Same energy
Same energy.
Actually, that video has the same energy as this:
How dare you be funnier than me on your own post.


blake kathryn
we're not kids anymore.

titsay

â
taylor price

dirt enthusiast
i don't do bad sauce passes
AnasAbdin
Aqua Utopiaď˝ćľˇăŽĺşă§č¨ćśăç´Ąă

Product Placement
d e v o n

@theartofmadeline

Andulka
Show & Tell
Cosimo Galluzzi
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
trying on a metaphor

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from T1
seen from United States

seen from South Africa

seen from Oman

seen from United States
seen from TĂźrkiye
seen from Curaçao

seen from Canada
seen from United States

seen from TĂźrkiye

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Chile

seen from Canada

seen from TĂźrkiye
@inferno390
Same energy
Same energy.
Actually, that video has the same energy as this:
How dare you be funnier than me on your own post.

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
May I introduce you to my favourite Calvin and Hobbes strip which only got funnier when I got hearing aids.
wait actually i gotta reblog this again i just remembered an additional fun fact. sunday funnies pages were not created equal; some allotted less space than others. to make space? they would literally chop off parts of the comics. this is why many sunday strips have a Big Title Bar at the top, bc that was usually the part that got cut off. comic artists essentially had to account for that a big chunk of their strip was Optional Bonus Material that couldn't be relevant to the plot or punchline of the strip.
bill watterson? HATED this. he was in a constant battle with the presses to keep his strips intact. he eventually won this battle, forcing any paper that wanted to run calvin & hobbes to print the full strip. but in the meantime, you would get protest strips, where the top bar is essential for the comic to make any sense at all.
this? is almost definitely one of those. please picture with me living in a town with one of the newspapers that cuts off the top bar. imagine seeing this comic WITHOUT the top panel.
I'm not blaming anybody in the notes for not knowing, but I'm here to set the record straight: This is the original format of this comic
So it is a sunday strip, and it does have the two throwaway panels at the top, but the bizarre presentation of said throwaway panels as their own comic is entirely fictitious.
As correct as you are, the first long panel, followed by a massive amount of blank space, with a single final panel of just, âSnow pants,â is peak Calvin and Hobbes humor
2 genres of fanfiction:
1) put that guy into situations
2) take that guy OUT of situations for the love of GOD let them RESTÂ
I love my new favorite game Norman Reedus loses his Fetus, ft. Japanese bunny vtuber
help why am I writing a fanfic about building wholesome relationships with all of the objects in a house and also Iâm going to fuck the magnifying glass

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
A Marvel team consisting of all of the superheroes named after insects and also Mothman is there
sometimes i feel ive got to
â
â
run away
Call me Tricky Dick that way it completely disappear inside of her
my refrigerator w legs barrels towards me and grabs me and stuffs me into its vegetable drawer then casually walks away
Is your refrigerator running
my refrigerator w legs is standing in the middle of your street gripping a rolling pin. are you running?
im a bit of a pointless hater about certain usages of the term âmonsterfuckerâ bc i think itâs often one of those things people say but donât believe with their whole chest. like if all the âmonstersâ you like are vampires and similar mopey human-looking folks itâs possible you are actually just into goths. Letâs not dilute the beautiful world of teratophilia for our bloodborne sex soldiers out there fucking and sucking in yharnam or whatever. Anyone on earth would fuck a vampire. thatâs vanilla
Don't you DARE gatekeep monsterfucking OP, all fuckers of all monsters are valid. If one person mostly prefers the twink bodytype and another prefers the bear bodytype, they're both still attracted to men. Some people fuck monsters because of the taboo of finding something dangerous or other than "human" attractive and some people fuck monsters because they want to feel a tentacle force their butthole open like an anteater snout into a termite mound. All of us are nasty freaks and there's no need to create unneeded barriers between us.
if weâre considering essentially cannibalistic human people with bad teeth to be monsters we must include those who are attracted to British people under the banner of monsterfucking lest someone feel invalidated
So I have a theory about this:
The "attraction to vampires and other mostly-human monsters" end of the spectrum gets debated like this because it is both monsterfucking AND normie at the same time. It also has its equal and opposite twin in wanting to fuck a person so idealized they no longer resemble a human.
Hear me out. (Long post under the cut)
Actually I'd like to revise my opinion a bit because I'm hydrated now and my friend in chat pointed out that my "inhumanity of form" and "recognition of personhood" are just two of the MANY axes upon which the monsterfuckerness of anything can be judged, so I propose this:
Kink in general, but ESPECIALLY monsterfucking, is the exploration of what could be. Playing Imagination, if you will. Therefore, it's opposite is a total lack of imagination.
Since it's extremely weird for a human to be totally without creativity, what you get is a bimodal distribution on either side with a sharp dip in the middle, where the vast majority of people are into something A Little Weird, tapering out the Spiders Georgs out there who want to be actually jacked off by the invisible hand of the marketplace or suchlike esoteric and unachievable fantasies.
Hence, wanting to fuck a vampire is both monsterfucking and normie at the same time.
SchrĂśdinger's Monsterfucker

