#Innovate Now

[apna04counsellor]

All Scholarship Details for Maharashtra Students

State-Level Scholarships (Maharashtra): Rajarshi Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Shikshan Shulk Shishyavrutti YojnaApplication Link: MahaDBT PortalDeadline: Generally open from August to December 2024 (check the portal for updates). Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Hostel Maintenance AllowanceApplication Link: MahaDBT PortalDeadline: Same as above. Post Matric Scholarship for Minority CommunitiesApplication…

[ilovedthestars]

A thought I’ve been having: While it's important to recognize the long history of many current queer identities (and the even longer history of people who lived outside of the straight, cis, allo “norm”) I think it's also important to remember that a label or identity doesn't have to be old to be, for lack of a better word, real.

This post that i reblogged a little while ago about asexuality and its history in the LGBTQ+ rights movement and before is really good and really important. As i've thought about it more, though, it makes me wonder why we need to prove that our labels have "always existed." In the case of asexuality, that post is pushing back against exclusionists who say that asexuality was “made up on the internet” and is therefore invalid. The post proves that untrue, which is important, because it takes away a tool for exclusionists.

But aromanticism, a label & community with a lot of overlap & solidarity with asexuality, was not a label that existed during Stonewall and the subsequent movement. It was coined a couple decades ago, on internet forums. While the phrasing is dismissive, it would be technically accurate to say that it was “made up on the internet.” To be very clear, I’m not agreeing with the exclusionists here—I’m aromantic myself. What I’m asking is, why does being a relatively recently coined label make it any less real or valid for people to identify with?

I think this emphasis on historical precedent is what leads to some of the attempts to label historical figures with modern terminology. If we can say someone who lived 100 or 1000 years ago was gay, or nonbinary, or asexual, or whatever, then that grants the identity legitimacy. but that's not the terminology they would have used then, and we have no way of knowing how, or if, any historical person's experiences would fit into modern terminology.

There's an element of "the map is not the territory" here, you know? Like this really good post says, labels are social technologies. There's a tendency in the modern Western queer community to act like in the last few decades the "truth" about how genders and orientations work has become more widespread and accepted. But that leaves out all the cultures, both historical and modern, that use a model of gender and sexuality that doesn't map neatly to LGBTQ+ identities but is nonetheless far more nuanced than "there are two genders, man and woman, and everyone is allo and straight." Those systems aren’t any more or less “true” than the system of gay/bi/pan/etc and straight, cis and trans, aro/ace and allo.

I guess what I’m saying is, and please bear with me here, “gay” people have not always existed. “Nonbinary” people have not always existed. “Asexual” people have not always existed. But people who fell in love with and had sex with others of the same gender have always existed. People who would not have identified themselves as either men or women have always existed. People who didn’t prioritize sex (and/or romance) as important parts of their lives have always existed. In the grand scheme of human existence, all our labels are new, and that’s okay. In another hundred or thousand years we’ll have completely different ways of thinking about gender and sexuality, and that’ll be okay too. Our labels can still be meaningful to us and our experiences right now, and that makes them real and important no matter how new they are.

We have a history, and we should not let it be erased. But we don’t need a history for our experiences and ways of describing ourselves to be real, right now.

[prushka92]

I made this bastard a couple of days ago wanna show it here too so ya!!

This bastard's owner is @gensational

ALSO things for the hive i made before but never posted

And kikoriki edition

[batsandbirdsandothers]

...low-key want to draw something other than ghost!jason atm... any ideas...? requests...? fic recs...?

[oof-ow-my-bone]

twiddles my thumbs uhh umm.. started watching gravity falls ahah…

[assorted-biscuits]

FUNKTASTIC EVERYWHERE SYSTEM

[ophanim-vesper]

An hour and 17 minutes into Defunctland's new video. It's crazy to think that the first person to basically say "we should replace artists with robots/AI!" was... Walt Disney himself.

[around 1:17:14 in the video]

Defunctland's new video, you should watch it.

[lucaanis]

『🐦‍⬛』 -> "I'm guessing you're the reason we're here."

[nicorobinphd]

stg, being an enjoyer of jane twdg is like being forced into an expert-level course on the way misogyny manifests in video game spaces.

god forbid a woman be complex or difficult or provably mischaracterized (see tags) at the end of her arc to service the culmination of a man’s storyline.

[avelera]

I can't believe my silly little "slice of life" early days fic for Jayvik actually predicted a major theme of the last act of Arcane

Hell, I can't believe it almost predicted an actual fucking line

[rainbowsandwhumperflies]

they should make a blanket that is so so so cozy and comforting but without the unbearable warmth

[identityquest]

some rapo girlies 💖

[shalom-iamcominghome]

Jews in my phone, I have a confession: I hate xmas, but there is one (1) xmas song which I unironically love.

If we could all get together for the combined chanukah and xmas party and play this song specifically (and it has to be this one), I would die happy:

[Video Description: Anuc Atittawan's rendition of "The Christmas Song." He stares directly at the viewer and his very thick accent makes it difficult to understand parts of his song /End of Description]

[f0point5]

[ikjun]

Mr. Hades is a mighty king Must be making some mighty big deals Seems like he owns everything

PARK SUNG-WOONG as KIM MYEONG-GIL BLOODHOUNDS / 사냥개들 dir. Kim Joo-hwan

[aj-lenoire]

for a supposed genius anna really is a dumbass, falling for this exact trick twice in a row