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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
i see your "i dislike characters who talk like theyve been in therapy its more fun when they dont know whats going on" but i raise you "theyve been in therapy for a decade and theyve read all the scholarly articles on the topic they know exactly whats wrong with them and yet they cant logic and reason and rationalise their way out of their mental illness and its driving them insane because they shouldve gotten better years ago and they feel like theyre on square one"
Enslaved under ottoman empire for 400 years, being heavily taxed unless they agreed to convey to Islam and also their resistance was responded with slaughters (Psarra slaughter being one of them or the Mesolloghi sage ending etc)
Their children being claimed by the Ottoman army to form a ruthless army that later on was sent against their own people because they never knew them
People in Europe didn't support them at first because "there is not a single drop of greek blood in Greeks anymore" and they did only after Greeks showed their determination in war plus they managed to attract allies in Europe so many bended their opinions after that
Greeks even now accused for "begging for money" when they forget that Greeks alongside with other southern countries like Spain gave loans to Germany which they were later given away for free
Greeks were met with racism in the US in states such as Chicago they were treated the same way as any other minority in US and in fact racist opinions of KKK are heard to this day aka "Greeks are not white" which was the excuse used by racist groups in the US alongside with Italians for instance because they perpetuated that "modern Greeks and Italians are 'mixed' with African or Turkish DNA and therefore 'not white'" and so they used that as an excuse to abuse Greeks
In Chicago Greeks were constantly referred to as "dirty Greeks" as racial slur. In the 1900s they were bullied and pogromed beyond measure and even being pinned on the worst crimes even worse than black people and others such as rapes or murders. Also attacks happened to Greeks
The Greeks were made to sit at the back of the bus like other marginalized groups in America
They were pinned as the bad guys in novels for instance Britain or others and they were criticized as "barbaric people of barbaric language that have nothing to do with the ancient Greeks"
The KKK literally planned a whole attack against the Greeks and they were stopped in time because church in America cabled Greece and Greece reacted that "no one should touch a single Greek hair" through diplomacy (here's an article about the general climate with the Klan by the way)
In 1920s they suffered a great genocide of like half million people that is still not recognized to this day
They suffered a great loss of life under the Nazi regime where entire villages were slaughtered
They suffered pogroms in Turkey later even after the signature of the peace treaty and the exchange of populations in areas that were supposed to be excluded such as Constantinopole and the islands Imbros and Tenedos (and yes they are recognized as ethnic minority not religious minority). Constantinopole has only a few thousand Greeks left and Imbros and Tenedos (before Imbros had over 7000 Greeks and Tenedos 2500 which was over 90% of the island populations. These days they are approximately 800 and 30 respectably)
Even recently there were anti-Greek waves to the general area
Can we please shut up if we do not know the Greek history? Can they please leave us the fuck alone anymore?!
Look I get it that not everyone is aware of everyone's history I get that but for once the fact that they think someone deserves respect only when they are oppressed as @venomspecs said at the comments is revolting on its own
Also the fact that there are greek communities in America actually shows that yes they are an ethnic minority for God's sakes and yeah they could just Google for once. It is not hard.
Also this comment more or less confessed that this casting choice of not even one greek at the team is obviously not representative of Greek people by stating "look at these obviously not oppressed people complaint" more or less admitting that casting is not Greek-looking.
So yeah Greek people had and as you see still have their fair share of people assuming stuff about them and that somehow is okay in public eye....i honestly don't get it...
under US law, it's illegal for anyone who's not a member of a recognised native tribe to own an eagle feather. the penalty is a $100,000 fine.
14 years ago when I had recently moved to Alaska, I went hiking with an Aleut friend, and she pointed to a feather lying on the ground and said "hey that's a bald eagle tail feather, you should grab it!" and I was like "uhh I'm very white and that's very illegal" and she went "they're fuckin everywhere up here man. I have 20." so she grabs it off the ground and hands it to me and says "there, now it's a ceremonial gift from an indigenous person."
and I'm like, okay, cool, I guess this is how we do things in Alaska. nice.
so I keep this bald eagle tail feather around for years. display it in my home among other cherished memorabilia from places I've lived and visited, etc.
on a whim, I have just now looked it up. there is no exemption to that law for a ceremonial gift from an indigenous person. the last 7 years I lived in the US, I was technically a bald eagle poacher.
probably a good thing I don't intend to move back there anytime soon. I wonder what the statute of limitations is on bird crimes.
