Sim!!

Flamingos can survive in low oxygen, high altitude, high temperatures, low temperatures, high alkaline, they can and will drink boiling water and they can be completely frozen at night and still get up the next morning

(animal death) this is a real undoctored photograph (*though the body was stood up for the shot) of a dead flamingo on the surface of lake natron, a lake so salty and so alkaline that it’s naturally carbonated like soda and would eat through your stomach lining if you drank from it.

When this photo went viral years ago, most people assumed this poor flamingo must have been killed by the lake.

It is actually the lake where 75% of its global population are hatched. This is a photo from the same lake:

RATING: RELIABLE

Flamingos can survive in high altitudes, hypersaline conditions, and caustic lakes.

Source: ‘All flamingo species have evolved to live in some of the planet’s most extreme wetlands, like caustic “soda lakes”, hypersaline lagoons or high-altitude salt flats.’

They can survive water so alkaline it burns human skin.

Source: ‘More than a million lesser flamingos breed in Tanzania’s Lake Natron, for instance, a lake fed by hot springs with water so alkaline that it can strip away human skin (one pioneering flamingo researcher named Leslie Brown spent months in Nairobi General Hospital after burning his legs wading out to observe where the birds nested).’

They can drink water at near-boiling temperatures.

Source: ‘They can drink water at near boiling point to collect freshwater from springs and geysers at lake edges. If no freshwater is available, flamingos can use glands in their head that remove salt, draining it out from their nasal cavity.’

The lakes they inhabit can freeze overnight, and the flamingos can survive once it thaws in the morning.

Source: ‘The birds may seem to epitomize the tropics, but they also live in the Andes, 15,000 feet above sea level, where they rest on lakes that freeze around them overnight.

“You’ll see them sitting there like snowballs, frozen on ice,” Dr. Arengo said. “And as the temperature warms up, they thaw out, fluff themselves up and go about their business.”’

The photo is indeed from Lake Natron, taken by photographer Nick Brandt. The content of the lake chemically preserves animal corpses that die there. You can see more photos of this here.

It is also true that 75% of Lesser Flamingos are hatches on Lake Natron.

Source: ‘The lake’s landscape is surreal and deadly—and made even more bizarre by the fact that it’s the place where nearly 75 percent of the world’s lesser flamingos are born.’

Some species of Flamingo eat cyanobacteria or algae.

the "milkman" is a common figure in stories depicting a woman's infidelity and adulterous affair.

this implies that the ability to provide milk would both decrease the likelihood of a man abandoning his wife and children, as it would eliminate the need for leaving to get milk AND would secure that man's marriage, as his wife would have no need to seek milk from an extraneous source.

therefore, all men should produce milk, through various means such as:

- being a cow

- being an almond

- being a woman

- being a coconut

- being in the omegaverse

- being an oat

(list is exemplary and not finite)

i’m speechless

This is how the system of white supremacy  operates. The media is used 2 create stereotypes like blk on blk crime.They need black men to fill jail cells for the Prison Indstrial complex

You know what? I’m tired of this. I do not know what exactly they are waiting for. I mean our government comes up with “reasons” to invade other countries, such as Syria, like their government is allegedly violating human rights or something like that. but… I mean for other countries, they do not even have to go deep to bomb the fuck out of this place, they can just look at our media. And this has been happening to people of color since the media has existed.

I’ll never forget this 👇🏾

It was only legalized in 8 US states (the 8th only a few months before), and wouldn’t be legalized nation-wide until 2015.

It was only legal in TEN COUNTRIES in 2011. We wouldn’t hit 20 countries until 2017. (Australia was 23rd)

As of today (April 14, 2026), I believe only 38 countries have fully legalized same-sex marriage. Out of somewhere around 200 countries in the world. That’s only ~19% of countries.

I've come to try to identify this as over-classification of things, most commonly under commonly agreed upon negative/positive categorisations, and how this is applied to in-group dynamics and fandoms in ways that divide the wider community.

I think thats why i hate tumblr arguments so much, a lot of the time they function off of taboo and anger and group social norms. group dynamics based on bad reasoning.

I saw a post on here that goes along the lines of "i deadass think that withholding aftercare is abuse", and i agree with the sentiment, and i think for anybody in my life that would be harmful, it just seemed arbitrary and generalised instead of like "i think you have a responsibility to provide aftercare to your partner to your ability, and intentionally not doing so can be manipulative and possibly even quite damaging, especially without any prior consent", which i 100% believe and agree with. maybe its just the lack of nuance in defining how its bad? transitively, by the logic at the top, my ex was unintentionally abusing me, instead of just not recognising my needs and or that causing pcd.

It feels weird to argue because if people are primed to consider that abusive, then I would imagine that seeing somebody argue the nuances of abuse" would be less charitably interpreted over "people are complex".

Maybe thats another reason I don't like that line of logic. It seems assertively uncharitable to nuance, and using that emotional reaction not as a pragmatic response to something bad, but as an instinct to work off of.

Trying to tether this to a more extreme argument: i see this in the same vain as "terfs are bad because they hate women" as opposed to "terfs are bad because of the material pain they cause a specific minority as a definitional discriminatory principal".

Maybe it's also a lack of evaluating morality based on strings of definitions that don't necessarily, instead of evaluating the real actual effects and how that reflects on the people doing such.

There should be a better separation of allows for vs necessitates I think. "A is/means B but B is not always/does not always mean A" kind of thing.

examples:

- Racism is necessarily harmful and bad.

- Arguments can be manipulative, but not all arguments are manipulative.

For the latter, if somebody were manipulated by arguments, they may have an inclination based off of experience to assert one thing as another. This isn't because that person is dumb or irrational, but experience, which can offer valuable input.