cherry valley forever
ojovivo

Not today Justin

blake kathryn
🪼

oozey mess

⁂
Keni
$LAYYYTER
Today's Document
Cosmic Funnies

tannertan36

KIROKAZE
Claire Keane

Kaledo Art
Monterey Bay Aquarium

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
i don't do bad sauce passes
seen from United States

seen from Brazil

seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom

seen from China

seen from T1

seen from United States

seen from Switzerland

seen from Russia
seen from United States

seen from Taiwan

seen from Switzerland
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Netherlands

seen from United States
seen from United States
@hungrynikita

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 • No registration required • HD streaming
Alright tell me in the tags, what’s Your Poem? That poem you heard once and it has dwelt within you ever since?
I wonder if there’s some kind of skill that would make a person more employable and thus less likely to be hungry and homeless? A skill that also might make it easier to navigate the admittedly shitty systems in place to mitigate hunger and homelessness?
This is literally pro-life rhetoric. You are anti-choice.
This is one of those spots where I'm not sure you can say anything and win. Because:
On one hand, selecting for disability and disorder absolutely is eugenics and should not be encouraged.
On the other hand, we already select for some disabilities and disorders in order to protect the kids who would have them! Tay-Sachs is the obvious example; we do not want these children to die horribly so we try to make sure they're not conceived in the first place.
On the other hand, a potential parent selecting for disability is concerning because not all disabilities show up in the womb, and some are acquired. Do we want to encourage people to become parents if they're already wanting to walk away from any difficulty?
On the other hand, there are disabilities and there are disabilities. What if a potential parent is like "listen, ADHD I can handle, but the disability you're talking about is so severe I don't think I could handle it"? Is that eugenics, or recognizing one's own limits?
On the other hand, if we could ask the fetus "here's what you'll deal with; do you want to live?" would it say yes or no? Some quadriplegics love living. Some amputees who lost part of a leg will say they wish they'd died instead. Every disabled person will have a different answer, including two who have near-identical disabilities and life circumstances. Hell, I'm disabled and whether I'm saying "it doesn't bother me" or "I wish I was anyone else" comes down to the day.
On the other hand, does it make a difference if the answer to "why do you want an abortion" is "I don't want a baby" or "I don't want a baby I perceive as defective"? Do we judge one but not the other? Why?
I could go on like this for hours. I don't think OP is right and I also don't think they're wrong. I'm not sure there is a "right" answer. I definitely don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer. Life is THE most annoying bitch on earth that way sometimes. And insofar as there is an answer, I actually think it lies with creating support, not restricting abortion. Would you still say "abort" if you had an extra $10k a year? What about someone to watch the kiddo on Saturdays so you could have some decompression time? Is there a load-bearing straw we can remove to spare the camel's back, or is the camel simply not capable of hauling this particular shipment of straw?
Sometimes there are no good answers.
Women are allowed to abort for literally any reason. There is literally no scenario where anyone should force a woman to carry a fetus to term if she doesn't want it. That's the correct answer.
Also, eugenics is definitionally a population-level thing. An individual woman can not do eugenics.
Exactly. Forcing women to become brood mares for any reason - even left-wing approved reasons - would be eugenics because it would come with the force of the state behind it.
I agree that a personal choice is not eugenics, and that a woman should never be BANNED from having an abortion.
however, I think P-B’s point applies better to think of it as a moral choice. Is it UNETHICAL to abort a fetus just because it has a disability? And I have…honestly, no idea. I have been thinking about this for days and I can’t come up with a good answer.
Do you think it's more ethical to abort an able-bodied fetus than a disabled fetus?
I think you misunderstood.
The question is “is it ethical for someone who would not have an abortion if their fetus was able-bodied (and able-minded) to have an abortion because they learn that the fetus will be disabled”
But I'm asking you, why do you think it's okay to get an abortion when the fetus is able-bodied but suddenly twist into a pretzel when it's a disabled fetus? You're creating a scenario in your head where you can force the woman to serve as an incubator and justify it as "punishing" her for being "ableist."
Pro-choice is an all-or-nothing scenario. Either the woman has complete bodily autonomy or she doesn't.
It’s not that it’s okay when abled and not okay when disabled.
the issue is “having the abortion BECAUSE the baby is disabled.” Having an abortion because you learn the baby is going to be abled also could be problematic.
And to be clear, the woman still has the right to choose, it’s just that we are allowed to talk about which choices are more ethical than others (like how saying that it is more ethical to give money to charity does not mean that someone does not have the RIGHT to do whatever they want with their money)
additionally, Im not saying it’s ableist. Im saying there is an argument to be made that it might be, and it’s worth discussing
Trying to guilt a woman out of an abortion because she admitted she would not be able to raise a Downs baby isn't ethical tho.
It doesn't matter if the conversation starts and ends with "of course a woman should always have the right to choose," and it doesn't matter if the individual starting the conversation considers themself a pro-choice person. Trying to start dialogue about the ethics of aborting disabled fetuses is inherently an anti-choice action.
The pro-choice stance is that abortion is morally neutral. It is equivalent, not in personal impact but in ethical neutrality, to choosing pancakes over waffles for breakfast. Once you open a conversation about the ethics of abortion, you are acknowledging that you don't see it as ethically neutral. At that point, you are at best pro-life with exceptions.
The thing is, there's no pro-choice reason to start this conversation. The outcome is going to be either that it changes nothing, in which case why bother, or that some women who want abortions don't get them, which as an unacceptable outcome to anyone genuinely pro-choice. If you want to reduce the number of disabled fetuses aborted, you can work to reduce ableism in society that could be influencing abortion choices, and/or work to strengthen social safety nets so that people don't get abortions due to finances or lack of social support. What you can't do is say that we need to have a conversation about which reasons for abortion you approve of and continue to call yourself pro-choice.
Happy 10th birthday to the best tweet of all time.
Happy 11th birthday to the best tweet of all time.

