This is just a post for myself to properly search things on my blog because my search function has been broken for weeks and I have to click a tag from a post to search properly

Love Begins
Misplaced Lens Cap

JBB: An Artblog!
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
d e v o n

tannertan36
Cosimo Galluzzi

titsay

η₯ζ₯ / Permanent Vacation
Monterey Bay Aquarium

ellievsbear

romaβ
occasionally subtle
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
πͺΌ
tumblr dot com
we're not kids anymore.
Claire Keane
ojovivo
seen from United States

seen from Netherlands

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Egypt
seen from Azerbaijan

seen from Argentina
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Australia

seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from Canada
seen from Indonesia

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
@handstotheskye
This is just a post for myself to properly search things on my blog because my search function has been broken for weeks and I have to click a tag from a post to search properly

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch β’ No registration required β’ HD streaming
How are we at a point now where "trans men and transmascs don't experience gender euphoria" is a real fucking take that I'm seeing people post and agree with? "Oh, trans men and transmascs will never understand the moment when you finally put on a dress or skirt and feel like yourself-" chest binders. Packers. Getting a short haircut. Being called "sir" by a stranger instead of "miss" or "ma'am." Growing facial hair. What's even really being said here, that we don't experience gender euphoria, or that our gender euphoria is less significant?
Weirdly, I believe this is a knock-on effect of misogyny.
See, if women aren't real people, then the things that gender-mark women are real gender markers that identify them as not-people, but the things that gender-mark men are just normal people things, not gendered. Because the male gender doesn't exist, it's just women and people.
So you can't be gender-euphoric about becoming a man; all you're doing is shedding gender and becoming a genderless "normal person", because normal person is male.
It is really really weird that misogyny against women ends up, through a circuitous route, as redefining men as genderless, but this is the effect of generations of men being "normal" and women being "gendered".
Trans men, of course, know better; they can clearly see the gender marked-ness of masculinity, and feel euphoria when they reach it, because they're specifically looking for it. But cis men don't see it because women are the gender-marked class, and trans women might not see it for that reason and because they've been trying to achieve gender-markedness. Maybe they haven't put enough thought into the construction of the gender they're trying to leave behind to recognize that in fact masculinity is marked. (Any enby could have told them that, but it can be genuinely hard to recognize how marked masculinity is because even feminism falls into the trap of "women are the gender marked class and everyone else is just a person".)
Given how hard people have to fight to be seen as "manly" you'd think we'd all understand how very gender-marked masculinity is... but the fight to be manly is often constructed as the fight to not be womanly. Like, this is how normal people behave, and this is how girls behave, and you don't want to be a girl, do you?
"Trans men don't experience gender euphoria" needs to be called out as a belief that's caused by patriarchy, and a form of internal misogyny if it's a woman (cis or trans) saying it. It's the belief that only women have gender... which comes from the belief that only men are normal humans.
Weirdly, I believe
this is a knock-on effect
of misogyny.
Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.
Yes yes i know love is love. But they are still killing CHILDREN. over this.
Yet another new study debunked the basis for the anti-trans sports bans. It was never about sports but for creating legal avenues for exclusion and abjection. This is one of the largest analyses ever conducted, involving 52 studies and 6,485 trans people. Read the study here.
post so nice had to reblog it twice and force it down everyone's throats
At minimum about 4.5 thousand people liked this without reblogging it.
We gotta fix that.
Progress.
Onwards!
I can't access the full paper, but their conclusion is right there in the abstract:
While transgender women exhibited higher lean mass than cisgender women, their physical fitness was comparable. Current evidence is mostly low certainty and has heterogenous quality but does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women over cisgender.
hey can everyone do me a favor and put in the tags why they chose their name? even if you don't go by a chosen name irl, you can put why you chose your online name.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch β’ No registration required β’ HD streaming