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
Imagine Paul Atreides put his hand in the pain box and it was just full of unpeeled grapes like in those cheap shitty haunted houses. Steeling himself for pain and then immediately being sideswiped with textural hell
you. you see my vision
Imagine Paul Atreides put his hand in the pain box and it was just full of unpeeled grapes like in those cheap shitty haunted houses. Steeling himself for pain and then immediately being sideswiped with textural hell
Never settle for that mass produced pussy. Always make sure what youâre eating is 100% organic, free range, grass & corn fed, and GMO free
people be like âfuck authorityâ but blindly follow to an unscientific democracy when they say things arenât planets any more for arbitrary reasons
Jfc
what are you talking about? pluto is a drawf planet because it hasnât cleared its own path of orbit
Oh my poor friend, buckle into your spaceship and prepare for 10 Gs of space knowledge that you did not ask for, because boy do I have a rant for you.
So our story begins in 2006, when the IAU revoked Pluto's planetary status. Contrary to the common narrative, this really has very little to do with Pluto and everything to do with the fact that astronomers just. Kept finding celestial bodies that probably should be called planets too. Like poor Ceres, a planet in our asteroid belt that everyone forgot about like that one kid who sits in the corner of the cafeteria that no one talks to. Anyways, in '05 Eris is found and the IAU says, âwe need to come up with a new definition for planets, because we canât just keep calling everything a planet. Thatâs too messyâ as if science was just going to fit into the neat little boxes we make for it and not chew them to pieces like the nasty little creature that it is. Well, in 2005 top NASA engineer and planetary scientist Alan Stern writes a paper talking about how we should define subcategories for planets to distinguish them, with dwarf planets being one of the two. The IAU says âHey thatâs a neat concept! What if we steal that terminology and literally nothing else.â
The IAU then defines three criteria for what constitutes a planet:
It must orbit the sun. (Not âa star.â Very explicitly our sun.)
It can maintain a spherical shape on its own, AKA hydrostatic equilibrium.
It has to have âcleared the neighborhood of its orbit,â an arbitrary bullshit term that they had to come up with more arbitrary bullshit terms to justify (we will be coming back to this)
There are plenty of things wrong with definition, some of which have been discovered since the change, but plenty that we already knew about. For a start, âIt must orbit our sunâ is the most blatantly human-centric definition Iâve ever heard in my miserable little life. We have discovered thousands of celestial bodies orbiting other stars in our galaxy. Are those not fucking planets? We literally call them "Exoplanets," which translates roughly to "planets out of," like outside of our solar system. There's no reason that they couldn't be planets if we wanted them to be. (In fact in 2015 a proposal to the IAU tried to add exoplanets to the definition. No word yet on whether that's a thing now or not.) Another big issue is that we've actually discovered that Mercury doesn't meet hyrdostatic equilibrium. It keeps its spherical shape thanks to outside forces, so by the current definition it is also a dwarf planet. "But Inferno," I hear you saying, "these are both technicalities and you're just being pedantic. Go back to living under your creative writing rock and let real scientists do the hard work." Well let me introduce to you the real nail in our astronomical coffin: Our own goddamn moon. First lets talk about clearing the neighborhood of the orbit, because believe it or not it is relevant to the discussion. So in 2006 when the IAU came up with this rule, there wasn't actually a standardized definition for what the hell it actually meant? This term was also stolen from a paper by (well lookie here) Alan Stern and Harold F. Levison, and it refers to a planet having swept its orbit clean of smaller bodies over time by either pulling them in, flinging them out, or capturing them in orbit. How much mass exactly? Well the IAU decided to go with a completely different metric given to us by Steven Soter (colloquially called Soter's Constant) which basically divides the mass of the planet by the mass of the surrounding matter, and if the result is greater than 100 times, it maintains planetary status. This is a very dumb metric, and it has already been pointed out by many greater than me that the list of planets that haven't cleared their near orbits can include Neptune, Jupiter, Earth and Mars because the term manages to be both super specific and obnoxiously vague at the same time. Back to the moon! Fun fact for the day: The moon doesn't orbit the earth. Before everyone starts screaming in the reblogs, allow me to explain. See, the moon and the earth actually share a point of orbit called the barycenter, and that point is outside the center of the earth. It's about 4,671 km away from the core. Here's a really shitty youtube video to illustrate:
