#i love zoobe bunny | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

memes-and-shit · 5 months ago

Text

🍁 uhhhhh, you guys can call me Gromit. that's a good-enough fake-name lol i go by they/them pronouns, i am confirmed to be over 18 years old, and that's all my info y'all get ✌️

🍁 i didn't make most of this. or any of it, really. (sometimes, i edit; but i dont consider my edits to be "i made this" bc... i didnt make the core thing i am editing) so, anything you wanna use? no need to credit me. i'd like to see what you make using it, for shits and giggles, but that's not mandatory

🍁 i try to post credit to "the little guys" i make stuff from whenever i can figure out the source

➥ some of this stuff i find second- or third-hand where i have no clue who the "little guy" that made this is; feel free to reblog to add the applicable credit, and (after i do some fact-checking, bc some people online ✨️lie✨️) then i will reblog what you said + alter the original post to now have credit. but multi-million/billion-companies, celebrities, etc?? idgaf, you can VERY easily find out who the source

🍁 most things are on a queue

🍁 i don't do requests, sorry

🍁 here's how you can make your own edits tho??

🍁 some things i edited to have captions (#my edit + #captioned); others, already had captions (just #captioned); only a few videos don't have captions (#uncaptioned)

🍁 i tag based on what my Reactions Folder's sub-folders were. thats how i organize. idc about attention; meaning, 99% of the time, idc about tagging "correctly", so it crops up under the "correct" "tumblr tag-pages"-or-whatever-theyre-called

🍁 organizational tags i use below "read more". below that are some statements too

➥ said statements table-of-contents: about helping me credit the little guys [[titled: "sources psa"]] 🍁 my opinions on when to credit an editor and whatnot, and when i will/won't credit another editor (which does explain why idgaf about y'all not crediting me when i do edits lmao) [[titled: "a potential controversy"]] 🍁

✎﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏post-topic tags

#off theme

➥ (aka: these posts are not "memes & shit"; probably me posting a life-update or similar? idk)

#masterlist series

➥ (aka: anything i think is a mini-series of "things i have posted". i will VERY rarely do these, stuff's gotta be hyper-specific for me to feel like a masterlist is warranted. like. the first one of these i made was not just a Kylee Henke masterlist series, but a Kylee Henke's Zoobe Bunny Excerpt-Videos masterlist series. like i said, shit's got to be hyper-specific. if i made one for everything and everyone, i would get so overwhelmed so quickly, it's better this way, just let it be hyper-specific only lol)

✎﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏post-typage tags

#my edit

➥ (aka: these are posts i "made", or at least did something to (eg. adding captions). these are like "the templates")

#my customization

➥ (aka: me applying an example of how to use "the templates". usually is from my irl life of me using these @my loved ones, and i post them here bc im a little bit too attached to wanna delete said customization entirely 👉👈🥺)

#captioned, #uncaptioned

#video

✎﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏additional tags: my "esp for" tags

➥ (aka: the post is esp, or "especially", useful for these groups)

#esp for writers and i.f. creators

➥ (aka: posts will be applicable about writing, about discussing fictional characters, and so on)

#esp for artists

➥ (aka: posts will be applicable about doing art (the "art" in question primarily being drawing), and so on)

✎﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏my Reaction Folders' titles ➡ now tags

my aforementioned Reactions Folders' titles:

✎﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏sources psa

expect these to be the least consistent thing i do, ever, but sure, ill add them sometimes, i guess, when i remember/know who the source is. more likely the aforementioned "little guys" than anybody else tho, ngl. but said little guys will get credit either within the post and/or within the image/video itself; and if i forget to also tag said credit, i think that's fine. i'll still try to do it, even though i know ill be inconsistent and forgetful the little guys and big guys, but also shhhhhhh if i forget. i'm doing my best, just let my mistakes go, let it be inconsistent

➥ but also do feel free to reblog the post (if it's an aforementioned "little guy" ESPECIALLY) and help source credit! (➡ note, for said lil guys, i will fact-check at MY leisure, assuming i see your reblog notif to begin with. and if i see that your sourcing is correct: ill reblog your addition AND edit the og post. just. do me the common decency of not insulting me for forgetting to source/not knowing who to source, whichever lol

bc i do have understandable reasons for not always knowing who to source?? bc a lot of these are videos i got from tiktok accounts, tumblr posts, and other websites where the "op" of said item?? was NOT the actual original poster, and did not source the people/person/etc within the item. ans now idk who to credit too lmao rip