Remember when Lil Nas X beautifully explored his sexuality, seduced and killed the devil to the banger of all time, and instead of cheering on this openly gay and proud Black artist for his artistry and fighting back against respectability politics, suddenly said respectability politics was all the Queerest Place on the Internet cared about? Hm. Wonder what happened there.
Anyway I miss him and hope he's doing better with his mental health ππΎ
Like say what you want about "bad queer representation", but this was the song that made me openly and happily accept that I was bisexual. To see him up there Black and beautiful, making music that I love, absolutely killing it? Yeah. You couldn't tell me shit. This man made me proud to be out. "This will make them think we're evil for being gay" hey newsflash dawg-
have you ever suddenly + involuntarily lost consciousness
yes (fainted)
yes (head trauma)
yes (substance-induced)
yes (lack of oxygen)
yes (blood loss)
yes (multiple)
no
happy pride month
Can everyone who makes video content do a Deaf bitch a favor? Watch your shit with the captions on and the sound off, and then do another round of editing to fix things including but not limited to:
Captions cover the spot on the screen you put the information I need
The dialogue is captioned but not the song you have playing that the dialogue is responding to
You only captioned the person on the screen, not the person off screen who is also talking
No captioning of critical sound effects (alarms, bells, dogs barking, etc)
Speakers are not labelled at moments where it is not clear on the screen who is talking.
Captions cover the spot on the screen that you put the information I need!
Other d/Deaf people welcome to add.
This post brought to you by the fifth video tutorial I could not follow because the bad, auto-generated captions covered what I was trying to watch today.
100% TRUE
Pro tip: If you copy and paste a link that said βno free articlesβ into a private/incognito browser, it will let you read the whole thing.
also if u press the βescβ (escape) key on ur laptop before the page fully loads, it wonβt load any pop-ups blocking u from reading. if the article has images, then this method sometimes does not u see them. but! the words will be fine :)
If the site is particularly badly designed, you might just be able to delete the overlay itself. Right click > Inspect element and delete the line of HTML (itβll be highlighted automatically)
hey kids there is a website calledΒ outline.comΒ that will let you read from pretty much any news site with a paywall for free
outline.com is amazing - it hasnβt failed yet on any site that Iβve tried it on.
Thereβs a chrome extension and firefox extension.
Look, these are all Cool Facts, but it doesnβt change the fact that most people wonβt go to this level of trouble, and that those people are more and more likely to get radicalised by all of the right-wing media who arenβt behind pay walls.
The political economy of bullshit.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch β’ No registration required β’ HD streaming
my super sustainable bmw
This is something ive been wanting to ask you about for a minute, why is anarchism bad? I saw in another one of your posts you compared it to liberalism, and im looking to understand more on what you mean. (im loosely an anarchist and i dont want to disagree with you because youre aweomse)
I feel like much more qualified theorists than myself have answered this question in much, much better words than I could ever manage, not the least of which being the esteemed comrade, kind Vladimir Lenin. But still, perhaps out of a bit of haughtiness, I can try to answer this effectively and briefly. (I will try very hard to focus on Briefly, unfortunately that means I may be a bit less thorough than I would Like, or Could Be. Alas. If only all things were possible in an instant...)
Why is Anarchism "Bad"?
What do we mean here by "bad"? When I say I have issues with Anarchism, they are never on any "moral" grounds, on the basis of the fact that I don't really care about that -- moralisms are always intrinsically relativist -- they cannot be proven or disproven -- they can be argued for or against, but at the end of the day, there is no such thing as an "objective" morality, and there isn't even such a thing as a "coherent cultural morality" within a village, let alone a country or a planet.
So when we say "anarchism is Bad" what do we mean?
We mean a series of things, in sequence.
Anarchism is Not True.
Because of the above: Anarchism is Ineffectual.
Because of the above: Anarchism is Dangerous.
Further: Anarchism is Reactionary.
All of these mean that: Anarchism is a Threat to Actual Communism.
Anarchism is Not True
What distinguishes Anarchism and Marxism-Leninism? What do we mean when we say "Marxism-Leninism is a science?" You can ask forty anarchists what Anarchism is and you will get forty entirely different answers. You can ask forty Marxist-Leninists what Marxism-Leninism is and get, broadly, somewhat similar answers. (The question of "what does Marxism-Leninism mean/require" is a different question, and one which is good to have diversity of perspective on, as this is one of many methods of Marxism-Leninism's self-correction.)