@freedomisscaryshit I'm fucking dying I think you forgot the word "feathers" in your tags?? or do you just wish you could grab whole ass eagles that land in your yard??
As an Indigenous person, it continues to astound me that there are such strict laws (written by White people) in our name, laws against...picking up things just found on the ground. Like, stop pretending this is "for" us. We don't want this.
so, for clarity, that's not what this is. the law against possessing feathers is an anti-poaching measure, derived from a North American treaty protecting certain migratory bird species from hunting. that treaty has an exemption for indigenous people to allow tribes that use eagle feathers in ceremonial or religious practices to continue doing so.
i used to collect feathers (illegally) as a teenager and the thing is that it's incredibly important for feathers from wild birds to be illegal to possess because it ensures that they never become fashionable to wear. the reason we passed the migratory bird act was because the american and european fashion industry was driving species to extinction in a timespan of years. not just decades. the ecological devastation of exporting birds for hats was absolutely insane and people were watching wetlands and forests and meadows just empty out in realtime. look at the wikipedia article for the plume trade.
the law against 'picking feathers up off the ground' means that you can't go shoot an eagle then sell the feathers on etsy by saying you 'just found them'. you can't own them no matter where they came from, which makes sure that they're not going to come from any birds killed and then secretly disposed of.
these laws, as harsh and ridiculous as they seem, saved flamingos, spoonbills, egrets, and all kinds of hawks and eagles from extinction. the minute these laws weaken and people can make money off killing them again, they're fucked.
this is one of those "no actually this regulation exists for a reason" laws much like work place safety and building fire codes (that Republicans keep trying to roll back) and is written in blood just like them as well. it's just not human blood this time, and the fact that people actually cared enough about long term future over short term profit to get it put in place is nothing short of astonishing. That it didn't get put in place in time to save several species is heart breaking.
I am a lifelong Democrat and civil rights advocate. Both Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel years ago warned about being silent in the face of the rise of antisemitism and racism in America. King and Heschel, working in solidarity were effective and transformational to attain advances in civil rights and human rights for all.
History has taught us that when Black and Jewish Americans unite to confront hate, both communities emerge stronger and with a deeper understanding of each other’s history and perspectives.
Today, I am alarmed by the growing tolerance of antisemitism emerging within the political party that the overwhelming majority of Black and Jewish Americans call home. The ease with which some leaders excuse away this hatred should haunt all Black Americans. What starts with one minority quickly evolves into the hatred of others.
Many in my party are creating creative excuses for Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner’s Nazi tattoo. He got it a long time ago. He got it while fighting for America. He didn’t know what it was. Would the same parade of voices coming to Platner’s defense be doing so if he had a KKK tattoo? What’s the difference?
Black America continues to respond and to challenge the resurgence of racism and hate across the nation. We also cannot afford to be silent today about the evil surge of the virus of antisemitism and the increase in hate-filled violence against Jews and Blacks throughout the country.
As a Black American, I know what it looks like when a political party decides one community’s safety is negotiable or ripe for triage. I know the rationalizations — the strategic hesitation, the “but the politics are complicated,” the quiet looking away. I have watched it continue to happen to Black America, even though many of us have been the most loyal and engaged supporters of the party. I will not watch it happen to others without saying it plainly and publicly.
Throughout this election season, candidates are being pummeled with questions about whether they take support from AIPAC – a pro-Israel advocacy organization. One is right to ask whether candidates are backed by one political action committee versus another. But this campaign is far more nefarious. Orchestrated online by a group known as Track AIPAC, this effort is not merely about whether the candidates take AIPAC PAC contributions, they are overtly targeting pro-Israel Americans who personally contribute to candidates. This is a dangerous slope to driving these Americans out of the political process.
