#except for commercials

[blueskittlesart]

*sigh* thoughts on Nintendo's botw/totk timeline shenanigans and tomfoolery?

tbh. my maybe-unpopular opinion is that the timeline is only important when a game's place on the timeline seriously informs the way their narrative progresses. the problem is that before botw we almost NEVER got games where it didn't matter. it matters for skyward sword because it's the beginning, and it matters for tp/ww/alttp (and their respective sequels) because the choices the hero of time makes explicitly inform the narrative of those games in one way or another. it matters which timeline we're in for those games because these cycles we're seeing are close enough to oot's cycle that they're still feeling the effects of his choices. botw, however, takes place at minimum 10 thousand years after oot, so its place on the timeline actually functionally means nothing. botw is completely divorced from the hero of time & his story, so what he does is a nonissue in the context of botw link and zelda's story. thus, which timeline botw happens in is a nonissue. honestly I kind of liked the idea that it happened in all of them. i think there's a cool idea of inevitability that can be played with there. but the point is that the timeline exists to enhance and fill in the lore of games that need it, and botw/totk don't really need it because the devs finally realized they could make a game without the hero of time in it.

[marzipanandminutiae]

still not over the absolutely braindead take that "if you say brutalism looks dystopian, you care more about your aesthetic than people having homes!!!!"

like

can't criticize Shein or you must want their workers to be unemployed

oh you don't like that restaurant? guess you want the people eating there to STARVE

fuck both roses AND bread; nutrient-dense gray EnergyCubes would keep you alive so wishing for a better sensory experience is basically capitalist bootlicking

(I agree that considering Soviet-era brutalist apartment buildings in the context of "shit we need housing; put something up quick" is important for those specific structures- though I think that can coexist with "wow that's ugly" -but. this person did not stop there)

[slavhew]

daily affirmations: im the shit

[bloomshroomz]

Aromantic*

(Alternate Title: Shrödinger’s Romantic)

I keep wondering if “aromantic” is really a good word to describe my romantic orientation. I have plenty of reasons for why it is, but also plenty of reasons for why it might not be. Shrödinger’s romantic.

In order to know whether you experience romantic attraction or not, you first have to have a solid definition of what romantic attraction is. A definition which is clear, and also distinct from other forms of emotional attraction. I don’t think such a definition exists, or at least, it’s not commonplace.

“Romantic attraction: attraction that makes people desire romantic contact or interaction with another person or persons.” - UNC Chapel Hill LGBT Center

But what is romantic contact or interaction? Is it contact which is culturally considered romantic? In that case, the ways in which romantic attraction is defined would vary by culture, and even by gender. Or is it contact which one intends to be romantic? That would make sense, but is incredibly subjective. How do you know where to draw the line? What if you haven’t drawn one?

“[Romantic attraction] involves a combination of physical, sexual, and emotional feelings toward someone.” - WebMD

This definition is ridiculously vague, especially for a page which defines multiple other types of attraction in relation to romance. What physical feelings? What sexual feelings? What emotional feelings? What about alloromantic asexual people, or other varioriented people, who don’t necessarily experience sexual feelings as part of their romantic feelings?

But the article also defines aromanticism as “when you don’t have any desire for a romantic relationship,” so I can’t count on it for accuracy regardless.

“Romantic attraction is the internal pull that you experience when you are with someone with whom you internally feel connected, comfortable and interested in spending more of your life with.” - Choosing Therapy

Do people not feel connected to their friends? Do people not feel comfortable with their friends? Are people not interested in spending more of their life with their friends? Why else would people find time to connect with their friends, to confide in them, to engage with them? What about these feelings is distinctly romantic?

The article goes on to say this:

“Romantic relationships are relationships intentionally initiated and maintained for experiencing sexual and romantic feelings together, whereas platonic relationships are usually centered on another purpose like hobbies, friendship, support, work, etc. Romantic relationships can also include these purposes as well, but the platonic relationship excludes the romance and sexual feelings.” - Choosing Therapy

I ask again, what about alloaces and other varioriented people? What about people who have sex with their friends? Even when it’s taboo, it’s not unheard of. The distinction can’t be sex, so it has to be romance. So, what is romance?