The thing is that Anarchism is not a science. It is not a theory of analysis of history from a materialist framework. It does not draw conclusions from a materialist understanding of history that have a character of actionable truth which can be used to create a change in the future. Because of this, anarchism is not true. What anarchism becomes, then, is an ideology, a set of roughly shared values and beliefs. "Certain things are bad, and certain things are good. We should do certain things, because certain things are bad and certain things are good." This is a distinction between anarchism and Marxism-Leninism. Marxists-Leninist do not have to agree on "What is Good" or "What is Bad," only on "How does the world Actually Work," and "What does that Mean." There have been gestures towards making Anarchism into a science, but they have failed, because if they were actually scientific, the analyses they would create would agree with what has become the analyses of Marxism-Leninism.
Marxism-Leninism is amoral. It is not a set of moral values or assumptions. It does not assert what should be done on the basis of it being "Loving" or "Kind." If anything, Marxism-Leninism is a brutally harsh mistress -- telling you that she offers you nothing but the truth, with all that entails, and that the punishment for divergence from the truth is only failure to accomplish what you set out to do, which will likely result in catastrophe according to your designs, and that the success of these designs often requires extremely brutal logic. "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun" is not a "kind" thing to say. It is not "loving" or probably, frankly, even "good," if we care to bother with those kinds of assessments. It is, however, true, whether we like it or not, and because of this, it is something that we must understand, both in the how and the why.
Marxism-Leninism doesn't care if you're a "good person" or a "bad person" because that question is irrelevant to the science of politics and the custodianship of Power. Politics, which is the science of power, has no need for moralisms. These are irrelevant to whether something is true or not. "Is this apple falling from this tree Good?" is an incoherent question. "Did the apple fall from the tree?" is a coherent question, and one that matters. "Why?" is also a coherent question, and one that matters. "Is the fall of the Assad Government Good?" is a question which cannot be answered because different groups have different definitions of "good." "Why did the Assad government fall? What does this mean for my goals?" is a question that is not only actually answerable with enough investigation, but is actionable and useful for further decisions.
This is somewhat of a circuitous and abstract answer, I know, and one which is probably unsatisfying, because I'm sure the answer you were probably more looking for from me was "well, Why Is The State Ok," or something along those lines.
I just think it's important to understand why the things that are not true are not true, before just knowing that they are not true.
So, I could say that "The state exists to negotiate the intrinsic contradictions of Class Rule; that the State does not Have a Capitalist Character intrinsically, but the character of the Class Rule it governs; that the State is therefore a necessary tool of the Proletariat during the transitional stage of Socialism; that the State can be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat rather than a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie; etc," but to me, it's more important that you understand why those things are true first, before understanding that they are true. I can assert those things all day long, but it wouldn't get you or I anywhere, because those are just assertions if you don't understand my methodology.
I know that I spent most of this section about Anarchism talking about Marxism-Leninism; frankly, that's the way I had to do it, from my perspective, because what Anarchism Is is mostly just Vibes, which exists in contrast to the science of Marxism-Leninism.
Why does this therefore matter?
Anarchism is Ineffectual
Anarchism is unscientific. It is not a theory of analysis nor is it a framework for understanding. It is a set of values driven by moralist idealisms. For these reasons, it draws incorrect conclusions about the world, like the nature and function of the State, most relevantly.
Because it is unscientific, and believes things which are untrue, it will inevitably fail to produce results. This is important.
There is no universe where Anarchism can ultimately succeed because Anarchism is incorrect and untrue. There are a number of examples throughout history where Anarchism has proven to be weak and powerless and utterly ineffectual.
Politics is the science of power; how to get power, and how to keep it. That is all that politics is, at its core. "Everything else is just commentary" so to speak. If you cannot acquire and hold onto power, your political ideals are meaningless. You can be opposed to "kyriarchy" or "vertical social organization" but if you are not able to actually do anything to make your designs into reality, you're basically just jerking off, or worse, leading your supplicants blindly to their deaths.
