for he and she are “er” and “sie”, completely unrelated. So it is by clear happenstance, not some patriarchal conspiracy that the words “he” and “she” in English have similar form.
Woman: Oh god this one always gets my goat when people go for this one. Man did not used to mean “male”, man used to mean “humanity/human being”, the old words in Old English for male adult person and female adult person were “werman” and “wifman” respectively, we can see this relation in words like werewolf and wife as being the remnants of the base “wer-” and the base “wif-”. Woman evolved phonologically from the word “wifman” by natural processes where the ‘f’ sound dropped and the ‘i’ became lax. Man dropped its “wer” stem for reasons mostly unknown but I can guarantee have nothing to do with “patriarchy” because phonological change has no basis in that.
Female: Male and Female actually come etymologically from two completely different words. Male comes from Old French “masle” which meant masculine, while Female came from Old French as well “femella” which meant young woman. This is another case, just like he and she, where the words coincidentally ended up looking similar without having any direct correlation in historical linguistic processes to make them as such.
Human: This word etymologically derives from Proto-Indo-European “ghomon” which means earthly being as opposed to heavenly being which would refer to gods. You have some small glimmer of hope here in that the word does eventually branch off into the word for “man” in some languages but this is still too small of a precedent to base any conspiratorial thinking like you are doing off of.
Person: This one offends me the most, simply because I love the fuck out of Etruscan language and your continued ignorance just irks me at this point. Person derives from “persona” from Latin which meant the same meaning, which ultimately derived from “phersu” Etruscan for ‘mask’ as Etruscans would often have theatre performers use masks to give identity to the performers. So never once did “person” have any meaning to do with “son”. So yes, this IS the “natural order” or language.
Please never proselytise your faulty ideology and misandrist thinking within speaking about word origins and morphology again, as unless you actually do fact checking, I will school the everloving hell out of you, stay in your lane.
thank god for the explanation above
and the insult pussy is from the word pusillanimous, meaning coward, not the slang term for female genitalia, which comes from the Old German/Norse word for vulva, puse, which is also not the source of calling cats pussy, which comes from the Germanic root word for cat pūs, which is also not where we get the term sourpuss from because that comes from the Irish word for lip or mouth, pus.
The history of words is often more interesting than whatever one can deduce by just looking at the modern words.
Okay, I have a little rant, and because I don’t like to leave negative comments on people’s works, I am putting it here. So ao3 has an amazing filtering system, it is truly beautiful and remarkable, but some people try to work around it and that bothers me. There are many things I could say about this, but the one I want to talk about right now, is the complete works filter, and how people circumvent it by saying “It’s a series”. No, it’s not, if it is under 5000 words, and just abruptly ends, with zero resolution, that is a chapter, not a complete work, and you mislead me. You abuse that label, you got me hooked and this is fanfiction, so I have no guarantee that you will ever finish it. When you read an incomplete work, you know that going in, you make that choice and accept that it may never be finished. But when someone games the system, and posts an incomplete work, but labels it complete, they disrespect me and the entire, beautiful tagging/filtering system ao3 has. Just be honest, it’s a wip, 1359 words with zero plot resolution does not a complete story make. Please and thank you, thanks for listening to my Ted Talk.
Please share if this annoys you too. I’m posting this here because I refuse to shame people directly on their works. As a fellow fanfiction writer, negative comments, no matter the context, can be devastating. At the end of the day the only reason I’m mad is because they started something amazing, and the last thing I want to do is discourage people from writing more, negative comments have been holding me back on some of my fics (well one of them) so as frustrated as I am, I won’t put that on them, besides, it’s not just one author I’m annoyed at, so many people do this. Either finish it, or be honest.
I bet octopuses think bones are horrific. I bet all their cosmic horror stories involve rigid-limbs and hinged joints.
To an octopus, a human is like a thinking being with blood-stained coral growing inside it.
I need to sit down and breathe into a bag for a while.
Its parts were obscenely limited in their movement. Each hinge could open or close only a small amount before reaching its limit, yet by working in concert they demonstrated unexpected dexterity, moving and manipulating the objects before it with cunning equal to my own. It was more torso than limb, as though a seal had been stretched and warped, given long grasping tentacles filled with bones like bars of coral. It’s head was most horrid of all, flat and ovoid, jutting out too small from the trunk as though it belonged to a beast half its size.
The thing rose upon its lowermost appendages, two long trunks that ended in flat, protruding flippers that branched into stubby, grasping mockeries of a sucker. It’s triple-hinged uppermost limbs were similar, but the ends branched into five smaller tentacles, each with three hinges of their own.
I froze, as the thing’s gaze fell upon me and it opened its hideous fish-jaw, filled with thick, many-shaped teeth like white shards of stone, and spoke in a shrill, discordant babble. I felt its horrid dry grip on my flesh, as those hinged appendages closed on me like the legs of a crab.
I felt the heat of its body, tasted its noxious, oily flesh through my touch, and prepared for the end, and all went black as a swoon overtook me.
I awoke, some time later, the cold and comforting water, banished back to the comfort of the sea and the dark. I should be grateful I am alive. I should cast aside the experience like a half-remembered dream.
I shall never again go swimming in search of lights above. The last thing I recall before the darkness took me was my right eye popping free of the thing’s grasp enough to see into the distance for one brief moment.
I saw thousands of lights.
ok so it turns out “horror but it’s about something mundane from the perspective of a non-human animal” fucks severely
If humans were reconstructed from nothing but bones, they would 100% give us fur. The idea of “hairless except for the top of the head where the hair is actually the longest in the entire animal kingdom” would never come up
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
