for fucks that up won’t shut
Last active 60 minutes ago
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Text
“Because my Democratic candidate is not 110% ideologically pure in my eyes, I WILL be voting for the convicted felon and rapist who has shit on every minority group in America to make a point to those stupid Dems! Who cares about women’s rights and the protections afforded to people of color and queer folk!! Trump FTW!!!!” <- this is genuinely how all you sound!!!!!! and if you think shitting on ANYONE will sway the public towards whatever backwards political ideology you back, you are snorting horse drugs instead of thinking critically!!!!!!!
0 notes
Text
you are all so excited for a Trump presidency. You will kill each other and shit your own pants in public in every effort to dunk one on Kamala; aka the slightly better equivalent of Trump’s policies. It is so exciting to see how many people are making pro-Trump posts because we will inevitably see 1 million posts post-November 5th of people sobbing and shitting and begging each other for help and support; speaking about how oppressed they’ve become after advocating for his presidency past the point they’re red in the face. Everyone’s itching to stick it to the stupid Dems up until the point where Trump wins and everyone is a fucking victim. Absolutely pathetic dogwater behavior from people believing the white supremacist will save the Middle East. Ugly and stupid.
#she is NOWHERE NEAR THE PERFECT CANDIDATE#but GOD do you all look so stupid showing your assholes to anyone with an internet connection while you pledge allegiance to Donald
0 notes
Text
Joshua Caleb Weibley has a brutal review of Jenny Holzer's show at the Guggenheim, and it made me go back to see where she lost the plot. I think it was around 2008-9 when 1) a lamp collab with FLOS, Baccarat crystal, and Philippe Starck showed how she had literally nothing good left to do with her Truisms; and 2) she then pivoted to video.
#one of the saddest and least developed criticisms of a major artist that I’ve seen in years#I didn’t love the lamp either but I hate this critique more#one of those articles that should’ve been summed up to ‘I just didn’t like it’ because it has nothing else of substance to say#makes no reference to her massive body of work and how it impacted graphic design as a whole#just talks about a wraparound screen they thought looked bad#had nothing to do with the substance or content of the art#like maybe this should’ve been a criticism on video screens or something idk#it was just bad. and too short#maybe quit your day job and go back to uhhhhh writing brochures#LMAO
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
I would also love to take this opportunity to point out that one of the issues lawmakers had with TikTok is that young people receive more news via TikTok than “our top 10 news outlets combined”, or something like that. A lot of people treated that like a throwaway line and didn’t meditate on the fact that our top 10 news outlets are propaganda machines, whereas TikTok is inherently Not That. TikTok is critical to the US government because it effectively informs the masses, oftentimes with information that is contrary with what is being pumped by the government through the news.
With this being said, if all you can access is yellow journalism and shitty OPeds for your news, you’re going to be misinformed—which is exactly the point. I wonder what the American people could do if we were given the same access to information as widely as other countries. We cannot lose sight of the fact that generations of the American population have grown up in highly nationalist propagandist echo chambers and part of the deconstruction of the imperialist machine is in the hands of honest information
half of Americans not even knowing more Palestinians than Israelis have died by now is one of those facts that's going to haunt me until I die
20K notes
·
View notes
Text
it should be abundantly clear that genocide is very much a human issue; one we should all take seriously to the nth degree because this is human life we’re talking about. but like—to those who can’t be bothered to care for whatever awful reason—are you not concerned or aware that they are practicing for when they come for you?? whiteness will not protect you forever, you know. even if the most evil of evils comes down upon the earth and scrubs us of everyone that isn’t white, do you think your whiteness will protect you in a homogenous society??? whiteness does not save the homeless.
6K notes
·
View notes
Text
Today I went to take a nap on my lunch break. I was so exhausted, and I’ve been feeling really overwhelmed by life in general—sorta like my head is always spinning but my body keeps plundering forward.
I went to take that nap, and I set all the wrong alarms. I wanted to take a nap from 10:00-10:30AM; I set an alarm for 11:10-11:40PM. When 10:28AM rolled around, my body snapped awake and I got ready to resume work. I was genuinely shocked to see how wrong I was, setting those alarms.
My brain failed me in this instance, but my body didn’t—which I thought was very interesting, since I’d done something similar this morning. I’d set a whole slew of alarms to wake me up for work; most of which I slept through, although I did have a very vivid lucid dream where I kept checking my real-world time on my phone. When I needed to be up at the latest, my body snapped me awake and I got ready for work. My brain, of course, was still out of it—but my body kept chugging away, dutifully preparing me to get to work (on time).
