qqueenofhades:

Look, I have no idea where the “if you talk about anything complex/consume this material/think about it in any way, YOU TOO MUST SUPPORT IT AND BE PROBLEMATIC AND BAD!!!” mindset came from, but I honestly and deeply wish it a very killed with fire. It’s the same anti mindset where if you read Morally Impure Fan Fiction, you are Morally Impure, but apparently now extends to… learning about the literal entirety of human experience? Why does this not surprise me, while also making me want to put my head through a plate glass door?

Once again, I don’t know what people think historians DO, but I can assure y'all, it’s not sitting around talking about how Totally Great [fill in the historical person, place, or thing] absolutely was, and how there were no problems with it ever and everyone should just be like, totally down with it, man. (Tubular.) In fact, the practice of academic history is often directly focused, especially nowadays, on identifying these problems and previous interpretations, putting them into context, and discussing how they happened in the first place. Considering that we’re suffering from such a profound crisis of historical ignorance, both deliberate and inadvertent, and have seen how that manifests in current events (which are just the history happening right now), I am… boggled that “we shouldn’t talk about anything because it was Morally Problematic!!!” is, indeed, getting serious play. Once again, it’s the anti-intellectualism that is just as rampant on the left as it is on the right, while dressing itself up in different language and pretending to support different goals. But either way, any critical philosophy based on “we can never talk about things that went wrong/people who did Wrong Things in the past” is absolutely dead on arrival as any use to anyone. Ever.

Obviously, there are complexities in how to approach this material, and I personally don’t think that historical figures, especially complex ones, should be “fandomized” or treated just as Cute OTP Blorbos or sanded down to fit a sanitized fictional box (unless they are explicitly fictionalized/being used in a fictional context, and even then, yeah, it’s good to keep the background in mind). It’s not that this is wrong – after all, historians get into this line of work because they have Big Thoughts and Many Feelings about historical people/places/things and want to work on those in a variety of contexts – but it’s a little uncomfortable, at least for me. That said, it’s still not inherently wrong, in any way, to be interested in/want to talk about people from the past. They’re human, for god sakes! You are also human! They are your ancestors! Of course you, a primate with higher reasoning and anxiety, are curious about them! You want to know their stories and consider their circumstances and ponder why they did things, including bad things! If you can’t do that, shun other people from doing it, and therefore you are completely cut off from your species’ entire backstory and have no frame of reference for anything at all, you’re going to end up an idiot. Guaranteed.

Anyway: yet again, people talking about history (or fiction, or anything at all) in a complex way that takes into account the fact that uh, people have never been perfect in their entire existence does not mean that the person is Bad or Supports All The Evils of Human History or whatever. I’m not sure what this attempted-gotcha “don’t you know they were a bad person!!!” is going to accomplish, other than giving someone the same kind of fleeting self-righteousness high that comes from Being More Correct On The Internet (or wherever), but like… if you like studying history, and they know you like studying history, I don’t know why they would think you don’t know that, unless you tragically failed to post a 50-page disclaimer first. And it’s stupid, and it’s juvenile, and it’s not useful, and I think you’re entitled to say much of what I’ve said above, in whatever amount you please, because yeah. Sheesh.

smileofacaffeinatedsaint:

smileofacaffeinatedsaint:

I think it’s fine to read YA and romance and be honest like “yeah that’s what I like” bc reading is a hobby with varying levels of time commitment and seriousness and it also involves skill to get the most out of a book and read closely and also reading has something for absolutely everyone but if you study literature in school or claim to be a serious hobbyist about reading but then you don’t show a great deal of interest beyond your comfort zone it is a bit like saying you’re an artisanal crafter of ceramics but everything you produce is like. a cute little pot made out of modeling clay. like it’s not nothing! but you don’t have to act like they’re the most sophisticated things ever or be cruel and defensive about people who do make more complex works

this also isn’t me giving anyone permission to enjoy books they like as if I’m the arbiter of what people can enjoy im just saying it’s a more common occurrence than ppl think and irl when ppl say they like books for romance it’s kind of just a shrug like ok you’re a very casual reader and the reason it’s cause for outrage among people on here who like literature is bc the screenshots are from tiktok

umbreiion:

nap time 💤

garnet-xx-rose:

Yes, I’ve done the work analyzing this relationship’s problematic traits and I’ve come to the educated conclusion that I still want them to fuck

sunhazeys:

americans what’s the state that doesn’t feel real to you. for me it’s montana. i cannot even conceptualize montana

elbetunutursun:

skinlike:

i’d play in the creek now as an adult. i’d sit in the stream and collect rocks for a while

lenacraft:

gomi-chandesu:

pika-memes:

Roommate went out of town once, asked me to look after her cat.