Moreover, the focus of Track AIPAC is not merely AIPAC or AIPAC members. It also tracks donations from J Street members – a dovish organization more aligned with the far-left than with AIPAC. That should sound alarm bells as it exposes the effort is targeted at Jewish Americans. Effectively creating a list of who is a good Jew and who is a bad Jew.
If Black Americans await in silence to the tracking of Jews today in America, in the morning Black Americans and others will also be tracked and targeted with impunity.
Singling out American citizens and demonizing their political participation is counter to core Democratic values. Yet instead of calling it out, Track AIPAC is being tolerated — and celebrated — by some in our party. This is not transparency. It is a registry. We know where registries lead.
Black America has its own history with lists — with the government and private actors tracking who we were, who we gave money to, and what organizations we belonged to or allegedly affiliated. We called it what it was: racial profiling and intimidation.
History does not announce itself. It arrives through normalization — through the slow acceptance of things once considered unthinkable. The virus that entered our coalition did not arrive labeled as antisemitism. It arrived as anti-Zionism, then as anti-Israel sentiment, then as willingness to embrace those who celebrate terrorism against Jews, then as systematic targeting of Jewish donors, and now as the punishment of Jewish officials who dared enforce rules equally. Each step felt, to many well-intentioned people, like a defensible position.
That is how social viruses work and spread. Believe me, the lived experiences of Black Americans know this reality and the eventful fatal contradiction to the oneness of humanity.
The Democratic Party has spent decades insisting that the safety and dignity of minority communities are not negotiable. That “the enemy of my enemy” is not a moral framework. It is time to say it now — without the asterisks we seem to reserve uniquely for Jews.
If Jewish Americans, Black Americans and others are not protected from profiling, scapegoating, from registries, and from being driven out of their own party — with the same reflexive clarity we’d bring to protecting any other community — then our coalition is not what we say it is. And every underrepresented community must take note and act to end all forms of bigotry, hatred and discrimination.
Reverend Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr. is president and CEO of the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA), chairman of Spill the Honey, co-chair of the Black-Jewish Action Alliance (BJAA), on the faculty of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), Senior Fellow for Divinity and Interdisciplinary Studies at Duke University Divinity School, executive producer/host of “The Chavis Chronicles (TCC)” on PBS TV Network, and former co-chair of No Labels.
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
A billionaire is not your friend. Not the one twirling a mustache, and not the one with the good songs who helped soundtrack your divorce, y
A billionaire is not your friend. Not the one twirling a mustache, and not the one with the good songs who helped soundtrack your divorce, your first apartment, your drive home from college, or your daughter’s birth. Taylor Swift is a billionaire, worth around $2 billion by the time she married, the first musician ever to reach that milestone primarily through songwriting. That is a remarkable achievement. It is not a character reference. History has not produced an ethical billionaire yet.
The controversy surrounding her wedding was never really about the wedding. It was about what happened afterward.
On July 3, roughly 1,000 guests gathered at Madison Square Garden to celebrate Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce. Among those publicly reported to be in attendance was Steven J. Demetriou, executive chairman of The GEO Group. His attendance became part of the public conversation almost immediately, not because he is a celebrity, but because of his company’s connection to immigrant detention.
The detention facility associated with that discussion has been the subject of repeated public scrutiny. In roughly 6 months, 3 detainees died there. One of them, 55-year-old Geraldo Lunas Campos, was ruled a homicide by the county medical examiner after guards restrained him. Federal investigators later reported that key evidence had been lost or destroyed. The GEO Group did not operate the facility when those events occurred. It nevertheless accepted a contract worth nearly $500 million after those incidents were already matters of public record.
Those facts explain why journalists and activists focused on the guest list. Yet almost immediately, the conversation shifted somewhere else. Instead of debating immigrant detention, private prisons, or the relationship between extraordinary wealth and political influence, thousands of people began defending Taylor Swift’s character. They pointed to bonuses, charitable donations, stories from employees, and lyrics that had carried them through difficult years. Every one of those statements may be true. None addresses the question that prompted the discussion.
That instinct reveals something much larger than celebrity gossip. Americans have become remarkably comfortable substituting personal virtue for structural analysis. We ask whether powerful people are nice. We ask whether they smile, whether they donate, whether former employees speak well of them. Those are questions about personality. They are not questions about power.
