#I think of it as shitty

[sarasa-cat]

When I get a few free moments (read: a short series of consecutive, uninterrupted, totally me-time evenings), I am itching to finally finish something I have been thinking of doing (for so very long-- far longer than you might guess):

Learning a few new editing tricks in Photoshop (or procreate) so I can mimic the style of Something(tm) that I already have in mind.

Applying that knowledge to making a few new icons and then selecting one of those for my tumblr account ... and maybe using another one of those icons for a side account that I might have created shortly after I caught the CP2077 bug but have since ignored bc time, what is it?.

Messing around with tumblr themes because -- lol -- I need to use my shitty CSS knowledge for something better and more exciting than that Obsidian Monstrosity I've been custom theming.

[kensatou]

(✿◕‿◕) die (ꈍ ꒳ ꈍ✿)

[eatyourdamnpears]

I’ve been in such a funk since the concert. I’m not even sure I enjoyed myself that much. maybe I did. I don’t know

[adjit]

I think we need to get more comfortable with the idea that sometimes shitty, racist, homophobic, bigoted people are still incredibly talented.

I feel like every time I see a post addressing someone’s shitty behavior the post also takes the time to mention that they’re not even good at [x] anyway. And that’s just not always true? Equating being good at a skill as being morally good is just not necessary. Someone can be a fantastic writer, can have a beautiful singing voice, can create breathtaking artwork, and still be a horrible person.

I know part of this is probably just the instinct to dislike everything about a person when you dislike them, but I also think this mindset leads to people defending creatives way past where they should, because if bad people create bad art, then if this person creates art that I like and resonates with me, then they can’t be a bad person!

And you know. That’s just not true. Those two things are simply completely unconnected and I think it’d be healthier if we all started disconnecting them in our heads.

[bruciemilf]

“Bruce is emotionally incompetent and can’t step outside his own morality” yeah it’s a character flaw.

“Dick is extremely stubborn and thinks he’s right all the time” yeah it’s a character flaw.

“Jason has hypocritical tendencies” yeah it’s a character flaw.

“ Tim is entitled and doesn’t think about people when seeking results, and often acts uncaring” yeah it’s a character flaw.

“Damian is rude and bratty” yeah, it’s a character flaw.

Also, some people may not even regard everything listed above as flaws.

Having negative traits allows incredible flexibility within your characters, what makes them intriguing, what makes them easy to relate to. If you want to write people, then write people. But they can’t be good and clean all the time.

[tomiyeee]

[clownowo]

been replaying the Portal series I think this is where its heading

[shittysawtraps]

saw/house/hannibal crossover where all three of them are trying to manipulate the same patient into succumbing to their true nature which naturally ends with a fistfight in the parking lot while the patient quietly leaves

[fight-nights-at-freddys]

i’m sorry but this is so shitty. i get not wanting to see nsfw of your characters, and i totally respect any creator setting boundaries and asking people not to send them that stuff. HOWEVER, you have to accept that once you make your characters public, people are going to treat them in ways you don’t personally like.

making a COPYRIGHT FORM so people go on a witch hunt, just so you can copyright strike them (falsely, mind you. fanfic and fanart fall under transformative works) is such a gross thing to do.

it doesn’t matter if the characters were based off your childhood, or personal experiences. it doesn’t matter how tightly you want to guard them and keep them safe and pure. the only solutions are setting boundaries between you and your fanbase, removing the characters from public eye and stop making content for them publicly, or learn to ignore it.

going all anne rice over people sexualizing a character is not the way to go though.

[triona-tribblescore]

TW// Abuse implication

Thinking about possible Vox and Angel's interactions and how they'd go down. Theres such a unique mix of hatred to each other and common ground with their different experiences with Valentino, has me thinking.

Also just want to clarify I love Vox's character a LOT but ofc obv don't sympathise with him or think he is any way shape or form a decent individual, cant with stupid toxic dumbass x

AND IF YOU SEE ANY MISTAKES OR TYPOS NO YOU DONT- (i was so tired when drawing it forgive me TwT)

[darie-vox]

Wimgs

and some alts (click for a full and better image!)

[alderaphid]

In light of recent revelations...

[ztpx]

Boring work meeting doodles

[goonmypenis]

hello to the three people still in the sally face fandom i hope yall are doing great

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

Let's talk about zoo animal welfare for a second...

(And I want to preface this by saying I have a 4 year Bachelor degree in Animal Science (focusing in welfare and behaviour with a major in Canine and Equine Science) before I got sidetracked into zoo animals and did 3 internships working with wild canids, ungulates and marine mammals - this involved both hands on behaviour modification/desenitisation as well as hands off behavioural observation and welfare study. I worked for 2 years as a marine mammal specialist and worked specifically in facilities to improve husbandry, behavioural training and welfare practises.