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 • No registration required • HD streaming
When following up with someone who you believe has not responded to you, it is wise to double-check before issuing your follow-up. It may be that they did respond, and you didn't see it.
Similarly, if you have set a time for someone to call you, and you believe they have not done so, it is wise to check your call logs before sending them an upset text or email. It may be that they did call, and you missed it.
We receive so many notifications these days, it is easy for something to be lost in the shuffle. Taking a moment to check before leaving an angry voicemail or sending an angry message can help you save face and reduce irritation and confusion for everyone involved.
Also don't go for angry right out of the gate. Be polite and kind first. They may well be at fault and forgotten or failed to put it in the calendar or written the reply and just not hit send. How often have you done the same? Save the vitriol for a situation where it helps.
After doing as OP suggested and double checking that you are indeed correct in missing a communication/response you should have from the person, go with something like the following.
Hey Nice-Person!
I wanted to follow up about X since I hadn't heard from you and you'd said to expect an answer by the 57th of Decembruary. I just realized that was yesterday. I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed it, or my spam folder didn't eat it.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Me-person.
Notice... no blame. No accusations. Just a statement of facts (the date and missing communication), the benefit of the doubt (it might be you! Spam filters will do you dirty sometimes), and an expression that you're still waiting to hear from them. Most of the time in my experience people will fess up if they made a mistake.
Learning to share ownership of problems (like the above “maybe my spam folder ate it”) goes so far in smoothing out relationships. It made me feel defensive at first when I knew I wasn’t the one who made a mistake, but suddenly the other person is co-solving a problem with you rather than feeling accused. It often gets the problem solved more quickly and pleasantly, and it’s not actually necessary for everyone to acknowledge when I’m right!
What is appropriate varies depending on the relationship, but an expression of concern is also worthwhile. I often have to call parents who have forgotten about meetings, and “we had a meeting at x time, so I was calling to check if everything’s okay” lands much better than some reference to them having forgotten. It’s not even dishonest. I do sincerely want them to be okay, and reminding myself of that fact makes me less annoyed about having my time wasted.
gosh, isn't it interesting that this symptom is specific to men for some unknowable reason? listening and learning
why is this symptom specific to men. think
#‘I HAVE BIG FEELINGS’ is only allowed for toddlers#you are an adult. use your words. stop making excuses.#bet these men dont do that around their bosses or anywhere there could be consequences they care about either 💅
lol “have you considered your abusive boyfriend might have ADHD? Try having some empathy once in a while”. Great. Love it.
Seriously, ‘the angry man being aggressive and physically threatening is doing so to express that he is mad’. WOW ya don’t say. ‘But this common abusive behavior is different because he’s special’. Bro they all think the reason they’re abusive is special and not actually abuse or not actually about hurting you or not actually about intimidating you!
Why does he do that? - Lundy Bancroft
I fully agree with what you're saying about common excuses for men's behavior but I was raised as a girl and I definitely lashed out physically and broke things and even though I'm an adult, when i melt down completely it still happens. I get overwhelmed and cannot think straight and i just kick whatever is too close to me until i stabilize. I got diagnosed with autism 12 years ago. I had a moment at work today in front of my boss. If I could just be functioning all the time i would.
High support needs autistic people exist and they're not being evil as men women or anything else. We are just autistic and it's a developmental disorder -- big feelings and over the top reactions are for toddlers? Ok, my brain is wired more like a toddler's than yours. What am I supposed to do about it aside from my best?