Historians have seen this before. Andrew Carnegie built libraries across the English-speaking world. John D. Rockefeller endowed universities, medical research, and public health campaigns. Their philanthropy transformed millions of lives, but it also emerged during an era of extraordinary inequality, violent labor conflict, and growing public hostility toward concentrated wealth. Carnegie funded libraries after the Homestead Strike left workers and Pinkerton guards dead along the Monongahela. Rockefeller’s reputation was reshaped after the Ludlow Massacre, when striking miners and their families were killed in one of the defining labor conflicts of the Progressive Era. Their philanthropy was real, but so was its political utility. It softened reputations, demonstrated civic virtue, and helped preserve an economic order that had produced fortunes of unprecedented scale. Libraries changed lives. They never answered the question of how those fortunes were accumulated in the first place. Neither do bonuses.
Taylor Swift reportedly distributed nearly $200 million in bonuses during the Eras Tour. Truck drivers received $100,000 each. Food banks benefited in city after city. Those acts deserve recognition. They also do not settle broader questions about income inequality, billionaire influence, or the political and corporate networks that accompany extraordinary wealth. Charitable giving has always existed alongside immense fortunes. In the United States, philanthropy has long served as both genuine generosity and public reputation. Those realities have never been mutually exclusive.
What surprised me was not that Taylor Swift invited someone controversial. Powerful people have always known other powerful people. What surprised me was how many ordinary people volunteered to become unpaid character witnesses for someone they have never met. They did not argue from evidence. They argued from affection.
They know what her music meant during a divorce. They remember the song that played on the drive home from college. They remember who they were when an album came out. Those memories are real. They are also memories of themselves. They are not evidence about the moral choices of a billionaire.
Modern celebrity has accomplished something monarchies rarely managed. It has convinced millions of ordinary people that emotional familiarity feels like knowledge. The songs become testimony. The memories become evidence. Personal attachment becomes a substitute for public scrutiny.
None of this requires Taylor Swift to be a villain. Villains make history too simple. The more interesting question is why Americans repeatedly mistake kindness for accountability, philanthropy for structural reform, and familiarity for evidence. We have spent decades debating whether someone deserves $15 an hour while treating fortunes measured in billions as evidence of talent rather than extraordinary concentrations of economic power.
History has never asked whether the powerful were capable of kindness. Most were, at least to someone. It has always asked a different question: what became possible because they possessed that much wealth, that much influence, and that many people willing to mistake affection for evidence.
We have become remarkably good at answering the first question. We hardly ask the second anymore.
.....
A few themes have emerged in the comments, so let me clarify what I actually argued.
I did not argue that Taylor Swift is a villain. I did not argue that philanthropy is meaningless. I did not argue that only Taylor Swift deserves scrutiny. And I certainly did not argue that powerful men somehow get a free pass. My page is full of essays about Trump, Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Thiel, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Nixon, Henry VIII, and many others.
The essay asks a different question: Can extraordinary concentrations of wealth be ethically justified, even when the person is talented, generous, and widely admired? That's why Taylor Swift is the case study. If the question only applied to people everyone already disliked, it wouldn't be much of a historical question.
The distinction that keeps coming up is this: character and ethics are not the same thing. A person can be kind, generous, and genuinely decent while still raising larger questions about wealth, power, and the systems that produce both.
You don't have to agree with my conclusion. But if you're going to disagree, I hope it's with the argument I actually made, not one you wished I'd written.
PS. Also, if you are new here, my views on the current administration should be apparent in all my historical essays.
Shrek 2, while a cinematic masterpiece, is also an interesting look at queerness and comp het.
Fiona is married so it's time to reunite with her parents. But instead of marrying a prince, she's married to an ogre. Not just that, but she's also an ogre. (Yes everyone knew she would sometimes be an ogre but that was when she was a child, she didn't know she would be an ogre for the rest of her life, and besides once she met the right prince she would stop being an ogre. She was supposed to stop being an ogre.)
