HOLY SHIT, IT WAS THE ORIGINAL ONE

MAKE A WISH

the first post ever on tumblr

I WAS EXPECTING IT TO BE A REMAKE OF SOME SORT HOLY FUCK

WHO THE FUCK KEEPS BRINGING THIS BACK

reblog this because it shows up every blue moon

@hellsite-hall-of-fame

OH NOT AGAIN

Fuck you this shit again

-?!

TERRY YOU RUINED MY DASH HOW DARE YOU!!! JAIL!! JAIL FOR 1000 YEARS!!!

Just so you know I did an evil laugh at this notification

Just so you know I

did an evil laugh at this

notification

Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.

Love the puns from Pun Hub

Allow me to add my favorite

‎ ‎

@imnotactallycool felt like you would enjoy

pogo siblings having fun

SILKSONG SPOILERS!!

Life in Pharloom: scenes from after the end

Loser Ze’mer VS Chad Hornet

fanfacts lace regrets to know about

hi op i really liked ur post so i decided to draw it

(Image source embedded)

So many pieces of Jewish media portray an Ashkenazi American perspective (not that a. there's anything wrong with portraying Ashkenazim or b. the media is always a good portrayal), I wanted to share some non-Asheknazi/American based children's books.

Ooooh, I love this, thank you! More books to look for. 👀

ouughh i love them to bits and pieces

How it feels being a little hater with your friends in private spaces and never actually going out of your way to harass or bully anyone

Insisting Christmas is ‘for everyone’ is Christian proselytizing. Send tweet.

Wild that folks keep saying beekeepers abuse bees as if bees are not both venomous flying animals and fully unionized

Hubris to think you COULD abuse bees

I think that if you see a balrog in an unlocked kitty kennel then you can assume that it wants to be there

male gaze is not 'when person look sexy' or 'when misogynist make film'

death of the author is not 'miku wrote this'

I don't think you have to read either essay to grasp the basic concepts

death of the author means that once a work is complete, what the author believes it to mean is irrelevant to critical analysis of what's in the text. it means when analysing the meaning of a text you prioritise reader interpretation above author intention, and that an interpretation can hold valid meaning even if it's utterly unintentional on the part of the person who created the thing. it doesn't mean 'i can ignore that the person who made this is a bigot' - it may in fact often mean 'this piece of art holds a lot of bigoted meanings that the author probably wasn't intentionally trying to convey but did anyway, and it's worth addressing that on its own terms regardless of whether the author recognises it's there.' it's important to understand because most artists are not consciously and vocally aware of all the possible meanings of their art, and because art is communal and interpretive. and because what somebody thinks they mean, what you think somebody means, and what a text is saying to you are three entirely different things and it's important to be able to tell the difference.

male gaze is a cinematographic theory on how films construct subjectivity (ie who you identify with and who you look at). it argues that film language assumes that the watcher is a (cis straight white hegemonically normative) man, and treats men as relatable subjects and women as unknowable objects - men as people with interior lives and women as things to be looked at or interacted with but not related to. this includes sexual objectification and voyeurism, but it doesn't mean 'finding a lady sexy' or 'looking with a sexual lens', it means the ways in which visual languages strip women of interiority and encourage us to understand only men as relatable people. it's important to understand this because not all related gaze theories are sexual in nature and if you can't get a grip on male gaze beyond 'sexual imagery', you're really going to struggle with concepts of white or abled or cis subjectivities.

There was a post going around that I thought was such a good non-sexual example of the male gaze

It was a screenshot of a Bluesky or Twitter post, where one person responded to someone talking about art being inherently political by drawing a stick figure.

“See?” they said: “there’s nothing political about him”

Followed by OP pointing out that they had defaulted to using “him”

THAT’S the male gaze. That stick figure, like all stick figures, was the absolute barebones of a human figure; a head, body, arms and legs. NONE of those features are inherently masculine or feminine.

And yet, the second that commenter started to relate to their new creation… they used male pronouns.

The male gaze perceives maleness as universally relatable, as the default. Meanwhile, femaleness (and any other gender expression, if they are thought of at all) is seen as a deviation from that universal experience.

Antisemitism aside, i don't think trying to erase jewish and israeli culture from public view because Israel is doing fucked up things, is good.

Firstly, because there will always be bad people in any culture. There is no singular race, religion, ethnicity, other identity, etc which only has 100% good people.

Secondly and more importantly, it's treating the ability to exist with your cultural identity visible as a reward and the removal of it as punishment. I don't think cultural identity should be treated as a reward or punishment, people should just be allowed to have and express it.

And because this is the piss on the poor webbed site, sanctioning a government does not count as erasing cultural identity from public view. I am specifically talking about people thinking jews should not wear religious symbols, jewish food like challah should be boycotted, the hebrew language should not be spoken in public, jewish cultural events like open participation festivals should be banned, and other things down those lines.