#i have been loosing my SHIT

[thebiggestmenace]

people have made headcanons that Ellie, or Joel, finds a stuffed giraffe and she is obsessed with it. I absolutely love that headcanon! I started playing the game again to get all the achievements (I think we're almost there :)) and because of this, I've noticed more of the small background pieces. there's a giraffe plush that just shows up. I do not have any screenshots, but I can definitely go through and get them at some point!

the first one is when Joel and Tess are trying to find Robert. right before you go down an alley, there's a bulletin board with a bunch of wanted posters on it, right? there's a kid near it who's playing with a giraffe plush!

also when Ellie runs to that ranch, there's another one! obviously you can explore that house a bit, I think there's a bigger giraffe plush in one of the rooms. I don't remember which one, but it's a tall boy and it's next to a desk and window!

don't know if there's anymore for the first game because I haven't finished it yet, but there's also one in the second game! at least one. the weed house. right before Dina and Ellie find the basement, one of the shelves in the backrooms has a little giraffe plush on it!

I don't know why, but I love this little detail SO MUCH. will update if there's anymore :)

edit: here's the post for all the ones I found in the first game :)

[kitamars]

hhhnhhghgjjghgugujgutuutghn piskin……..

[hiding-under-the-willow]

And that is what it continues to be about! Forcing that guy through therapy at the hands of cartoon animals if it is the last thing I do

[splickedylit]

You can't fight the role the Mother had in store for you

[colebirb]

Well hello there

@potato-lord-but-not

[alfazoings]

becoming like the one you sought out revenge for

[goodoneguys]

“you killed ted, you dickweed!”

*bill proceeds to get beat up*

*ted reappears*

“ted, you’re alive!”

“yeah! i fell out of my suit when i hit the floor.”

*they both hug*

“FAG”

[padawansuggest]

Just because Obi-Wan is pregnant/sick/whatever your fetish is, doesn’t mean he has to give up caffeine, not all tea has caffeine in it. He could go herbal. He could go rooibos crazy and use the time without caffeine to find the perfect blend of tea to additives that he’ll love forever. He could have -*gags*- peppermint, he could have decaf black, he could have minimal caffeine white tea if he can have a small amount, he could have so much. Y’all ain’t know shit about tea and he doesn’t have to full stop his tea if he’s pregnant or sick or fuckin dying or whatever your fetish of the month is. You can make tea with cocoa, and I mean multiple types of that. You can also buy things like rose hips and orange peel shavings and vanilla pods and lemon shavings, ginger pieces, all this other shit. I think you could hand him some super high class caffeine free or low caffeine tea bases (loose leaf for his sensibilities obviously) and then a package of additives and he’ll just go crazy methodically trying new blends every time he wants tea and it’ll put some pep in his step to get to try lots of fancy things.

Is he super tired tho?? Yeah probably.

[deadtiredghost]

Reading your posts and going insane

Please dont make me kin Leo

I don't want to kin Leo

I dont need therapy I swear!!!

*cue hysterical laughter*

I dont kin Leo but I find it the easiest to write that blue fuck.

We all need therapy and thats okay. R we gonna get it? Well I would need to win the lottery for that but we can adapt and post on Tumblr about neurodivergent colourcoded turtles instead; Bootleg Therapy for Autistics.

perchance, which Leo r u kinning? 👀

cause if it's 2012 or rottmnt... buddy you've got a strong storm coming.

^^what I think all Leo-kinnes r like with little to no explanation.

dont tell me im wrong, i shall simply ignore.

Leo is a mess and so r u.

all the Leos.

ALL the leos.

[skeletalheartattack]

...am I just losing my mind or did yer icon become evil? I don't remember that BeAst behind Boe

yuuuump always been behind me

[july-19th-club]

forced myself to finish this book even though by the last hundred pages or so all i was doing was picking apart the post-catholicism of it all. bc i feel like it's important to read shit you don't gel with . just because. even though the whole way through i was like they HAVE to prove it's not real. they HAVE to. so not the point of any of it but i was desperate for them to Find The Body etc. and of course instead they have mystical time travel experiences and all that because that is the kind of book the actual star is but i was desperate for them to realize that the star you see is the actual star. and then it wasn't

[that-gay-gal]

Fuck it im posting this now

MORE FANART FOR PUPPET TIGHTLY STRUNG ON AO3 TEEHEE

Or more specifically the sequel fic “Noose loosely wound”, and more more specifically one particular scene from chapter 2 of said sequel

giggles in the 2012 turtles are so hard to draw

Where did the lid to the box go?