I have a guy autistic friend who cannot speak and just communicates through touch. He's a brilliant artist and can never hold a job or live on his own. I once saw him almost kill his parents now that he's a full grown man. Not because he was trying to hurt them but because he'd gone past the point where he could handle himself and didn't understand what he was doing. And you know what? He's not an evil man. He's a severely disabled person. They hired someone to help and things have been fine ever since.
Maybe if you're exclusively applying it to low support needs people, sure ok. But all outbursts are not due to "man" sometimes people are just literally disabled. Yes in their brains. Yes. Inside the brain. Like a toddler, sure. Inside our brains. I'm not even a man and I do this. Not because I'm an ass, but because my brain stops working the way it usually should when completely overwhelmed and panicking.
I'm going to emphasize this is not a men specific symptom. This happened to me today. At work.
I am not arguing that people who experience this should just be fine with it - it is scary. It is not normal. You could be hurt and that's not ok. But don't phrase it like a disability symptom is somehow one gender's fault? That's what i take issue with in this post.
It's good to have conversations about how being disabled doesn't change the damage breakdowns can do to the people and things around me, and our relationships. Just remove the weird sexist flavored take out of the post and it's fine?
am I supposed to play make-believe and pretend that women engage in this behavior at equal rates compared to men? do you believe that?
i have worked with people who i genuinely believe did not have the capacity to understand or modify their violent behavior. i am able to sympathize with this and forgive their actions, even when it included punching me.
but i will not pretend that this is a gender-neutral phenomenon.
and NO ONE is obligated to tolerate domestic violence regardless of the explanation – or excuse – for those actions.
i want to live in the world @woim lives in where intimidating the people around you and destroying their property isn't domestic violence
It's my own damn property? Being disabled also isn't intimidation.
Surprising amount of the people reblogging from you love the #Terfsafe tag. this could mean nothing!
this post wasn't written about you. not everything online is about you. hope this helps
Slamming doors is not unique to men. I would know. It is, in fact a behavior commonly attributed to moody teenagers of both sexes.
The argument for it essentially amounts to bioessentialism.
acknowledging that men engage in certain behaviors at a higher rate than women is not bioessentialism. assuming that it’s impossible for there to be gendered differences in behavior unless those differences are biologically ingrained is…stupid. but we know you lack critical thinking skills ❤️
Also does lizzylovestogetbetter think that this is about teenagers after they got told they can't go to a concert on a school night slamming their door because they're teenagers who are acting like normal teenagers or do they think it's about grown ass adult men who slam doors and punch walls while they're arguing with their girlfriends but somehow only in situations where they're not able to face actual consequences
Every abuser I’ve ever met has had some version of this narrative in their head-I just feel things so passionately and I don’t have the words to explain it.
Also, it’s absurd to say that these patterns are gender neutral, but the even if it were, it’s not actually excusable for anyone. Being disabled obviously isn’t intimidating, but losing control to the extent that you destroy things in a public place is. Adults who kick things when they get dysregulated are unsafe. This woman is saying she had a moment in front of her boss, and her moments involve kicking whatever’s close until she regulates. That’s not ok in a work environment, or anywhere around other people. Full stop. That behavior from a coworker would make me wildly uncomfortable, and it would be straight up traumatizing to someone with a different history.
The issue here isn’t that people are stereotyping men (by stating the well-researched fact that interpersonal violence is highly gendered in its directionality). The issue is that excusing aggressive behavior as being the result of a disability is just misguided and reflective of poor judgment. Excusing aggressive behavior as being the result of a disability but only for men is misguided, reflective of poor judgment, AND misogynistic.