Later in the article, it defines romance once again:

“Romantic attraction: The internal pull that draws your attention to the other person’s positive qualities, and your internal reaction to connect, love, share and spend time with them to have more romance.” - Choosing Therapy

I feel like I’m running in circles here. People draw their attention to the positive qualities of not just romantic interests, but to friends, family, and other people with whom they’d have no romantic interest. Connection, love, and spent time are not exclusive to romance either. If the goal is to have more romance… What is that?

Every answer I find fails to say what romance is on its own. The definitions always rely on presence or absence of sex, or other things which can just as easily be present in platonic or otherwise non-romantic contexts. Romantic attraction is consistently defined by things which are not distinctly romantic.

Is it even a real thing? I mean, I feel like it’s clearly not, but it’s also clearly very real to most people. Most people don’t think about it this hard. It’s like they were given a manual that I can never possess. It comes naturally to them. They feel romantic attraction, and they know, intuitively, that that’s what it is.

Is my lack of intuition evidence that I don’t experience romantic attraction, or am I just autistic? Maybe it’s both. When I described to my aunts my emotional attraction, they described my way of experiencing and perceiving attraction as very “intellectual,” which I initially rejected. But I think they were right. I lack the intuition to understand my feelings in any way that doesn’t involve a literal or metaphorical chart. It’s something I can’t just feel and then know like other people do.

Is romantic attraction always a “you’ll know it when you feel it” sort of thing? It seems like it. Even when I search “romantic attraction” on Google, many results either come from queer Fandom Wiki pages, discussions amongst a-spec people, Reddit, or Quora. Some results aren’t even relevant to the question, including multiple results which just describe what “aromantic” means. The opposite of what I intended to search for.

The thing is, I do have feelings which would likely be perceived as romantic to most people. I have a deep desire for commitment and companionship. To touch and be touched. To love and be loved. To be emotionally and physically intimate with other people. To feel the warmth of other people as we lay in bed together. To live out our mundane lives together. Things that most people would find incredibly romantic.

But are these things romantic if I don’t explicitly intend for them to be? Is it romantic for me to be open to it being romantic, without actively wanting that?

When I’ve described my feelings online, I’ve gotten mixed responses from other people, but I’ve generally been given similar advice from different strangers, and similar labels thrown at me, even when I hadn’t asked for advice or labels.

“I think you’d enjoy a queerplatonic relationship.”

“You might be cupioromantic.”

“You might be bellusromantic.”

And I can understand where they’re coming from. I don’t think they’re entirely wrong, either. I would enjoy a queerplatonic relationship… But not for any reason that wouldn’t apply to other committed relationship types. Queerplatonic relationships, platonic relationships, romantic relationships, and whatever else there is are the same to me in all but label.

Cupioromanticism is something I have considered. I made the flag for it when I was 15 years old as well (yes, the peach one with five stripes; I always asked to be credited anonymously), so I’m biased towards liking the flag. But the definition is “being aromantic, and also wanting a romantic relationship.”

I don’t specifically want a romantic relationship, but I do want committed relationships in general, and romantic relationships are included in that. So, maybe?

Bellusromantic is something I have also considered, and it also has a pretty flag. But I think it’s less accurate than cupioromantic. The definition is “being aromantic, and enjoying traditionally romantic things, but not wanting a romantic relationship (or not wanting a committed relationship, depending on the definition used).”

I do enjoy traditionally romantic things in a way which is not explicitly romantic, and I don’t explicitly want a romantic relationship. But I’m not opposed to romantic relationships, and I do explicitly want committed relationships.

I took some aro-spec tests, and my results had a tendency to skew towards cupioromantic, bellusromantic, and quoiromantic. Quoiromantic is another orientation which I have considered, and it might be the most accurate.

Quoiromantic is also aptly known as “whatromantic” or “WTFromantic” because the defining trait is that romantic attraction as a concept doesn’t make sense to you.