I read somewhere that ��consciousness is a fungus,” or something of that nature. It’s a hypothesis suggesting that while we were evolving from homo erectus, we may have consumed a fungus that allowed us to develop consciousness while simultaneously infecting our brains and changing our genetics to become carriers of said fungus. The hypothesis is a little stretchy, but with other circumstantial evidence, it does take on its own peculiar sort of weight. There are certainly fungi that work in this sort of fashion; namely, Ophiocordyceps unilateralis.
It makes me wonder: are our minds and our bodies two separate entities? Each theoretically working in a symbiotic relationship with each other, but simultaneously having independent urges. Body wants one thing, mind wants another. There are instances where people completely lose control over themselves or over their own thoughts… And while oftentimes, those urges overlap; they can still be considered as independent functions of a symbiotic relationship—the body is hungry so the mind knows it must help the body find food, for when the body is starved the mind is starved as well.
In some circumstances, we keep on going even when we want to die. Could it be because our actual physical bodies seek to keep going, when our consciousness does not? And the consciousness must go for the ride when it cannot override the body?? Assuming consciousness is a fungus that has infected the brain… It’s a crack-pot hypothesis but it’s interesting to entertain the more you roll it around your brain.
It also makes me wonder: would fungi respond to the chemical signals contained within human neurotransmitters? Would a mycelium network crave a lil serotonin?? Would this be a means to approaching this hypothesis from a more scientific point of view?
0 notes
Text
I mean—dare I say that’s lowkey why the series has become so memeable?? Memes work because there is a collective frame of reference for the humor to exist within… Vague memes aren’t as funny or as widely produced because not everyone gets the joke, so they don’t circulate. In contrast, memes of works that have universal appeal (like Shrek) are often the ones that become the most produced—mostly because they receive the most views/laughs/feedback. It sorta becomes like a language, where the more popular the source text is, the more people “speak it” and the more people can make jokes about it.
This of course, loops back to the OG point—what made Shrek a movie of universal appeal? To the point where it has become so memeable it was inducted into the Library of Congress as a culturally significant work to America??
The messages I think. Also the humor, but the reason why we share the movie is because of the messages. I suspect there’s at least two full generations who have watched Shrek, mostly because they share the movies with their families (because of the messages). Thus creating a universal appeal with a wide fanbase. Thus creating memes
Not to be that person but I feel like sometimes Shrek being so memeable prevents people from seeing how truly revolutionary and radical the first two films really were. A children’s fairy tale that argues that no, ugliness does not mean bad and beautiful does not mean good. A fairy tale that argues that everyone deserves love, even those cast out of the margins of society. A fairy tale that dares to have a female protagonist not be conventionally attractive or helpless. A fairy tale that argues that love does not happen at first sight, but is grown through mutual respect and interest. That’s pretty fucking sick if you ask me
95K notes
·
View notes
Text
nationalism is fascinating the more I think about it because I think we don’t spend a whole lot of time talking about how it does a very good job of keeping its citizens in its borders. eg., when the US puffs itself up and makes its citizens believe it is “the best country in the world”, it creates a simultaneous, converse belief for all those who dissent to the actions of the state that there is simply nowhere better to run to if you need to seek refuge. all options are lesser than
0 notes
Text
I think a lot about how we as a culture have turned “forever” into the only acceptable definition of success.
Like… if you open a coffee shop and run it for a while and it makes you happy but then stuff gets too expensive and stressful and you want to do something else so you close it, it’s a “failed” business. If you write a book or two, then decide that you don’t actually want to keep doing that, you’re a “failed” writer. If you marry someone, and that marriage is good for a while, and then stops working and you get divorced, it’s a “failed” marriage.
The only acceptable “win condition” is “you keep doing that thing forever”. A friendship that lasts for a few years but then its time is done and you move on is considered less valuable or not a “real” friendship. A hobby that you do for a while and then are done with is a “phase” - or, alternatively, a “pity” that you don’t do that thing any more. A fandom is “dying” because people have had a lot of fun with it but are now moving on to other things.
I just think that something can be good, and also end, and that thing was still good. And it’s okay to be sad that it ended, too. But the idea that anything that ends is automatically less than this hypothetical eternal state of success… I don’t think that’s doing us any good at all.
214K notes
·
View notes
Text
51K notes
·
View notes
Text
People keep searching for ways to argue that JK Rowling has always been a horrible person deep down as a way of explaining her recent behaviour.
But here’s the thing: that’s probably not true at all.