But okay they're both ogres. We can still ask about when they'll have children because even if they're ogres they can still have kids, right? That's what married princes and princesses do so naturally that's what everyone does. Even if ogres might not be great parents (I've heard that ogres eat their young, is that something you people do?) it's still something that should be discussed.
And okay you can stay in Fiona's childhood bedroom filled with all the reminders that hey, everyone thought she was just a princess and princesses marry princes. Her toys left out from the last time she played with them. The prince slays the ogre. The princess offers a token of gratitude for slaying the ogre. Fiona wrote Mrs. Fiona Charming a million times in her diary because what else was she supposed to grow up to be?
And Harold, the Fairy Godmother says, you have to fix this, your kingdom can't be ruled by ogres. You were unfit to rule, to be loved, when you were a frog but I changed you, I made you better, I made you a prince. You know how this works. Think of your daughter's safety.
Shrek goes to the Fairy Godmother and oh honey, ogres don't live happily ever after. It's just not done. It hasn't happened in all of fairy tale history. You have to change the both of you to be happy. You have to present as a prince and a princess. It will be better. You'll fit in better that way. You'll be accepted that way.
This comment and the subsequent replies shed some very good light on the intersection of queer and racial tones in the movies. Other comments even draw connections to the underlying Jewish tones. Ii even find myself seeing people's arguments against these ideas as ways in which they truly display the complexity of systemic injustice and stereotypes.
Every once in a while I think about how my very anti-Israel coworkers last summer would talk about Zionist Jewish students behind their back and about how they needed to get educated about the conflict, but then I would tell them basic level facts about antisemitism and Judaism and they wouldn’t know it. Like I mentioned off hand that the Soviets used to persecute Jews under the guise of “anti-zionism” and a FUCKING PROFESSOR was like “oh, I didn’t know that” and it’s like, you’re not going to convince these Jewish students to stop being Zionists because the instant you open your mouth about Judaism they’re going to realize you don’t know shit about fuck.
And before you think “what’s the big deal” I need you to know. I was working with mostly RELIGIOUS STUDIES students. We are so fucked
I think that’s why it’s been so hard for me to concentrate on academic work this past year. I’ve come to realize how fucking dumb educated people are. They don’t know shit and they aren’t better than you. I’ve watched my professor mother radicalize via instagram videos this past year. What are we doing what is it all for
#1 thing to know about academics: most of them know jack shit outside their immediate field, and some don't even know that much within it. This is for several reasons, including many fields being deeply complicated, some fields facing institutional capture of various kinds, and conspiracies in general having a moment for really sucking people in atm.
I honestly suspect (anyone choosing to screenshot this who doesn't show you the whole thing, which will include the phrase "I love strawberry jam" in the last paragraph because I don't trust you fuckers) that a large part of this is to do with how, 10-15 years ago, we started seeing the concept of trigger warnings.
Trigger warnings are NOT A BAD THING. They're a good thing. But they rapidly went from stuff like "please tell me if there's discussion of CSA in this unit before we study it so I can prepare myself due to severe trauma" to "the above, but also I may choose not to do the work and to substitute something of equal relevance" to "the above except it's not severe trauma, it just makes me really uncomfortable" to "you are triggering me by saying things I don't like."
And when we hit that point, a lot of teachers just....gave up. Already overworked, underpaid, disrespected, and distrusted by a progressively more authoritarian government, villainized and vilified by the media, they just hoped to keep their jobs.
And that is why there are now school districts in Florida that have decided they're not going to teach the Holocaust anymore because it "triggered" their Muslim students who didn't like hearing that Jews aren't evil overlords actually and felt "left out" that the Holocaust was taught in US history but Islam wasn't. It was "traumatic" to them that Holocaust denial was a lie. And I would love to tell you I made this up for shock value, but it is a real case really happening in the summer of 2026.
The term "trigger warning" rapidly went from good use to misuse to abuse, and the people who were teenagers when that was happening are grad students and MAs now. Bad actors took a great concept and exploited it to the point it became useless except as an anti-intellectual weapon. And that, in my opinion, is part of why we are here. And I like strawberry jam.