“Some years ago, I was stuck on a crosstown bus in New York City during rush hour. Traffic was barely moving. The bus was filled with cold, tired people who were deeply irritated—with one another; with the rainy, sleety weather; with the world itself. Two men barked at each other about a shove that might or might not have been intentional. A pregnant woman got on, and nobody offered her a seat. Rage was in the air; no mercy would be found here.
But as the bus approached Seventh Avenue, the driver got on the intercom. “Folks,” he said, “I know you’ve had a rough day and you’re frustrated. I can’t do anything about the weather or traffic, but here’s what I can do. As each one of you gets off the bus, I will reach out my hand to you. As you walk by, drop your troubles into the palm of my hand, okay? Don’t take your problems home to your families tonight—just leave ‘em with me. My route goes right by the Hudson River, and when I drive by there later, I’ll open the window and throw your troubles in the water. Sound good?”
It was as if a spell had lifted. Everyone burst out laughing. Faces gleamed with surprised delight. People who’d been pretending for the past hour not to notice each other’s existence were suddenly grinning at each other like, is this guy serious?
Oh, he was serious.
At the next stop—just as promised—the driver reached out his hand, palm up, and waited. One by one, all the exiting commuters placed their hand just above his and mimed the gesture of dropping something into his palm. Some people laughed as they did this, some teared up—but everyone did it. The driver repeated the same lovely ritual at the next stop, too. And the next. All the way to the river.
We live in a hard world, my friends. Sometimes it’s extra difficult to be a human being. Sometimes you have a bad day. Sometimes you have a bad day that lasts for several years. You struggle and fail. You lose jobs, money, friends, faith, and love. You witness horrible events unfolding in the news, and you become fearful and withdrawn. There are times when everything seems cloaked in darkness. You long for the light but don’t know where to find it.
But what if you are the light? What if you’re the very agent of illumination that a dark situation begs for?
That’s what this bus driver taught me—that anyone can be the light, at any moment. This guy wasn’t some big power player. He wasn’t a spiritual leader. He wasn’t some media-savvy “influencer.” He was a bus driver—one of society’s most invisible workers. But he possessed real power, and he used it beautifully for our benefit.
When life feels especially grim, or when I feel particularly powerless in the face of the world’s troubles, I think of this man and ask myself, What can I do, right now, to be the light? Of course, I can’t personally end all wars, or solve global warming, or transform vexing people into entirely different creatures. I definitely can’t control traffic. But I do have some influence on everyone I brush up against, even if we never speak or learn each other’s name. How we behave matters because within human society everything is contagious—sadness and anger, yes, but also patience and generosity. Which means we all have more influence than we realize.
No matter who you are, or where you are, or how mundane or tough your situation may seem, I believe you can illuminate your world. In fact, I believe this is the only way the world will ever be illuminated—one bright act of grace at a time, all the way to the river.“
–Elizabeth Gilbert
A daily game that challenges our understanding of human cultures. Ten objects. 5,000 years of human history. Guess where and when each artif
An interesting game where you are presented with 10 artifacts from the MET. You have to place where the artifact is from and what time period it is from. Each artifact scores up to 10,000 points, and you lose points the further away your guess is and how far off in time you are. You can only play once a day. Thanks to @baebeylik for showing this to me.
Today I scored really well. Yesterday ... not so much.
Anthropeum.com · Jun 8 2026 🟩🟦🟦🟩🟩🟩🟥🟦🟦🟩 79,001 · top 3% of players today!
Yeah bitch! Did really awesome today! Knew combing through the archives of museums would pay off in some vague practical way someday!
Anthropeum.com · Jun 9 2026 🟦🟦🟩🟩🟦🟦🟩🟨🟦🟨 83,613 · top 3% of players today!
Anthropeum.com · Jun 9 2026
🟩🟩🟨🟩🟨🟥🟦🟨🟦🟨
67,230 · top 34% of players today!
Rest in Peace Anthony Stewart Head (1954-2026)