Pretending it is discounts the harsher, scarier truth: that even decent, well-meaning people can be radicalised by dangerous, hateful, predatory groups, and given enough time they can become truly hideous versions of their former selves.
It can happen to me. It can happen to you. It can happen to any of us, given the right mix of circumstances. And over the past few years, we’ve seen it happen to one of the most famous children’s authors of our age.
Nobody is immune.
80K notes
·
View notes
Text
this is sorta kinda why identity politics make me cringe when disenfranchised groups turn on each other. Don’t get me wrong, they’re of the utmost importance—but the people you hate and blame for society’s issues are just like you. They often hold the same amount of power as you do. I don’t always understand why the discussion isn’t about our politicians and how we can bend their arms back as a unified group in order to achieve tangible change
125K notes
·
View notes
Text
Good luck out there
I could make a post about how misandry actually is real and does genuinely greatly hurt men of all kinds--yes, even the cis/het ones--but I don't know if I wanna kick the hornet's nest this week.
2K notes
·
View notes
Note
tfw you try to make a generalized hatred for the Brits into a generalized hatred for poor people 🤡🤡🤡🤡
I’m so fed up of people just openly being classist under the guise of ‘owning those English peasants lol’. Working class food in the UK has a rich history and is fucking delicious, you just like to laugh at poor people.
The full English spent the last 1200 years as upper class bullshit food. Working class English food has a wonderful and delicious history, if you'd like to bring shepherds pie or fish and chips, I'm all ears.
465 notes
·
View notes
Note
Genuinely impressed that you were able to understand anon’s shitty rambling enough to draw a comparison
in many other parts of the world (including Morocco and India, I know as specific examples) it is extremely taboo for romantic partners to display any form of physical affection. straight couples can absolutely go to jail for holding hands.
yes, in AMERICA, men are driven to not touch each other because of societal homophobia and toxic masculinity.
however it would actually not fix the inherent problem of seeing any physical affection as romantic or sexual to simply destigmatize homosexuality.
It's almost like we're talking about America and Western society right now my fucking guy
63 notes
·
View notes
Text
This is also why we’re not “set up” to “handle” male emotions. Because we as men live in a system that does not encourage a positive expression for male emotions—“he’d rather _____ than go to therapy”—because it’s a homophobic system. “Men don’t need to express emotions, men are tough—why would we require the infrastructure to handle them?”
This movement towards positive male expression is incredibly new; recent within, what—the past thirty years? It’s certainly gained traction since then. But thirty years isn’t enough to undo the negative associations gained from hundreds of years of homophobia, of “hating girly men who have feelings.” You can’t just pretend that your experience is the only one in the world, millions of people have come before you. Think about it in the context of human life rather than what you can see in front of you today.
And look—this isn’t to say you hate gay people. Quite the opposite bro. I’m saying the system hates gay people and therefore has made it impossible to have experiences that are “tangentially gay”—like the situations you described in your original post. You may not be thinking that way, but you can bet that there are fifty men around you who are. Fuck, I just saw a TikTok post where some dude admitted he thought gay marriage was a mistake. Do you think you could express your emotions fluidly to a man like that?
Tl;dr. Think of the bigger picture bro
telling gay men that they are allowed to love each other freely, openly, and passionately will always be more important than reassuring insecure straight men that they can hug their bestie without being gay
104K notes
·
View notes
Text
Damn okay I wasn’t going to go in on this but ***as another cis male*** what you’re experiencing is homophobia. I’m happy to illustrate it because no matter what color you paint a pig, it’s still a pig.
You gotta understand that in the 50s, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and every “sign” of homosexuality a symptom. An overemotional man was very much a hallmark trait of homosexuality, so men moved away from expressing emotion to make themselves “less like the gays.” There was a whole MOVEMENT in the 60s and 70s for men not to show emotion, to be stoic and hard when raising their children that really only seemed to ease as we started to understand more about child psychology and sexuality as a spectrum.
The reason why you can’t express yourself properly is because your grandparents thought it was gay to be emotional, and raised your dad like that. Because homophobia. It’s a cultural hangover that appears today in many forms, often within things as commonplace as “expressing emotion” and “developing same sex friendships”.
Also—“cis” refers to gender orientation, NOT sexual orientation. AMAB ≠ MLM. It wasn’t the slam dunk you thought it was.
telling gay men that they are allowed to love each other freely, openly, and passionately will always be more important than reassuring insecure straight men that they can hug their bestie without being gay
104K notes
·
View notes