I kind of want to talk about something that I see commented often both here and on other platforms about the moment where an anguished Obi-Wan says, "You were my brother, Anakin! I loved you!" because the comment that I see about it is is often "oh my god, obi-wan broke the jedi code when he told anakin that he loves him"
Which annoys me because to me it's like. It's so close to the point that I think that scene was trying to convey (besides just the heartbreak, the betrayal, etc.) but it misses it! Obi-Wan telling Anakin that he loved him does not break the Jedi Code, but Obi-Wan not finishing that fight by killing Anakin absolutely does.
Darth Vader goes on to become a SCOURGE unto the universe. I can only imagine his death count and then his death count by direct proxy in training the Inquisitors. The amount of harm that Anakin does to the galaxy is genuinely hard to understate. When the Jedi Code warns against attachments I imagine that not finishing that fight is EXACTLY what it is talking about!
TDLR: Obi-Wan did break the Jedi Code but it isn't that Obi-Wan loved Anakin Skywalker and it certainly isn't because he told him. It's because Obi-Wan could not place the universe above his brother and an untold amount of innocent (and non innocent) people died because of it.
#star wars#jedi#YES#YES THIS IS IT#the jedi are full of love the jedi exist because of love the jedi ARE love#but they are love of the galaxy; of the force; of the light of every single life singing within it#they are not cannot be about just one or two or even twenty people#if you only care about a handful of folks and you'll put them above everyone else — and you have the sort of POWER the jedi do —#then you are a monster by the very nature of using that power against others for the sake of those few#(that's called a sith guys)#anakin wasn't wrong in episode ii when he was trying to philosophize/seduce padme; he was just still on a freshman level of it#he didn't actually understand what he was saying and what it MEANT and how that translates to action in the world#(then the war happened and he and a lot of other padawans never got to finish growing up philosophically whoops)#and that's also why the attachment rule isn't some hard/fast ''you can do this and not that'' it's about finding you own balance#within the idea; finding where your personal lines are regarding that ideal#but oh! the jedi exist BECAUSE of love — the whole ''attachment'' thing is about applying that love to the big picture: to EVERYONE#that's what makes them good; that's what makes them tragic#(while also conversely keeping the balance of not getting TOO ''big picture'' that you start treating people as disposable things)#(you have to also care about individuals! if your ''big picture'' starts involving ''kill x-number for the sake of xyz-number'' you failed)#(that is ALSO called a sith lol)#(and that's the hard part that's the balance! see the big picture and the little guy all at once and still be able to sacrifice when needed#(and the jedi know that's hard they know it hurts: but they do it anyway. because of love for the whole of the damn galaxy. the jedi)#obi wan kenobi#jedi order#darth vader#the force
This is why I fucking love when weirdo reactionary guys romanticize Ancient Rome as the zenith of logic and reason, because in reality you had academics like Pliny the Elder going around saying wild shit like "Period blood fumes will kill crops and drive nearby dogs to madness" and if you asked for a source, they'd go "Some random travelling merchant I met in Damascus with a trustworthy countenance said so"
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
i want jewish emojis. mezuzah emoji to put at the start of all my posts. menorah emoji. pomegranate GOD i wish there were a pomegranate emoji. !! HAMANTASH EMOJI.
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
actually I think you should be normal about ordinary citizens of authoritarian countries and yes that applies even to that country you're thinking of right now
"but they support [dictator] and [violent action]!" okay is it possible that a combination of propaganda, election rigging, and authoritarian crackdowns on dissent could lead a population to look like it supports something most people would find distasteful under more reasonable circumstances
I know I already made a post to this effect but it's so baffling to me when someone defends the fact that headphone jacks are slowly but surely getting phased out by smartphone manufacturers with some variations of "wireless headphones are more convenient anyway" bc like. If we're talking about convenience what I like about wired headphones is that they conveniently have a single plug that makes the same damn pair of headphones universally compatible with every single audio-output-capable device I own, from my phone and my computer to my fucking gameboy and my casette player, it doesn't get any more convenient than that.
you lost the game @mossadspydolphin - Tumblr Blog | Tumlook
2087
blakekathryn
snowghoul
kianamaiart
germansingergirl
theartofmadeline
prguitarman
jacobvanloon