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 • No registration required • HD streaming
it's so hardcover –> we're so paperback
this post is making me pronounce hardcover in a way i never considered
rest in power, marjane satrapi. 1969-2026.
just sayin, "I want to and I have ideas" from a bunch of guys who’d never started a government (let alone one against the then-greatest empire in the world) was how the USA got started…
Do you really think that some unqualified neo Nazi shithead running for a Senate seat that he is going to lose is comparable to the literal founding of america
The founding fathers were almost all part of the elite class these chucklefucks keep saying we need to replace with reality tv stars because the elites have too much power.
Also, given that they didn’t want anyone but white male property owners to have legal rights, I would argue that the founders didn’t exactly knock it out of the park on the first pitch. I really don’t think I would have been all in for George Washington to disenfranchise me any more than I am for a nazi ex-marine DINO to be one of 100 people with a huge amount of sway on national policy!
via tcdrawadventure on X/Twitter
(Responding here because you have replies turned off)
Leadership experience for candidates is a great qualifier that voters should consider, but the whole point of popular democracy that isn’t restricted to a class is that absolutely anyone could run and even be supported, giving everyone a voice and a chance at power and change. It also gives voters (especially if they’re not restricted to a class) the responsibility to be educated on issues (which often becomes a class issue in itself) and candidates and to organize, which also gives agency. This all leads to populism, which is frequently dangerous, but it’s the alternative to elitism. The logic of monarchism, when it’s not divine right and inheritance squabbles, is that it ideally manufactures the most qualified leaders, as they are groomed for the role from childhood and get a number of leadership nepo positions preparing them to eventually take the throne, all while being able to look at their ancestors for additional experience. The common citizen can never have a preparation for leadership like that, but popular democracy attempts to argue that it is better that leadership not go through that system, as it ensures the leaders who are elected are more authentically of the people (or it would if there wasn’t nouveau riche aristocracy that took power, which is another of popular democracy’s inherent risks).
I don't have replies turned off, the person whose blog you saw my post on does.
Yeah, absolutely anyone can run; people shouldn't support candidates for executive or statewide offices who have no previous experience in public office, because they are not entry level jobs and voters should stop treating public service as an unserious vocation that can be learned on the fly.
I do not respect candidates who felt no need to get involved to try and influence or improve problems in their own backyards for their entire lives by participating in local politics who suddenly decide they should be in charge of a city or a state or a country or should get to decide who sits on the Supreme Court.
If you're too good to be dog catcher or sit on a school board, I'm too good to vote for you.
I don’t think this person’s knowledge of history is very sound, but that’s neither here nor there.
I don’t know why so many people think politics (and also education, but that’s a different conversation) is a field that you can just jump into at the leadership level. You don’t have to restrict a position by class membership to insist on a certain level of education and work experience to be considered for it.
I’m not going to let George at the Home Depot remove my appendix because he’s camera-friendly and has good ideas. Why the fuck would I want some yayhoo who runs a small business and has never attended a city council meeting to enact legislation I have to live by?
I have a full time job and zero political aspirations, and I’m involved in local (city/county) politics because it is important and has a huge impact on the health of my community. If you can’t at least match that energy, I’m not voting you into the goddamn senate.

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 • No registration required • HD streaming
Okay, if you are tired then you won't be able to read. There I say it. No one else want to say it. It is strange. If you are tired, if you cannot finish a book that's a given. That's why you need to read...at work. You need to steal your reading time from your employers.
The original flag, by Gilbert Baker, June 25, 1978.