I also worked in a facility in the Asia Pacific, working to improve welfare standards for bottlenose dolphins and continued to work with cetacean welfare researchers after this. I also did a course in zoo management, husbandry and welfare and this involved working in an accredited zoo facility learning things like exhibit design, behaviour management and husbandry with multiple species.)

So a few points to say about zoo animal welfare when discussing zoo standards and practises:

The average person does not have the expertise to do behaviour observation and welfare evaluation in zoo animals - that's why when the general public visits a zoo and says "the animal looks sad" it's worth being skeptical of that claim. But it doesn't mean a gut feeling about a zoo's quality can be completely invalid. Just that it might be worth researching further or seeking more information.

However, with experience, it is possible to analyse behaviour in the context of welfare. And context to that behaviour is always important (for example, Moo Deng showing stress related behaviour towards the specific context of being touched or followed around by her keeper - very much an indication of poor handling practises)

Poor animal husbandry and welfare is not limited to specific countries or regions, however it can be more normalised and accepted under the influnce of cultures and laws. Or even just the culture of the zoo itself such as the "this is the way we've always done it" places.

Being an accredited zoo is a start to good welfare, but it doesn't make any sort of welfare concern obsolete. And accreditation is supposed to ensure that welfare concerns are addressed but because they are mostly run as a volunteer based organisation, they often don't have resources to check into every concern (unless it's a government funded organisation)

A zoo contributing to conservation research is great, but not if it is at the expense of the animals' welfare - welfare should always be prioritised, with research and conservation efforts to follow.

Welfare is a state that is in flux. So a negative welfare state can move into positive welfare state under different influences.

There are multiple factors that influence zoo animal welfare: enclosure/habitat, expression of natural behaviour, guest interaction, diet, enrichment, water quality, hygeine ect. It'll rarely just be one factor, though it does depend how salient that factor is.

Just because a keeper or management of a zoo have been there for a long time, doesn't mean they can't be criticised - it is possible to be still using outdated practises and believing in methodologies and management practises that need updating - that's the whole point of continued education

Having limited resources can often impact welfare. Giving a facility the resources they need to improve is a good start to improving welfare.

Even if an animal is being handled in an inappropriate way for a short time, that doesn't mean that can't have long term implications for welfare eg. if every time your dog jumped on you when you got home and you smacked him in the face once before going on with your day, that doesn't mean that your dog won't learn negative associations with your arrival just because it was one time.

Best practise husbandry of zoo animals involves:

Use of positive reinforcement based voluntary husbandry and health care

All interaction based on choice and voluntary interaction that is reinforced with primary reinforcement such as food

Mostly hands off approaches for the species that require them (ungulates, large primates, large carnivores)

Relatively stable social groups with aggression only in specific situations/contexts that are normal for the species

Back areas for animals to rest outside of public view

Species appropriate habitats to meet species specific behaviour requirements

Five freedoms of welfare being met but goes above and beyond the bare minimum

Poor zoo animal husbandry involves animals:

Being forced into anything such as presentations, education programs, medical procedures/gating

Any use of physical punishment such as chasing, slapping, pushing or poking - negative reinforcement such as bull hooks are also fairly outdated in handling species like elephants

Being excessively handled, chased and touched/restrained for no reason (eg. for social media videos)

Showing signs of avoidance and aggression constantly towards their keepers

Have constant conflict happening in their social groups

Are living in enclosures that are not suitable for their specific specific needs - size is only one factor in this. Substrate, habitat design, water quality ect. are also things to consider.

Are too close to the public/at risk from the public

Have no areas to retreat from the public/rest away from potential stressors

Have no enrichment program/no daily enrichment

Those are all flags that there could be some poor welfare happening and that a zoo is not prioritising welfare

Okay there's the ramble of the day done. Feel free to ask questions for further clarification if needed.

[bruciemilf]

Goddd give me Thomas, Martha and Alfred who were completely obsessed with baby Bruce. Martha who’s quiet but solemn affection.

Hand holding, polishing his messy cheeks after he stole dessert from the kitchen, words of affirmation, teaching him how to build confidence brick by brick. “No one is made to be insignificant.”

Thomas who’s bright and loud and bigger than big, who’s just pride embodied. Showing Bruce off at every opportunity. His love is savage by nature.

Squishing Bruce’s face and throwing him around and aggressively kissing him all over his face. Maybe biting into the chub of his cheeks a little. Bruce is like his extra limb.

And Alfred? From the second Bruce took his first breath, he knew. He knew Gotham would drown him in shadow because the little pearl was just too perfect. But he’ll be there.

He was the knight first.