Erm, how about where did your dad go when he went to get milk

I’m so sorry I just saw the opportunity and I had to take it I didn’t mean it NO DONT LEAVE ME PLEASE- /lhj

The author is @raphaelesbian on tumblr or clairakitty on ao3

I’m the most sane fan ever amiright

[arcticmist0324]

The real question I have about the United Healthcare/Mangione case is if the Monopoly theme is intentional and if he (or whoever the mastermind is) has read Barry Lyga’s “I Hunt Killers” trilogy-specifically the second book Game.

[screambirdscreaming]

I used to like saying "gender is a social construct," but I stopped saying that because people didn't tend to react well - they thought that I was saying gender wasn't real, or didn't matter, or could be safely ignored without consequences. Which has always baffled me a bit as an interpretation, honestly, because many things are social constructs - like money, school, and the police - and they certainly have profound effects on your life whether or not you believe in them. And they sure don't go away if you ignore them.

Anyway. What I've taken to saying instead is, "gender is a cultural practice." This gives more of a sense of respect for the significance gender holds to many people. And it also opens the door to another couple layers of analysis.

Gender is cultural. It is not globally or historically homogeneous. It shifts over time, develops differently in different communities, and can be influenced by cross-cultural contact. Like many, many aspects of culture, the current status of gender is dramatically influenced by colonialism. Colonial gender norms are shaped by the hierarchical structure of imperialist society, and enforced onto colonized cultures as part of the project of imperial cultural hedgemony.

Gender is practiced. What constitutes a gender includes affects and behaviors, jobs or areas of work, skillsets, clothing, collective and individual practices of gender affiliation and affirmation. Any or all of these things, in any combination, depending on the gender, the culture, and the practitioner.

Gender encompasses shared cultural archetypes. These can include specific figures - gods and goddesses, mythic or fictional characters, etc - or they can be more abstract or general. The Wise Woman, Robin Hood, the Dyke, the Working Man, the Plucky Heroine, the Effete Gay Man, etc etc. The range of archetypes does not circumscribe a given gender, that is, they're not all there is to gender. But they provide frameworks and reference points by which people relate to gender. They may be guides for ways to inhabit or practice a gender. They may be stereotypes through which the gendered behavior of others is viewed.

Gender as a framework can be changed. Because it is created collectively, by shared acknowledgement and enforcement by members of society. Various movements have made significant shifts in how gender is structured at various times and places. The impact of these shifts has been widely variable - for example, depending on what city I'm in, even within my (fairly culturally homogeneous) home country, the way I am gendered and reacted to changes dramatically. Looping back to point one, we often speak of gender in very broad terms that obscure significant variability which exists on many scales.

Gender is structured recursively. This can be seen in the archetypes mentioned above, which range from extremely general (say, the Mother) to highly specific (the PTA Soccer Mom). Even people who claim to acknowledge only two genders will have many concepts of gendered-ways-of-being within each of them, which they may view and react to VERY differently.

Gender is experienced as an external cultural force. It cannot be opted out of, any more than living in a society can be opted out of. Regardless of the internal experience of gender, the external experience is also present. Operating within the shared cultural understanding of gender, one can aim to express a certain practice of gender - to make legible to other people how it is you interface with gender. This is always somewhat of a two-way process of communication. Other people may or may not perceive what you're going for - and they may or may not respect it. They may try to bring your expressed gender into alignment with a gender they know, or they might parcel you off into your own little box.

Gender is normative. Within the structure of the "cultural mainstream," there are allowable ways to practice gender. Any gendered behavior is considered relative to these standards. What behavior is allowed, rewarded, punished, or shunned is determined relative to what is gender normative for your perceived gender. Failure to have a clearly perceivable gender is also, generally, punished. So is having a perceivable gender which is in itself not normative.

Gender is taught by a combination of narratives, punishments, and encouragements. This teaching process is directed most strongly towards children but continues throughout adulthood. Practice of normatively-gendered behaviors and alignment with 'appropriate' archetypes is affirmed, encouraged, and rewarded. Likewise 'other'- gendered behavior and affinity to archetypes is scolded, punished, or shunned. This teaching process is inherently coercive, as social acceptance/rejection is a powerful force. However it can't be likened to programming, everyone experiences and reacts to it differently. Also, this process teaches the cultural roles and practices of both (normative) genders, even as it attempts to force conformity to only one.