● which, for artists and editors-whose-edits-are-NOT-simple-edits you can tell bc that item did not match the style/s already attached to their account, and didnt say something like "trying a new style!" or whatever in the bio or comments or something. idk. people who never can "stick to one style" still have a general large encompassing area they still to, ive never gotten a "i dont really have an art-/editing-style" person confused with an art-/editing-thief. and im one of those people who constantly change up their art/edits/writing/aesthetic/etc ("idk what exact box i fit into. im just me"), which i think? maybe helps me??? on figuring out if someone is a thief or is just inconsistent/experimenting/"just being me"/whatever?? but yeah! an art-thief especially, and oftentimes also edit-thieves, tend to be pretty obvious they are a thief. even if the comments have not already caught on. bc sometimes youll see a comment outright saying "you stole this from xyz" or "you traced xyz's art/you copied xyz's edit" but not always

● several others? especially ones that were videos of irl people?? i always check out the account and, MANY times have went "..okay this account is just a compilation of memes/jokes/etc, idk. but its VERY safe to assume they are definitely reposting and are NOT the irl person in the video". the person/people in this video assumedly are unaware their video of them being a silly lil goofball they posted on their personal account is here, on an account that compiles memes and funny videos. (bc its VERY rare that an account focused on humor will post content that reveals their face and/or their loved one/s. so. safe to assume it isn't theirs.) and i do want to find the original personal account this image/video in question came from, so i do look. there's a very small margin of error where, if a video looks really old, i wont look tho bc i assume the original account it was posted on is gone and, if it really looks old enough or like enough of "that type of oops funny thing was improv'ed" gag that i think maybe it was on "America's Funniest Home Videos" or a similar clip-show on cable?? ill admit, those ones, i dont try. but if it's like "this obviously friends trying to do a silly trend on tiktok"?? yeah, of course, i look for the account that came from, absolutely. but yeah, that's the usual spectrum for those types. i rarely find, much less keep, videos i can see landing on those "America's Funniest Home Video" type of clip-shows. so, really, the only "danger" there is for being a new video featuring irl people who idk? to go uncredited AND be a rare case where i didn't even try to look for the original account?? is, again, if the low-resolution and content of the video makes me think the video is old enough to where searching would be pointless. to which i then ask, fam? why the fuck is the resolution so bad that i thought this was maybe uploaded to Vine or MySpace (or MAYBE even was a VHS mailed to early-EARLY "AFHV"? lmao imagine), the fuck lol???? but whatever, nobody's perfect, i think you can grant me this kind of margin of error if my anxiety is already willing to grant it lmao

which, ill fully admit. i care about crediting these people for my own self-interests. like, sure, i do it in no small part bc it's the nice and kind thing to at least TRY to do. but also?? i do care about ensuring that person gets a shout-out bc of my anxiety catastrophisizing the hypothetical of a post of mine blowing up and inducing me to feel massive guilt from the fact that i didnt give credit to the people who actually made the item in question so they could also share in the attention of virality. so like. i dont assume ill go viral?? i WORRY ill go viral lmao if? that?? makes sense? which. i have trauma that i know would make me hate even a quarter-of-the-way viral levels of attention would imply. and i feel like, if this account was to ever go viral (god forbid. gatekeep me. dont let it happen lol there's a significant chance i might abandon this account if that happens), i feel like one thing that would basically be destined to happen is i would get chronically-online people criticizing me for not crediting my sources and riding on other people's hard-work. which like. i know they would do anyway since im not perfect at crediting. but if i didnt even TRY, that would hurt differently in a way that'd fuck me up. never know who could be the next hypothetical Cinderella story, like how Kombucha-Girl became the p fucking famous Britney Broski (regardless on your or my own feelings on Britney Broski, she did get her fame from a jokey meme that totally changed her life). give people their credit. like. i am also doing it to be nice and kind, sure! but know that even if i felt exhausted of all my nicities and kind inklings somehow on some certain day?? my anxiety would still demand i at least TRY to find the source. like. anytime you see NO credit?? ANYWHERE??? know the day i found the image/video, i probably spent a good chunk of time between 15 to 45 minutes, out of niceness and kindness and also to appease my anxiety, trying to find the source before calling it quits and saying "at least i tried" (aforementioned exceptions and/or margin of error notwithstanding lol)

which, with everyone where i have TRIED to see if i could reverse-image-source the item?? ive had mixed results from that. sometimes, i found them; sometimes, i didn't. but feel free to try again for me. you might get the correct result a lot quicker than me!