“[Quoiromantic], also known as [whatromantic] or [WTFromantic], is a [romantic] orientation defined by confusion, vagueness, and/or obscurity. A [quoiromantic] person may not understand or relate to the concepts of [romantic] attraction and/or [romantic] orientation. [Quoiromanticism] may involve confusion related to what [romance] is, whether or not one experiences [romantic attraction], and how to differentiate it from other forms of attraction. [Quoiromanticism] can also feel blurry and unclear, and may center around general confusion around one's identity and attraction. It can also refer to a lack of identification with [romantic] orientation as a concept, and can additionally serve as a label for people who cannot fit into more specific identities. [Quoiromanticism] can also refer to when one does not experience [romantic] attraction in a "traditional" manner. It is sometimes used as a catch-all term for people who know they're somewhere on the [aromantic] spectrum, but aren't sure where.” - An LGBTQIA+ Wiki (originally about quoisexuality; I changed some words.)

In a similar vein, pomoromantic (“pomo” being literally taken from “postmodern”) would also fit. My romantic orientation exists from a post-romantic perspective, where romance is understood to be made up bogus which isn’t actually fundamentally different from any other form of emotional connection.

“[Pomoromanticism] is defined as refusing, avoiding, or not fitting any [romantic] orientation label in terms of conventional labels or classifications, such as gay, lesbian, [biromantic], or [aromantic]. It challenges categorizations in favor of largely unmapped possibility and the intense charge that comes with transgression. Some [pomoromantic] people may be queer or questioning, and others may not be.” - Another LGBTQIA+ Wiki (originally about pomosexuality; I changed some words.)

But at that point, is it even worth labeling my romantic orientation? Should I just be bisexual/omnisexual? Maybe with a little asterisk at the end? Does any of this matter? Am I thinking too much? (I am.)

I think that continuing to identify as aromantic will probably close me off to potential relationships. I feel like the word gives people the wrong idea. At the same time, the way that I think about romance is fundamentally different than the way other people tend to, and I do consider my aromanticism to be a notable part of who I am and how I experience the world. Maybe I should just send this to whoever ends up being a potential partner. Probably more useful than any label.

[emotinalsupportturtle]

Proof that tumblr has really moved on from superwholock is that Tom Hiddleston literally did the introduction for the BBC olympics coverage, looking absolutely immaculate in fancy suits whilst speaking french and yet somehow didn't trend at all (despite the olympics trending - I didn't even come across any posts so I had to literally go to his tag). However don't get to comfortable because we still haven't moved on from David Tennant, that man was trending like a month ago for at least a day after doing a whiskey commercial (he basically trends whenever he's seen in public)

[callixton]

actually the really disconcerting thing abt this program is that i can feel my priorities in life changing. i’m slowly moving away from have the best arts career at all costs to needing to make art i care about and having enough money to have a life with the people who i love most

[spiderdotexe]

recently i have been making 'Miis' in Miitopia .. beause i have not started a actual playthrough (i will finish) Yet. why? i do NOT have Nintendo switch Online and i might get that first so i can make the NPCS strange characters. so for now im making these things. (so if you WANT these MIIS! Well. you cant. yet. ?)

[pseudophan]

honestly they were disrespectful to themselves. they let it get completely out of hand for a MONTH. the palace did this to themselves

yeah... look nobody will get me to agree with people being like 'conspiracy theorists have gone too far' 'you've all been disrespectful towards catherine' 'there was never a reason for any of this' 'you should be ashamed for what you said' etc etc etc. because like... first of all, again, i hold zero respect for these people. why the fuck should i. but even if i did... it's their own fucking fault???? the fuck?????? lmao?????????? literally only a handful of people gave a fuck until that doctored photo. and then they just kept making it worse. and i'm sorry but i actually don't think they're entitled to their privacy when their entire job is pr and they're blatantly lying in all their pr shit like ? what else are you good for lol. but then that also makes me angry because as much as i don't like kate for several reasons i'm still a bit genuinely offended at her behalf for how they've handled all this shit.. like making her take the blame for the photoshop (i hope for her sake it was her own idea, because otherwise........), having her appear alone in the video announcing her cancer (why tf isn't william there when she's talking about how he's by her side lmao), the general just lack of giving a fuck about anything whilst the world went wild theorising about her.... i can't tell whether she's taking the fall to cover for something else or if they're just all absolute assholes ?? again like. i don't like kate middleton. for many reasons. but i like william and charles a whole lot less and it's infuriating that they're making me feel like she's been wronged lmao

