74 posts
Latest Posts by le-blanc-et-la-noire - Page 3
sygol framed poll (handle with care), 2024 mixed media on tumblr post
black locust / bur oak / can't tell but possibly musclewood (hop-hornbeam and elm also have similar leaves)
sassafras / tuliptree / hickory (does not appear to be shagbark hickory, but i can't tell the other hickories apart just from their leaf)
cottonwood / horsechestnut (or buckeye; i can't tell them apart by their leaf either) / some kind of willow
being as i am an idiot, and having been one my whole life, i just wanna say that i find it very easy to do nothing, and go nowhere. i eat chocolate late at night in the dark. i stand in the garden also. and i’m often waiting for something to happen. and i’m stupid.
listen up chucklefucks, i just gotta say. I'm not defending zir, but I'm sad zie deactivated. Like, i get that trauma lasts a long time and the good stuff is maybe easy to forget?? so maybe it's just like that. And my beloved mutual @/pompeyspuppygirl made a post about zir clout chasing behavior, which is pretty shitty behavior if it's true (and if we're canceling someone it had better be pretty severe). anyways now that zie's gone pompeyspuppygirl said it was okay to make this post (again, thanks ppg everyone go follow her --really everyone in this whole drama is worth a follow)
ANYways yeah zie was my mutual and like, reblogged a lot my smaller posts. (that isn't to discredit what my mutual pompeyspuppygirl is saying about zie clout chasing ofc). AND idk zie was always reblogging art from new and undiscovered artists and reblogging donation posts (which if you don't know is really bad if you're trying to clout chase...) (again, though, ppg is my mutual i believe her.) and like, remember on valentines day i tried to blaze zir posts and zie told me to stop because zie didn't want the posts to go viral? (but again ppg is my mutual and has a lot of proof in the Google doc I'm not trying to disprove that I'm just saying what else I know)
Idk, like i feel like a lot of people loved zir's blog a while back, bc like zie DID make some good posts?? So idk why everybody's acting like they aren't even a little bit sad.,. like ngl this feels like maybe all the reasonable people left to Twitter and all the Twitter refugees who love drama came here??? shdfhhdhdhdhdh haha but idk...look idk, i just, julie i do miss you. idk. more thoughts later sorry I'm getting worked up shshs
Clouds for scenery (1783) PNGs
(source: desimonewayland)
“average person eats 3 spiders a year” factoid actualy just statistical error. average person eats 0 spiders per year. Spiders Georg, who lives in cave & eats over 10,000 each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted
I'm not beating myself up for no reason, I have to acausally incentivize my past self not to have fucked up
I agree that the phrase "being normal about [group]" can be used to mean "behaving like a typical person (which is good) with respect to [group]", which I dislike. In fact, while writing the above reply, I was thinking of another common usage of the phrase as meaning "having the correct opinions about [group]", which bothers me even more.
If "normal" is being used to mean "correct, popular among people I respect, typical, admirable, common sense", that is a bad way to use words, because it conflates concepts which are important to distinguish.
However, in this particular context, "normal" can also be read as "everyday, chill, neutral, default, forgettable", which does not strike me as a pernicious usage. If you read it this way, then "being normal about [group]" points at an important aspect of tolerating and respecting the group in question.
This concept of "capable of neutral, casual interactions" is particularly useful when assessing a potential friend (or someone you might invite to a groupchat, or someone whose party you might attend, etc.). In that circumstance, it's usually less relevant what their political beliefs are, how much they know about [group], or how much they care about the welfare of [group] -- what you want to know is whether they can treat you like any other person in the friend group. It is awkward and uncomfortable when the prospective acquaintance has very strong positive feelings about your demographic group, or when they are very concerned about interacting with you respectfully, even though those things are probably good in an abstract sense.
To inquire about this by asking "are they normal about [group]?" is suboptimal because of the ambiguity with other meanings of "being normal about", but it is a way to express something that needs to be expressed, and as such I am sympathetic to it.
Hate how people talk about “being normal” about something. That only applies to like, being weirdly obsessed with something unusual. You can tell me to please be normal about riding a train, or watching an Anne Hathaway movie. Things that I KNOW I’m weird about.
If you’re using it to describe whether someone is a bigot or not, it’s completely incoherent. Bigotry is normal to bigots. When I hear someone say “I’m normal about X group” I don’t assume that means they share my beliefs. I assume that means they’re uncritical about their own.
Is there something I’m missing here??
I don't consider "normal" a desirable or praiseworthy state, so the usage of the word to (ironically) describe unusual obsession tends to rub me the wrong way.
That said, I do think that the application of the term to a person's feelings about minorities is pointing at something real. Having strong and unusual emotions about people you interact with on the basis of their demographics is generally awkward, counterproductive, and destructive of empathy and solidarity, even if the emotions are positive.
Personally, I notice that when I have negative aliefs or inclinations related to a demographic group, they prevent me from perceiving that group as "normal" and "just people" -- I feel like I should "balance it out" with positive evaluations of the group, and end up thinking about whether I am being bigoted more than actually interacting with them as a person.
If you decide how to act towards someone based primarily on their demographics, that is the same mistake as bigots make, even if you treat members of othered minorities unusually well instead of unusually poorly. "Being normal about" a group can mean treating members of that group like normal people and interacting with them without having an unusually strong emotional reaction to their membership in a given demographic.
Hate how people talk about “being normal” about something. That only applies to like, being weirdly obsessed with something unusual. You can tell me to please be normal about riding a train, or watching an Anne Hathaway movie. Things that I KNOW I’m weird about.
If you’re using it to describe whether someone is a bigot or not, it’s completely incoherent. Bigotry is normal to bigots. When I hear someone say “I’m normal about X group” I don’t assume that means they share my beliefs. I assume that means they’re uncritical about their own.
Is there something I’m missing here??
New stickers for my pals who love (trans) men soon
It's simple.
If you give it defender, then it can't attack. But if you have an effect that says it can attack "as though it didn't have defender", then it can attack again. But then, once it has been declared as an attacker and is now an attacking creature, its ability means that it can't be declared as an attacker. But this doesn't matter, because no attacking creature can be declared as an attacker anyway, since the declare attackers step happens before any creature becomes attacking.
It's a perfectly meaningful, and perfectly useless, ability.
Akolia, Cruel Duskmaster, submission by @WillWeaverRVA