If you cannot understand the science of politics, the science of power, and the science of revolution, you will be unable to build a political future, much in the same way that you cannot build a rocket ship without an understanding of the sciences of physics, chemistry, metallurgy, biology, etcetera. A proper scientific understanding of how things actually work is necessary to producing actual results.
Because Anarchism cannot produce results,
Anarchism is Dangerous
Anarchism redirects political energies towards methods and decisions which will not be able to accomplish the goals of political struggle. It will, inevitably, fail, and, in failing, get thousands if not millions of people killed. It is a thing which can only lead to wasteful mistakes and excesses.
Anarchism is Reactionary
Because Anarchism is idealist in nature, and because Anarchism is fundamentally opposed in interests and concerns to Marxism-Leninism, Anarchism frequently exists in violent opposition to Actual Marxism. For this reason, it lends power, often implicitly, sometimes explicitly, to the forces of political reaction, of counter-revolution. Anarchism seeks to undo the actual labor of building a socialist future, because it disagrees with it, and in this it is counter-revolutionary, which is why
Anarchism is a Threat to Actual Communism
There is no future where Anarchists and Communists can successfully collaborate because they have fundamentally oppositional interests. Communists understand that the future of socialism requires a DOTP to function. Anarchists disagree, and therefore, are opposed to the task of creating actual socialism. When these conflicting interests meet, one will either immediately give way to the other (unlikely); or, they will meet, and there will be violent conflict.
Anarchists will side against Marxist-Leninists, if they are truly ardent Anarchists. This is because Anarchism cannot co-exist with Marxism-Leninism. This makes them mutual threats which can only seek to assimilate or destroy each other. As a Marxist-Leninist, I find the outcome of Anarchism's success in defeating Marxist-Leninist struggle to be intolerable, because that is a future where Capitalism wins, and so, when Anarchism and Marxism-Leninism clash, there can only be a war between counter-revolutionaries and revolutionaries. This is wasteful, and will kill people on both sides, weakening Marxism-Leninism in it's more valuable struggle against imperialist capitalism. For this reason, Anarchism must be aggressively and forcefully suppressed before it's able to constitute any kind of meaningful threat to Marxist-Leninist organization.
What does this all mean?
It means Marxism-Leninism is the only path towards actual successful change, and the victory of the working class. Anarchism is only a diverting of the flow of revolutionary energy towards actual revolution; nothing more, nothing less. It is a gash in the artery of the lifeblood of the working class. It must be addressed, clinically, scientifically, and correctly, with a complete and utter suppression against its reactionary outcomes, not because we are hateful, or because we think they are evil, but because to do anything else is to allow the artery to bleed out. Anarchism isn't Bad because it's Evil. Anarchism is Bad because it is a threat.
P.S. a significant part of why Anarchism is so prolific in the US, besides the fact that US Americans are imperialists chauvinists broadly, is that the United States government violently suppressed ML organizations and encouraged and supported Anarchist organizations because they correctly ascertained that Anarchism is a threat to communism and not capitalism.
[Edit: before someone yells at me about "stealing someone's voice" or whatever about intellectual property let me preempt that by saying that, even if I cared about that, this is a TTS model trained on my own voice.]
mr boot do you know anything about pirating music so that one might burn some CDs. not to distribute, and not small artists, of course, but a certain someone doesn't have the money to spend 20$ to listen to one specific beatles song, y'know?
if you know anything, or know of people who know anything, please advise asap!
Man it would be a shame if I answered this claiming not to know so that five million internet people could offer a series of varied solutions and techniques
You're a doctor. You've been taught the phrase "first, do no harm."
A patient comes in with a flesh eating bacteria that is rapidly spreading up their leg. The only way to save their life is to remove their leg.
So what do you do? To help the patient is to accept that you must also harm them.
You're a good doctor. Of course you remove the leg and save the patient's life, because trying to exercise a choice that will result in no harm is impossible where there are only two bad outcomes, but one is unquestionably worse.
This post is for for leftists in the US who still think either not voting or going with a protest vote in the next two major election cycles is an acceptable choice, when you know full well the Republican will cause more harm.
β
fix the past
build the future
β β

