elodieunderglass:
“ nadiacreek:
“ theblogginggoth:
“ By Czeck writer Karel Čapek, inventor of the term ‘robot’ as well!
”
This is one of my husband’s favorite short stories. He quotes it from memory. I’m pretty sure he can recite the entire thing...

elodieunderglass:

nadiacreek:

theblogginggoth:

By Czeck writer Karel Čapek, inventor of the term ‘robot’ as well!

This is one of my husband’s favorite short stories. He quotes it from memory. I’m pretty sure he can recite the entire thing from memory.

This is a tremendously impactful short story and every time I see it, it serves as an excellent reboot button for my state of mind.

(via skeletalheartattack)

gaphic:

gaphic:

gaphic:

‘A good tragedy is always both preventable and inevitable’ is one of my main hills to die on. It’s literally so important to me. I’m fucking correct

It’s only tragedy if you convince yourself, for even just a moment, that everything could be ok, despite knowing it won’t be. Tragedy lies in ‘so close, yet so far.’ It’s avoidable because it would only take a tiny alteration to prevent disaster, but human nature is in the way- not maliciously, not knowingly, despite trying so hard.

If it’s just preventable, that’s barely even sad. Why didn’t they prevent it, then? If it’s just inevitable, that’s only marginally better. Why would we weep? Our hopes can’t be dashed on the rocks, we can’t hope.

Every tragedy worth the paper it’s written on could be averted by a single word, a single choice, a single hesitation, but won’t be, because the subjects are only human. Not because they were weak, stupid, or evil- simply human. Their simple humanity makes disaster inevitable.

And in my opinion, the very best tragedy, the very most heartwrenching, comes from the hero making the right decision every time- from their perspective.

It’s when you know you would have done the exact same thing in their shoes, and only because of your perspective as the reader are you able to see what it will cost. That’s what really rocks my socks

(via lovelysandlonelys)

psychoticallytrans:

thesovereignsequel:

psychoticallytrans:

I do wish that “oppositional sexism” was a more commonly known term. It was coined as part of transmisogyny theory, and is defined as the belief that men and women, are distinct, non-overlapping categories that do not share any traits. If gender was a venn diagram, people who believe in oppositional sexism think that “men” and “women” are separate circles that never touch.

The reason I think that it’s a useful term is that it helps a lot with articulating exactly why a lot of transphobic people will call a cis man a girl for wearing nail polish, then turn around and call a trans woman a man. Both of those are enforcement of man and woman as non-overlapping social categories. It’s also a huge part of homophobia, with many homophobes considering gay people to no longer really belong to their gender because they aren’t performing it to their satisfaction.

It’s a large part of the reason behind arguments that men and women can’t understand each other or be friends, and/or that either men or women are monoliths. If men and women have nothing in common at all, it would be difficult for them to understand each other, and if all men are alike or all women are alike, then it makes sense to treat them all the same. Enforcing this rift is particularly miserable for women and men in close relationships with each other, but is often continued on the basis that “If I’m not a real man/woman, they won’t love me anymore.”

One common “progressive” form of oppositional sexism is an idea often put as the “divine feminine”, that women are special in a way that men will never understand. It’s meant to uplift women, but does so in ways that reinforce the idea that men and women are fundamentally different in ways that can never be reconciled or transcended. There’s a reason this rhetoric is hugely popular among both tradwifes and radical feminists. It argues that there is something about women that men will never have or know, which is appealing when you are trying to define womanhood in a way that means no man is or ever has been a part of it.

You’ll notice that nonbinary people are sharply excluded from the definition. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to them, it means that oppositional sexism doesn’t believe nonbinary people of any kind exist. It’s especially rough on multigender people who are both men and women, because the whole idea of it is that men and women are two circles that don’t overlap. The idea of them overlapping in one person is fundamentally rejected.

I think it’s a very useful term for talking about a lot of the problems that a lot of queer people face when it comes to trying to carve out a place for ourselves in a society that views any deviation from rigid, binary categories as a failure to perform them correctly.

If I can add, oppositional sexism is a cornerstone of evangelicalism and honestly a whole bunch of other forms of Christianity. The idea women and men exist for different tasks is deeply religious but specifically in the US and I assume for the majority of tradwives evangelical/conservative christian dogma. So even when ppl who proport to be somewhere feminist start up divine feminine shit they’re regurgitating the same talking points the religious right started doing.

Yep. I believe they refer to it as “Complimentarianism”.

(via casscainsbiceps)

kingofooo:

everydaylouie:

image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image

I had the great pleasure of designing/animating a bunch of 3D stuff for the last two episodes of Fionna and Cake! It was a joy to work with this low-poly adventure game style. Hope you all enjoyed this great show!!

by guest designer/animator Louie Zong

yourdyingwish:

yourdyingwish:

That essay that Frank wrote for negatives…ROUGH. But actually really good

image
image

Drug use cw but I think this is actually an oddly beautiful and honest piece of writing about MCR I really am glad he wrote it

actual-changeling:

In the spirit of encouraging people to comment on fanfics while also making it easier to do so, I feel obliged to share a browser extension for ao3 that has quite literally revolutionized the comment game for me.

I present to you: the floating ao3 comment box!

From what I’ve seen, a big problem for many people is that once you reach the comments at the bottom of a fic, your memory of it miraculously disappears. Anything you wanted to say is stuck ten paragraphs ago, and you barely remember what you thought while reading. This fixes that!

I’ll give a little explanation on the features and how it works, but if you want to skip all that, here’s the link.

The extension is visible as a small blue box in the upper left corner.

(Side note: The green colouring is not from the extension, that’s me.)

image

If you click on it, you open a comment box window at the bottom of your screen but not at the bottom of the fic. I opened my own fic for demonstrative purposes.

image

The website also gives explanations on how exactly it functions, but I’ll summarize regardless.

  • insert selection -> if you highlight a sentence in the fic it will be added in italics to the comment box
  • add to comment box -> once you’re done writing your comment, you click this button and the entire thing will automatically copied to the ao3 comment box
  • delete -> self explanatory
  • on mulitchapter fics, you will be given the option to either add the comment to just the current chapter or the entire fic

The best part? You can simply close the window the same way you opened it and your progress will automatically be saved. So you can open it, comment on a paragraph, and then close it and keep reading without having the box in your face.

Comments are what keep writers going, and as both a writer and a reader, I think it’s such an easy way of showing support and enthusiasm.

(via asimovsideburns)


Indy Theme by Safe As Milk