Night one she comes down meowing at me. I go check her food/water, they’re full. Litter box empty. Make sure my roommate’s door is still open and she’s not locked out of her room or something. I try to pet her and she dodges me, offer her treats and she won’t have it, try playing with her but she won’t play, try just ignoring her and she won’t stop following me around meowing at me.

So I call my roommate, concerned maybe she was sick or in pain and that’s why she was being so insistent despite having all her needs met.

Roommate goes: “OH! She wants you to go to bed. Go upstairs to my room and just sit in my bed with her for a few minutes. She should curl up and get comfortable. Once shes laid down she usually lets me go back to what I’m doing she just can’t seem to go to bed on her own”

Sure enough, I go sit on roommates bed and she just happily jumps up, curls up on the blanket, and purrs herself to sleep.

I like when cats try to give their humans healthy habits.

findingfeather:

findingfeather:

findingfeather:

Allow me to assure you, as a librarian, that if you as a concerned citizen present us with a list of Books that are Bad and should Not Be In Our Collection and which you Require us to Remove At Once, we will scan it for titles that we don’t have yet to add to our purchase list.

Ah, the “limiting access to information is okay if they’re takes I object to” squad has begun to appear.

This is your helpful reminder that:

a) There are legitimate information access needs even to bad information (one cannot, for example, study and deconstruct erroneous information about climate change if you don’t know what people are saying) and it is actually part of my vocation to provide ACCESS to even books I vehemently disagree with. Sometimes I even get to bond with the person checking it out over how appalling it is! Sometimes the reason they’re checking it out is because they need to read it but don’t want to buy it.

b) The presence of a text in a library collection does not imply agreement with or endorsement by the library as an entity; it just means for one reason or another it fits in our collection management policy. Often it’s based on patron requests from community members.

c) The absolute last thing you EVER want is your librarian to be empowered to decide whether your information need is Good Enough to be “allowed” access to the text. You, personally, even you reading this who knows you share the same values as me, do not want your access to be subject to my judgement as to whether or not your information need is “valid”; to be subject to my assessment whether you can be trusted to have access to a text.

I’m not your mom. I’m not even your teacher. I’m your librarian; it’s my job to help you access information YOU need, and YOU decide what that need is. If you ask for my help then sure it’s also my job to help you assess it based on my training and experience, but it is not my job to ARBITRATE your access to information based on my decisions about the legitimacy of your reason to seek it out.

So yes even when that list of books has books on it I think are full of lies I’m probably checking to see if it’s something someone in my community might need access to without having to buy it or expose themselves to the malware risks of pirating.

Because while I kinda hate him Jordan Peterson’s bullshit is RELEVANT to understanding a lot of shit going on today. And you do NOT want to live in a world where it’s my job to test and see if you have a good and pure enough reason for wanting to check his book out.

I’m ages late but:

Excuse me a coworker caught me making a warding sign at fuckin’ Ted Cruz’s piece of shit book the other day, I feel very called out right now.

rosecrystal:

would love to be in a period drama. wearing those dresses half titty out acting shy 

nocturnal-stims:

A spotted pardalote explores a hand.

🦜 Birds on earth on IG

greenmountainwitch:

BABIES

indigenousbeauties:

Karen Vega 🌸🌸🌸 : Oaxacan Model

hav-a-hygge:

hav-a-hygge:

Maliciously Deranged Violets
Watercolor On Black Cotton Paper
2023, 22"x 30"
Viola odorata, Sweet Violets

livesunique:

Bundi Palace. Rajasthan, India,

Christophe Cappelli Photography