("wha—? h- how.. would i?? get the correct result...? quicker than you...??")

well. my information im about to share with you could be outdated or incomplete, so take this with a grain of salt. but i remember in elementary school how my teacher told our class that google alters the search-results per [insert IP or whatever the technical term she said that ive forgotten is] depending on the history of searches. she told us this so that "if you can't find the answer you need, it doesn't mean you're stupid. ask a friend to check their search-results and find the answer together! it might just be google being picky about what words (or i guess the equivalent would be which frame you chose to screenshot in your and my case, since i dont think an image-file itself being uploaded could result in pickiness) you decided to use, or perhaps it's results are biasedly influenced by what the AI has learned about your family through your families' collective internet search-history". which was basically her sly way of telling us to not depend on the first results we find, or even the first page of results, but to be critical of our sources in their credibility and whatnot. so, the way i understood what she meant was via an example she proceeded to give us that went SOMETHING(?) like this:

(🅰️) a kid whose parent is a professor with a doctorate who brings work home often, meaning they use the family-wifi to research academic studies. when that kid googles "teach me about pyramids"? their results may be extremely well-regarded articles about the Egyptian pyramids (such as the New York Times), peer-reviewed journals about the Egyptian tombs history, Khan Academy and other very good mathematical sources to help you understand how pyramids work within geometry, a released study-guide of various pyramids' formulas (relating to geometry) from Harvard's math-degree program, and much more. a very good foundation for their Egyptian pyramid report for class, and the math could help with that research in breaking down those pyramids dimensions in that report which could give that student an interesting angle that puts their report from an "A" status to an "A+" status, especially if their parent can help them plug in the right numbers into the relevant formulas! very helpful

vs. (🅱️) a kid whose parent works in accounting and taxes, who strives for a healthy work-life balance of never bring work home as often as possible. as a result, the parent uses the family wifi to play pseudo-gambling-with-fake-money apps on their phones more than anything else, to de-compress and de-stress. when that kid googles "teach me about the pyramids"? their results will include some articles about the Egyptian pyramids, but maybe not as credibly-sourced since the [insert IP or whatever it was called again] with this family's wifi isn't used to finding online resources of academic credibility. in fact, the student might get confused since a lot of results might be influenced by those pseudo-gambling phone-apps, and be showing the child information about Las Vegas's pyramids. which. isn't what the report is about. and due to this parent likely having to still bring work home sometimes, like during tax season or other stressful crunch-times, there might be way more math results about pyramids (geometry) than about the Egyptian pyramids. but accountants don't use geometry in their work, they use more basic arithmetic and algebra. so the formulas about the pyramids (geomtry) here would only talk about the pyramids of Egypt as part of the word-problems. so even if the parent was to also have the availability to help the kid plug in the accurate applicable numbers into the formula? those formulas are more likely to be not give a full picture of how to calculate the Egyptian pyramids' size and dimensions. and that's if the kid has the right numbers written down as they might have the dimensions for those Las Vegas pyramids instead, and feels inspired by these online results to even try to do this math (as the lack of "training the computer" to look for reliable articles means these word-problem results are more likely to be blank homework page examples, but could also include walk-throughs here and there like the Kid-A recieved plenty of). but those Egyptian pyramid articles, the most important part of this whole paper, are ALSO more likely to be from less reliable sources with perhaps incorrect information (bc people online like to lie. bc it is fun. but also sometimes people online think they are right when they actually fundamentally misunderstand something), like maybe Kid-B sees enough articles by conspiracy theorists on those unreliable websites that Kid-B thinks "aliens built the Egyptian pyramids" is a more seriously considered and debated topic of academic discussion than it is (which.. it's not. that actually has gotten the famous "Aleins" History Channel Meme Guy fired from his job bc his outspoken belief in this theory cpuld have risked his university's reputation and accreditation. so. yeah, no, Kid-B, those are not academic articles). overall, unless either the parent or Kid-B themselves catches that Kid-B has to sort through a lot more "proverbial litter" to find good, ACTUALLY academic, and ACTUALLY reliable sources of information about the Egyptian pyramids and Egypt's history, Kid-B could fail their report. even if they spent just as long on research and worked just as hard as Kid-A, all bc Kid-B was ignorant to their digital disadvantages and Kid-A unknowingly advantaged. all bc of that [thing with IP or AI or whatever it was called] and what it had learned from the family wifi what the assumed interests of its users would be. a feature no kid could easily turn off/on