Second free fun fact for the day: That barycenter is moving outward! It's very slow, to be sure, about 3 cm a year, but it is moving. Which means, to absolutely no one's surprise, that the moon has not been captured in Earth's orbit. In fact, it would be more accurate to describe our relationship with the moon as a proto-double planetary system than anything else. In fact, in 1975, infamous scientist Issac Assimov (a name I demand be forever stamped into your brain) did some math and discovered something very interesting. He did a little gravity math, and he discovered that the sun's gravitational force actually has more of a pull on the moon than the earth's gravitational force does. It's the only "moon" in our solar system that behaves like this. By this logic, the moon doesn't orbit the earth... the moon orbits the sun. (insert dramatic space-based piano sounds here). In 2017, a paper was published that took all this and pointed out that by the criteria above stated, the moon actually meets the critera to be a planet by IAU definition. Yeah, that's how fucked up the current definition is. To summarize: 1) In 2005, Alan Stern suggested we make an inclusive categorization system that used the term "dwarf planet" as a subcategory. 2) In 2006, the IAU completely ripped the the term dwarf planet from any meaningful context and used it to make an exclusive categorization system because "the science was too messy" 3) The definition was leaking water when it was first made and is actively taking on water thanks to the real science that's been done in the two decades since. 4) The moon is canonically a planet under IAU definition, fuck you. Other points of note: > Another point of research by Alan Stern notes the fact that the term "planet" has been used completely outside of the IAU's standard in papers to refer to things including our own moon and Jupiter's many moons. Clearly how scientists are using the term is just as questionable. > Alan Stern is also one of the head engineers that was on the New Horizons Pluto satellite missions, so I don't know why the hell he isn't considered a leader in the subject. Let the man cook, goddamnit. > Real, actual scientists are still actively arguing about how the definition should work but there is relatively general agreement on both sides that the current system is Bad(TM). > In response to a comment I've gotten often along the lines of "Pluto didn't get deleted from the sky:" I mean, in a sense, it kind of did? Yeah it still exists, but it has been pretty explicitly categorized as "not a planet," which is just a touch stupid. > Like it or not, science isn't a democracy. It's based on empirical evidence and the scientific method, not a minority of the scientific community deciding that it's not clean enough for them so they get to change the definition. The reason you even know about the change is that they used Pluto as a scapegoat and engaged in a massive round of propaganda to win over the common folk. > Legally, Pluto is a planet in Illinois and New Mexico. Ha get got fuckers > Finally, there's just no fucking reason that the system has to be exclusionary, and that's the part that really irritates me. We could have had dwarf planets be a subcategory of planets, and used literally the same criteria we have now, and I would have no argument against it. I'd actually be quite happy with that outcome. The fact that the current definition excludes dwarf planets is really the stupidest part of all of this, and it's even more frustrating that we actually had such a system designed, and the IAU decided to just ignore it because they could.
An additional thought on this topic, since it got brought to the front of my activity feed again: When working with/creating new/updating scientific terminology, we should always be considering the following: 1) is it useful? (Does this language actually serve as an effective tool or method of communicating information about a topic? Was this language needed and does it serve some purpose that wasn't being filled before?) 2) is it meaningful? (does this language or change in language hold any significant information? Does it have some kind of value from a scientific standpoint? Or is it arbitrary?) 3) Is it measurable? (Can the definition and language that we're using be traced back to observable phenomenon? Is it explicitly grounded in things that can be clearly identified through the senses?) 4) Is it accurate? (Is there any degree of precision to the definition that we're using? Can it not only be clearly measured, but done so in a standardized, concrete way with little to no variation?) The definition for planets (and as by product dwarf planets), is none of these things, as I have laid out in great detail above. The distinction between planets and almost-planets-but-not-quite is arbitrary and not meet the needs of a scientific perspective in any way, shape or form. Even if you want to argue that we need to have distinctions between what is and isn't a planet, at the bare minimum the definition still needs to be redone. And at that point, it makes more sense to define dwarf planets as a type of planet so that the terminology can be descriptive of what it is rather than prescriptive of what it can or cannot be.
the problem with having a decade old tumblr blog is that there are posts on it from a decade ago

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
People complaining that RDJ got cast twice in the MCU, when it literally happened before with a different actor and no one said anything
Imagine if you played bingo but every time you had a line that was one short you said Uno. How fucked would that be