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch β’ No registration required β’ HD streaming
What if we win?
What if the children go to schools unafraid of tear gas and bullets?
What if the birds come back, and the bees are healed, and every species moves from endangered, to threatened, to thriving?
What if the rainforest ADVANCES?
What if every parking lot had solar panels? What if every structure had solar panels? What if we built climbing gyms and terraced gardens in the skeletons of old coal power plants?
What if you baked your neighbor bread, and they shared their home-grown blackberries?
What if every person who needed a home, had one? What if every person who needed healing was healed?
What if every body was treasured for what it was, not what it should be?
What if every trans child's parents attended their graduation, their wedding, their new-name-day?
What if every warehouse became a closed-circle repair station? Goods flowing out, and back, and out again? What if landfills started to SHRINK?
What if the water and air were clean? What if there was enough public transit that the cars dwindled, leaving the streets safe for kids on bikes, evening deer, midnight cats and foxes?
What if we win?
How would you win?
And we've won a lot already, mind you.
The condors are back. The whales are saved. The sea turtles are no longer endangered. The cranes are back. The bees are recovering. The air in LA and Tokyo and London is clean again. The aquifers in the LA Basin are refilling.
Children are kinder than previous generations. Parents are stopping the abuse cycle. Being trans and queer is more acceptable than ever on a ground level.
It's hard to see if you're young, if you don't know how to step back from social media and the news. But remember--bad news sells, and the algorithm knows despair keeps you scrolling. It's a skewed lens.
We are fighting and we are winning against this adminstration's bullying. We are coming together against the bullies and they are running away scared because they don't understand that we will do that.
People are working hard every day to find ways to make sure fewer animals get hit by cars and planes and rockets.
Maker spaces are more common than ever. Solar and wind are more common than ever. Coal plants are shutting down every day.
Unprecedented numbers of acres are being bought back or given back to their rightful stewards, and the world heals because of it. People are working hard every day to learn how to help a forest recover faster.
We are not at zero. We are at decades of effort to heal the world. We've come SO far.
In 1982 there were only 22 California Condors left in the world. In 1992, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), with its public and private partners, began reintroducing captive-bred condors to the wild. In 2001 the first wild nesting occurred in Grand Canyon National Park since re-introduction. In 2002 there were only 8 pairs of wild nesting birds population-wide. In 2008, for the first time since the program began, more California condors were flying free in the wild than in captivity. Today there are nearly 500 β more than half of them flying free in Arizona, Utah, California, and Baja Mexico.
When I was born, there were no condors in the wild. I'm 37 now, and there are over 250 condors flying free.
When my mom was born in 1955, there were days when she wasn't allowed to go outside to play, because of the air pollution. When I was born, that never happened anymore.
When I was born, humpback whales were critically endangered, and people thought they were going to go extinct. Today, they've recovered to exceed their recorded numbers. Other whales too!
We fixed it.
We CAN fix it and we ARE fixing it and we DID fix it.
There is a light at the end of the tunnel.
It's still far from our reach.
But it's there.
Believing that things can get better is not blind hope or optimism--it is based on hard data that many things have consistently gotten better over the arc of history.
In addition to all that was mentioned above:
The likelihood of dying in infancy or childhood--or losing a child--has plummeted just in my lifetime. The likelihood of dying in a natural disaster is the lowest in recorded human history. Yes, even with the uptick in natural disaster intensity from climate change!
Humans alive right now are more likely to have access to healthcare, electricity, education, birth control, clean water, and nutritious food than at any other point in human history. There are so many diseases we can treat now that were a death sentence for 90% of human history.
This is not by accident. This is because generations of humans put in work to make life better for their communities.
Some of our solutions had the side effect of creating other problems--better access to electricity that ultimately made people's lives easier and safer led to pollution and climate change, for example--but we are tackling those knock on problems too. Our generation's solutions to our current problems will probably create their own less-bad side effects for the humans after us to deal with.
Is it silly and naive to believe we might actually be able to make things better? Not at all. We have many times before. We are doing it right now.
we can literally treat plague. donβt let pessimism get the better of you
Happy pride month specifically to folks on the asexual and aromantic spectrum who oftentimes feel isolated and left out of the conversation. You belong here as much as the rest of us and I hope that you are all loved in a way that is comforting to you.