I have a PhD in yellow

i promise you that white man is not underrated

*producer about to make one of the worst seasons of television ever put to screen* surely writing purely in reaction to what the fans are saying on twitter will work out great for us this time

Characters will make a very nuanced choice that makes sense for their story arc and internal conflict, and audience members will be like "is anyone else going to misconstrue this in the most black and white, bad faith manner possible?"

[guy who doesnt watch shows voice] yeah ive been meaning to watch that show

you are not an endearingly rude and unfriendly cartoon character you need to be nice to people

i think if you're serious about rebooting a legacy franchise in the 2020s, you need to make it about lesbians. if you just reboot it without lesbians it shows a lack of interest in anything other than keeping the license active.

in my little pony universe youd go to a job interview and theyd be like so how does your cutiemark reflect your dedication to this position. And every time youd have to spew some bullshit about how your cutiemark of two tennis rackets actually means youre a team player and good at multitasking and view the market like a playing field. or whatever. and you wouldnt even get the job

Thanks to Equestria v Sugar Sprinkle, cutie mark interview questions are considered hiring discrimination, so if anypony asks you any cutiemark related questions or even alludes to any questions about your cutiemark such as "In your own words, describe your life purpose" you can and should refuse to answer. Know your rights, ponies.

Monster dating sim with a Sierra adventure game circa 1990 ethos about bad endings where the monsters are genuinely well meaning and there are just an unbelievable number of ways for them to accidentally kill you, and – this is key – there's a fuckass narrator who has a unique stupid pun for every single one.

Ideally it should also have a 90s Sierra adventure game approach to routing, like you can make a seemingly innocuous decision in the first five minutes of play that locks you into an unavoidable bad ending. You neglect to pick up the condoms from the nightstand (which is not even visually flagged as interactable) in the very first scene, and three quarters of a route later you have a bizarre allergic reaction to your partner's bodily fluids that somehow causes your head to pop off of your shoulders and go shooting out the window like a bottle rocket. The narrator responds with a strained wordplay about the semantic distinction between "getting" head and "giving" head.

Basically i reject on principle any stance framing "having a lot of sex" as anything other than purely neutral. I don't think the amount of sex someone has is any indication of who they are. I don't think having a lot of sex makes you a bad person. And, more critically for my own audience, i don't think having a lot of sex makes you cool or based, either. I think we shouldn't have to carve out an exception for people who don't want to have sex from the implied "people who don't have a lot of sex are lame". I think we should all maybe treat people who are asexual as if they're a normal part of life and not some weird deviation a girl you follow on Tumblr yells about every once in a while that you otherwise don't have to think about unless they're writing porn for you or handing out water bottles at your orgy.

American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)

i used to struggle so badly as an autistic teen when i would get into disagreements with my friends and they would frequently tell me “you think you’re always right!” to which i would be like, well, yes, i do believe the things i believe and dont believe things i dont believe ergo i think i am right

i was at the function bringing arguments to a screeching halt because suddenly im like “why would i have and express an opinion i dont think is right? of course i think im right. thats dumb”

shit I missed my window, next week I guess

Reblog on Tuesday to let your followers know it’s safe to leave the bog