Gender regulates access to certain levers of social power. This one is complicated by the fact that access to levers of social power is also affected by *many* other things, most notably race, class, and citizenship. I am not going to attempt to describe this in any general terms, I'm not equipped for that. I'll give a few examples to explain what I'm talking about though. (1) In a social situation, a man is able to imply authority, which is implicitly backed by his ability to intimidate by yelling, looming, or threatening physical violence. How much authority he is perceived to have in response to this display is a function of his race and class. It is also modified by how strongly he appears to conform to a masculine ideal. Whether or not he will receive social backlash for this behavior (as a separate consideration to how effective it will be) is again a function of race/class/other forms of social standing. (2) In a social situation, a woman is able to invoke moral judgment, and attempt to modify the behavior of others by shame. The strength of her perceived moral authority depends not just on her conformity to ideal womanhood, but especially on if she can invoke certain archetypes - such as an Innocent, a Mother, or better yet a Grandmother. Whether her moral authority is considered a relevant consideration to influence the behavior of others (vs whether she will be belittled or ignored) strongly depends on her relative social standing to those she is addressing, on basis of gender/race/class/other.

[Again, these examples are *not* meant to be exhaustive, nor to pass judgment on employing any social power in any situation. Only to illustrate what "gendered access to social power" might mean. And to illustrate that types of power are not uniform and may play out according to complex factors.]

Gender is not based in physical traits, but physical traits are ascribed gendered value. Earlier, I described gender as practiced, citing almost entirely things a person can do or change. And I firmly believe this is the core of gender as it exists culturally - and not just aspirationally. After the moment when a gender is "assigned" based on infant physical characteristics, they are raised into that gender regardless of the physical traits they go on to develop (in most circumstances, and unless/until they denounce that gender.) The range of physical traits like height, facial shape, body hair, ability to put on muscle mass - is distributed so that there is complete overlap between the range of possible traits for people assigned male and people assigned female. Much is made of slight trends in things that are "more common" for one binary sex or the other, but it's statistically quite minor once you get over selection bias. However, these traits are ascribed gendered connotations, often extremely strongly so. As such, the experience of presented and perceived gender is strongly effected by physical traits. The practice of gender therefore naturally expands to include modification of physical traits. Meanwhile, the social movements to change how gender is constructed can include pushing to decrease or change the gendered association of physical traits - although this does not seem to consistently be a priority.

Gender roles are related to the hypothetical ability to bear children, but more obliquely than is often claimed. It is popular to say that the types of work considered feminine derive from things it is possible to do while pregnant or tending small children. However, research on the broader span of human history does not hold this up. It may be true of the cultures that gave immediate rise to the colonial gender roles we are familiar with - secondary to the fact that childcare was designated as women's work. (Which it does not have to be, even a nursing infant doesn't need to be with the person who feeds it 24 hours a day.) More directly, gender roles have been influenced by structures of social control aiming for reproductive control. In the direct precursors of colonial society, attempts to track paternal lineage led to extreme degrees of social control over women, which we still see reflected in normative gender today. Many struggles for women's liberation have attempted to push back these forms of social control. It is my firm opinion that any attempt to re-emphasize childbearing as a touchstone of womanhood is frankly sick. We are at a time where solidarity in struggle for gender liberation, and for reproductive rights, is crucial. We need to cast off shackles of control in both fights. Trying to tie childbearing back to womanhood hobbles both fights and demeans us all.

Gender is baked deeply enough into our culture that it is unlikely to ever go away. Many people feel strongly about the practice of gender, in one way or another, and would not want it to. However we have the power to change how gender is structured and enforced. We can push open the doors of what is allowable, and reduce the pain of social punishment and isolation. We can dismantle another of the tools of colonial hedgemony and social control. We can change the culture!

[westywallowing]

alright everybody. screaming into my void. in the month of December I will be drawing and posting something every day. even if I hate it. because I am so!! sick!! of my executive disfunction mixed with the malaise from my chronic pain allowing me to essentially only work, do school, and sit on my phone at home. I want my hobbies back!! I want to stop!! existing only for capiltalism!!! thank u for my speech

[sieglinde-freud]

thinking about them and banging my head against the wall again whats new. they are making me so emo. god. what the fuck