which worked at making the kids in our class write down these Definitively Reliable Websites where we could search for accredited articles and peer-reviewed sources. i dont remember what they were back then, we were only in 5th or 4th grade. but it was a great lesson to be taught, im frankly shocked and a bit appalled that more kids were not taught this kind of syuff when teachers are first helping students learn how to research. everyone NOT from that class (even kids who did go to the same elementary school, but jusy did not have that teacher) all have been shocked as i am usually the first one to tell people about how, yeah, that's an aspect of how many (if not all) search-engines work

anyway. the information stuck with all of us from that class, as far as i can tell (a lot of us in that class attended the same middle and high school. like. at least 40% of us, if not a LOT more. so there was a rare time or two where id talk about this and i wouldn't be The First Person To Ever Tell Someone This Search-Engine Info. and every time it was bc the peer in question i just told would go "oh! yeah, i remember [insert name of other kid that i shared that elementary teacher with] said the same to me, like, last year!" or something. but that WAS rare so idk), or at least it always stuck with me. and i was one of the luckier kids who didn't NEED to know the info! and it still has stuck with me all these years later, even the examples of Kid-A and Kid-B!! like! i was on Kid-A's side of the spectrum WAY more than i was to Kid-B's side of the spectrum. my family definitely "trained the computer" in a way i got massive benefits from. like im talking i either was 100% Kid-A, 0% Kid-B or else i was a very minimal mix like maybe 93% Kid-A, 07% Kid-B levels of "minimal". yet still, whenever i find i distrust the google results on my phone, if im next to a friend, ill ask them to google the same thing i did to see if their first page of results looks better than mine and very often we DO get different search results! so!! even if i dont get how that works, that teacher was still right!

brief tangent: im convinced this is how some of my friends that are girls who do the whole "i can stalk your would-be-date like a Private Eye and find out information down to a C.I.A. level about if this person is worthy of being assumed to be trustworthy or not" benefit from this. like they themsleves have trained their phones (with their own dates and friends' dates and even co-workers/other acquantices' dates) or something to be AWESOME and THAT FAST at pulling up the results most likely to give them all of this stranger's private info. it's wild

anyway, screenshot or download the png or jpeg or whatever (or screenshot a frame from a video) to try to find the source if you think the lack of credit on the post implies i cant find it (bc it's either that or i forgot. which. "forgot" could mean "i have the source but didnt realize i didnt put it in the post" OR "i once had the source but now forgot who to credit this to and can't find them, oh no". so. good chance i likely need help even if it was an "oh, i forgot" type of mistake). you may have a better trained [whatever the tech is, if not IP, idk] than me at reverse-image-searching to find the people and/or company the item in question is originally from. who knows. go give it a try! what's the worst that could happen? lol

but yeah, when the source is obviously. like. Walt Disney Studios or like Pixar or Warner Brothers or RDJ or Nicholas Cage or whoever the fuck then like?? i didn't put credit bc they don't need the shout-out, you very well probably recognize the actor/studio/product they are in if it's something real mainstream that tou onlt know bc of pop culture osmosis, they got millions or billions of money as pocket-change, im not stressing myself out with crediting EVERYONE since crediting "everyone" doesn't affect "everyone" equally. im only worried about the people who not getting a shout-out could potentially very negatively affect (aka: the little guys). im not gonna stress about "the big guys" lol they're rich, they're easy to find, they're fine lmao

if you DO need help finding the source from "a big guy" that i posted about, just go @ me in a post and ask (or, hell, reblog the post that came from me and @ me in the said reblog. you can delete it after i answer you). i know i have Asks/Submits/Replies/etc turned off. (its bc i dont want to be accessible to everyone ever all the time lmao that feels stressful. so this One Public Avenue being the only way you could ask me means you gotta REALLY wanna know in order to get a hold of me). i do ask y'all don't do it for "a little guy" bc ill probably ignore you if i already tried to find said little guy and am ashamed that my labor was in vain (but if i do know the source for sure, like i still fully remember their info— and just simply forgot to credit said lil guy, then ill absolutely reply to you and edit the og post). know i check this blog VERY infrequently and may genuinely miss your question or answer it A LONG TIME after you @'ed me. so like. dont get mad if i take forever to reply?? or never reply? nobody wants to help someone who is entitled and gets mad at someone else for [not wanting to reply/didn't know they had something to reply to/took a long time to reply to but did reply]. mad or passive-aggressive. ive blocked people for less lol but yeah. just be polite to strangers, in general, of course, but also to strangers in predicaments like mine who have lives that take priority outside of a meme-y joke-y sideblog lol

to reiterate: feel free (but no pressure) to help if and when you can if you notice there was no credit for a lil guy on my blog pls? thanks 🫶