[terminallyworkingonit]

I wish the Mythbusters were real cause then I could ask them to test if Serena Williams can deflect an RPG with a tennis racket if she swings hard enough.

[mariocki]

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)

"Things happen here about... they don't tell about. I see things. You see, they say it's just an old man talking. You laugh at an old man. There's them that laughs and knows better."

[digital999placebo]

Funny how not a single “fixing art” person can draw

[pa-pa-plasma]

AU where instead of Spectra, it's Dr. Phil with his stupid little studio he just summons Danny into to bully him on live (ghost) television

[taylorhawkins]

2002 Singles Roundup! (Spin Magazine)

Dave Grohl and Taylor Hawkins break down this year’s radio gaga…

Nelly - Hot In Herre

Dave: You know this song? Nelly?

Taylor: He could have affiliations, we better be careful.

[Spin:] I don't think he has anymore.

Taylor: Anymore. Once you're in you're never out. I've never even heard this song.

Dave: You hang out at the wrong clubs.

[Spin:] Any idea why he's got a Band-Aid on his face?

Dave: Maybe he popped a zit.

The Hives - Hate To Say I Told You So

Dave: I do love the Hives. This kind of has that 'My Sharona' effect on people. It spans all demographics. It's just a totally bare-essentials rock song.

Taylor: The Stooges did it better.

Dave: Elaborate.

Taylor: It just sounds like if the Stooges were way tighter.

Dave: Or maybe if the Kinks didn't fight so much.

Avril Lavigne - Sk8ter Boi

Dave: Is this Bon Jovi? Don’t tell us. Is Pat Benetar back?

Taylor: I'm sorry, I hate high school lyrics like this. It grosses me out to picture some 50-year-old A&R dude in a limo with her, like [puts arm around imaginary girl], "This is gonna be huge, baby. The kids are going to love this." It's like, God! Go right for the fuckin' mallrats!

Dave: Well she's Canadian.

Taylor: She got a nose ring?

Dave: I don’t know, but I bet her navel's pierced.

Taylor: No, she's got a tattoo of a dolphin on her butt.

The Vines - Get Free

Taylor: I think these guys suck. This song is real fuckin' boring.

Dave: Avril Lavigne's song is more challenging than this. If you really want to challenge the listener give them some of that Canadian stuff.

Taylor: This is just, like, buy your angst at the local Kmart.

[Spin:] Dave, does this Nirvana sound bug you at all?

Dave: It doesn't bother me that much.

Christina Aguilera - Dirrty

Taylor: I'd rather discuss the video. The song doesn't even matter!

Dave: It's a serious career shift.

Taylor: Yeah, like when Guns N' Roses went from Welcome To The Jungle to November Rain. I don't know if it's going to work out for her.

Dave: I think it promotes group sex: it promotes lesbianism.

Taylor: She's a little slut! Just kidding.

Justin Timberlake - Like I Love You

Taylor: Ugh! I'm sorry, Mr Timberlake!

Dave: This is Justin? It sounds like Michael Jackson.

Taylor: Are there young boys in the video? Justin tries to dance like Michael Jackson - he even has the hat on.

Dave: Here's the deal with Justin. I'll go rent Breakin' 2 and put on Thriller, and there you go.

Kylie - Can't Get You Out Of My Head

Dave: Killer song! No question! You're getting ready to hit the clubs, put this on. It's got an old nursery-rhyme melody to it - unforgettable.

Taylor: Kylie - I'm proud of her.