✎﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏a potential controversy

i think my lines with who i decide to credit and who i dont are overall pretty clear. and i think it helps that, the way i see it, im not a hypocrite about my ideas of who to credit and who not to: bc things do get dicey when it comes to crediting people with small edits. yet i also dont insist on any credit for any of my own edits, bc i also see my edits as p fucking small. which might get SOME people mad on principle should they disagree with my overall perspective. regardless, this bit here will VERY likely be my one and only statement about it

but i do fully admit i dont quite know THE qualative line exactly? but let's establish what i mean via examples. if an account is posting a clip-compilation of "Digital Circus" and they did a "all the times Jax was sassy for 3 minutes" or something, meaning they did splice and edit this compilation together (that is one chunk of editing they did in of itself). but then they also added tiny edits, like i know its common for tiktok funny-scene-compilation-editors to have one the said simple edits just be a "🙄😒" next the character rolling their eyes (in this case, Jax). in my mind?? even tho this editor did add these kind of very minimal additions to the content at hand? and im just profiting off of the convenience of "oH YEAH, i wanted this scene clipped to use for reactions/memes! i just was putting it off bc i didnt know its time-stamp" and i use any clips, those with "🙄😒" edits and otherwise, where the most editing *i* then do afterwards is like add captions? i still see that as "the source belongs to 'Digital Circus' as there were no significant edits done to alter the material". i'm not crediting the editor that i benefited from the clip-compilation of. that's part of why i also walk what i talk in saying "if i subtitled or edited additionally to anything on this blog? you do not have to credit me. i barely did anything. i just added text, maybe with some effects done to said text to reflect volume/tone/pitch or whatever, and maybe a couple emojis/pictures were overlayed. that's nothing. i try to caption most things for accessibility. and sometimes i feel like being a goofball and i add other things ontop of it. bur nothing worthy of crediting me". bc, in the case of my edits and other people's similarly small edits? is the gag 10 times out of 10 is all still on the original content. but we start talking about an edit as in someone made an AMV?? (as in they had to splice in time to the music and maybe did other edits in addition to elevate the AMV. not as in "look, i put music behind this otherwise unedited clip" lol) or someone heavily edited this non-AMV clip of Jax to have, idk, silly meme-y circus-music ontop of having done manips of a rainbow clown wig and nose to follow his every head-motion and then ALSO did the classic DUN-meme-sound reverberation with camera-shake and black-white filter after Jax's dumbest expressions or lines?? that. that is SO MUCH editing and definitely changes the clip to where i am absolutely sourcing both "Digital Circus" and that editor. both of the AMV and circus-Jax

so, again, idk exactly where the qualitative line is. but i do have one where i refuse to fuck over people who have edited the original content to the point that now the audience is there for this person's editing skills, and not bc of the original content within the clip/s used. does that make sense?? i hope that makes sense. this is my one and only statement im gonna make about it anyway lol i think my reasoning is sound. if your content is heavily relient on the original content being as unedited as possible but you just added a few things on the "🙄😒"-level to be a goofball? keep doing what you're doing, im not going to yuck your yum (especially since i am identical to you and i also love to add a bit of razzle-dazzle lol). but im not going to credit you, the credit goes to the people who made the said original content that this "🙄😒"-and-adjacent-edits dont alter or anything. it's still like 90% the original show's clip?? come on lmao you and i can both live without the credit. feel free to take my edits and add them to your account "so i see how it feels". it's still almost entirely the original show, so ive made my peace with rarely/never getting credit for my small edits or subtitles bc like.. it's still 90% the original show??? i did basically nothing. i just had fun, have a clip i can throw into discord or a text-conversation for a tee-hee with my loved one, and have given other people permission to benefit from this side-blog's collection and possible captioning. again, come on lol the editors who actually changed the content so much with their skills that, other than that they used the original show like a collage artist benefits from magazines and whatnot, they've DEFINITELY changed more than 90% of the content to the point that their viewers are having a different experience with this editor than they would be watching the original show or its clips. come on lmao

#off theme

0 notes