Dave: I've got to say I can't stand it when a singer dances - except for Kylie.

Taylor: Freddie Mercury.

Dave: Freddie didn't dance; he pranced.

Taylor: This songs way better than that Christina Aguilera - Aguilerica.

Dave: I've got an idea! Let's start a Christina Aguleria metal cover band - do all her songs but heavy metal, and call it 'Aguilerica'.

Red Hot Chilli Peppers - By The Way

Dave: What's this song about?

[Spin:] It's about a girl he wants to sleep with who's coming to the show.

Dave: Isn't that what all their songs are about?

Taylor: That's what all our songs are about.

Kelly Osbourne - Papa Don't Preach

Dave: I dig it! She's got a good voice, man.

Taylor: I bet that's Dave Navarro playing guitar.

Dave: He definitely sounds pierced.

Taylor: Whoever's playing guitar has his tits pierced, so it's probably Navarro.

Dave: I'm into Kelly Osbourne. She's the snotty punk-rock kid at your high school - but deep down, she's kinda sensitive.

Dirty Vegas - Days Go By

Dave: Is it a car commercial? You could sell a ton of cars with this song. (adopts portentous car commercial voice) Ford Aspire.

Taylor: A new wave in technology.

Dave: The new Ford Probe!

Taylor: Feel the power. Next!

Eminem - Without Me

Dave I love this. Great song, no question.

Taylor: What's so cool about Eminem is the rhythms of his melodies - he's a step ahead of everybody with his flow. As far as I'm concerned, there's him, Snoop and Kool Keith.

Dave: So good! So Hilarious!

Taylor: Awesome. He's no dummy. He's an intelligent motherfucker.

Dave: Even Moby probably likes this song.

Vanessa Carlton - A Thousand Miles

Taylor: What the hell is this shit? Is it someone's piano recital? Who's Vanessa Carlton?

Dave: Some girl who plays piano.

Taylor: It's kind of like the new Bruce Hornsby. Does the Range play with her? Nah, I don't like it.

Dave: Flashdance.

System Of A Down - Toxicity

Dave: Badass sound.

Taylor: I like the fact music like this is...

Dave: ..challenging people.

Taylor: I'd rather listen to early Genesis or early Rush, just because it's more nostalgic, but it's fucking awesome to me that shit like this is popular.

Dave: Agreed.

Shakira - Underneath Your Clothes

Dave: Shakira sounds like she's got a fuckin' booger in her throat that she's got to cough out. She's like sex education in junior high where you see the cartoon diagrams of a penis entering a vagina; it's just caricatures of sex. That's how I see Shakira. Does that make any sense?

Taylor: No, but I say we leave it at that.

SOURCE: fooarchive.com

[so-long-soldier28]

not me audibly groaning while watching teen wolf the other day bc i thought it had cut to commercial but it was tHE FREAKING SHOW

[x-for-a-y]

"Hey, Jake! Would ya help a curious guy out and answer a question for me?" Guptill hits him with a smile- one landing more on the side of appraising than friendly, but hell if he's one to judge people's social skills. "What landed you in this diary anyway?"

Now there's something Jake hasn't given thought to in a hot minute. "Oh, it was... weird. Like, uh, not explained very well." But here he is trying to do it anyway. "I just was on... the night shift at my job, and a client's, uh, wife, said some weird stuff to me. I wasn't even trying to be funny, but... then I guess word got out about that-"

He's heard enough. "That's it? He got mad at you over just a workplace incident?"

"I don't know if 'mad' is really the word for it." He's a teenager or something, right? He probably knows nothing about insurance.

Guptill's indignation is so righteous it somehow slips right around into being charismatic. "Still, that's nothing! Boy, it really drives me up the wall the way people make mountains out of molehills."

Jake extends a lazy glance from side to side, calling attention to their surroundings too subtly to do much good. "I'll say," whenever he has anything worth saying.

[brbgensokyo]

i had too much unfettered access to trance and headphones as a developing human bc i ended up cooking my neurons on low filter sweeps detuned saw choruses