🔥 | Latest

Bitch, Children, and Fall: arianod: rainbowbarnacle: alexander-lamington: gallusrostromegalus: jhaernyl: botanyshitposts: spirit-of-science: thebloggerbloggerfun: teafortrouble: eteo: fall-for-nothing: trickster-eridan: buttpilgrim: scientificperfection: kittiesinthemorning: I just don’t understand how this happened. But here’s a picture of a lemon from my backyard WHAT THE EVERLOVING FUCK when life gives yoǘ̻̬͓͎̣̟̩̦͢ ͪ̂̀̆҉̳̘̝̺̀l͇̬̹̞̻̥͕̥̗̒̎ͩ̋ͥ͆e͙̭̭̠̣̠̊́ͩ̂̓̀ṃ̛̍̂͛̈̏o̠̪̪ͤ͗͘n̵͉̣ͭͧ̿ͧ͛̀s̷̠͑ͬͫͦ̅͡ ̸͐ͤ͘҉̦̺M̰̹͙͇ͮ̉ͫͅȦ̻̔̅̇̑ͭ͛͋͘K̠̻̫̤̇̀ͥE͂ͪ͏̱̤͚͕ ̞͔̜̬̑ͯ͑͢ͅŞ͔̦̩̳̣̖ͮ͊ͨA͈̓͂̈́̀̀̚͘C̡̠̟͉ͪ͆̔ͤ͂ͪR̬͙͕ͪ̀͠Ĩ̵̖͚̑̊̓́F͎͕̄Iͬͧ̀̂̑ͪ͟͏̴̪̤ͅC̢̰̝͓̗͛ͬ̔̍̓́́̚̚Ḙ̶̠̰̳̩̳̊ͭͮ̇̇̚̕S̻͖̣̰̒̈͟ it’s back Satan lemon every villain is lemons And finally, dear listeners, a reminder; several concerned citizens have brought to the city’s attention an irregularity surrounding this summer’s citrus harvest. City council would like to remind all enterprising fruit pickers to exercise reasonable caution when acquiring these fruits. Grasp the fruit firmly around its circumference, pull slowly but steadily to avoid damaging the tree, and under no circumstances heed its demands of you. Do not acknowledge or obey the depraved whisperings of the demon fruit. And now: The Weather. This kind of looks like a Buddha’s hand to me they’re a type of Citron, a citrus closely related to lemons. I wonder if whatever causes that twistedness in Buddha’s hands is present but dormant/recessive in other citruses? @botanyshitposts do you know about this? a lot of people having been messaging me about this, and honestly i had no idea that Buddha’s hands existed and it totally seems likely to me??? like honestly that seems like a really plausible explanation, especially because when we look at the demon fruit, the twisty ‘arms’ are going off in all different directions when the only place i can see a twisty arm happening on a lemon is on the top. like if the fruit is developing from the original growth point into a body then why are the offshoots developing the opposite way, from a body into a twisty thing? when in a Buddha’s hand, it totally makes sense because the twisty things are growing outward anyway.  im no pomologist but the similarities in the growth patterns really do reflect in The Demon Fruit.  @gallusrostromegalus WAIT I KNOW THIS ONE! The short version is that Citrus is a slutty, slutty genus of plants that can knock up pretty much any other member of the genus and uh… it’s mots recent relative as of 7 million years ago, becuase why not. Usually that makes for tasty children like tangerines and whatnot, but sometimes Weird Shit happens. All modern citrus are descended from Mandrin oranges, Pumelos and Etrogs, the latter being closest to lemons and which looks like this: It’s big and lumpy and mostly pith but also tasty as hell so Ye Ancient Malay Archipeligo Orchard Guy gets to breeding these for more tasty innards, presumable inventing lemonade in the process.  YAMAOG also finds out that it’s REALLY easy to seriously mess with the overall appearence of the fruit of these very inbred etrogs, and starts breeding all kinds of nonsense, like Bhudda’s palms, Modern Lemons and Grapefruit. YAMAOG also noticed that in addition to the occasional ugly inbred mule child, you can also get really strange looking fruit if the tree gets sick, is malnourished, if any part of the flower is damaged, or if the weather just sucks that year.  In addition to being a Major Slut, Citrus is also a Fussy Bitch. Looking at the Demon Fruit, my best guesses are If you’ve had weird-shaped fruits off that tree before, you might have a very strange hybrid tree like the dachsund-pitbull one of my neighbors owns. If it’s only the one fruit, and your tree is producing otherwise normal lemons, that particular flower or branch took some kind of damage or had a viral infection, which fucked up all the hormones and hence your lemon has gone all Ending-Of-Akira on you. GOOD NEWS FOR BOTH SCENARIOS: unless the fruit looks like it’s actually rotting, it’s safe to eat!  weird fruit shapes in lemons pretty much never makes them dangerous, just maybe a bit more tart than usual. Enjoy a nice glass of demonfruit juice! @motorizedduck relevant
Bitch, Children, and Fall: arianod:

rainbowbarnacle:

alexander-lamington:

gallusrostromegalus:

jhaernyl:

botanyshitposts:


spirit-of-science:

thebloggerbloggerfun:

teafortrouble:

eteo:

fall-for-nothing:

trickster-eridan:

buttpilgrim:

scientificperfection:

kittiesinthemorning:

I just don’t understand how this happened. But here’s a picture of a lemon from my backyard

WHAT THE EVERLOVING FUCK

when life gives yoǘ̻̬͓͎̣̟̩̦͢ ͪ̂̀̆҉̳̘̝̺̀l͇̬̹̞̻̥͕̥̗̒̎ͩ̋ͥ͆e͙̭̭̠̣̠̊́ͩ̂̓̀ṃ̛̍̂͛̈̏o̠̪̪ͤ͗͘n̵͉̣ͭͧ̿ͧ͛̀s̷̠͑ͬͫͦ̅͡ ̸͐ͤ͘҉̦̺M̰̹͙͇ͮ̉ͫͅȦ̻̔̅̇̑ͭ͛͋͘K̠̻̫̤̇̀ͥE͂ͪ͏̱̤͚͕ ̞͔̜̬̑ͯ͑͢ͅŞ͔̦̩̳̣̖ͮ͊ͨA͈̓͂̈́̀̀̚͘C̡̠̟͉ͪ͆̔ͤ͂ͪR̬͙͕ͪ̀͠Ĩ̵̖͚̑̊̓́F͎͕̄Iͬͧ̀̂̑ͪ͟͏̴̪̤ͅC̢̰̝͓̗͛ͬ̔̍̓́́̚̚Ḙ̶̠̰̳̩̳̊ͭͮ̇̇̚̕S̻͖̣̰̒̈͟

it’s back

Satan lemon

every villain is lemons

And finally, dear listeners, a reminder; several concerned citizens have brought to the city’s attention an irregularity surrounding this summer’s citrus harvest. City council would like to remind all enterprising fruit pickers to exercise reasonable caution when acquiring these fruits. Grasp the fruit firmly around its circumference, pull slowly but steadily to avoid damaging the tree, and under no circumstances heed its demands of you. Do not acknowledge or obey the depraved whisperings of the demon fruit.

And now: The Weather.

This kind of looks like a Buddha’s hand to me
they’re a type of Citron, a citrus closely related to lemons. I wonder if whatever causes that twistedness in Buddha’s hands is present but dormant/recessive in other citruses?

@botanyshitposts do you know about this?

a lot of people having been messaging me about this, and honestly i had no idea that Buddha’s hands existed and it totally seems likely to me??? like honestly that seems like a really plausible explanation, especially because when we look at the demon fruit, the twisty ‘arms’ are going off in all different directions when the only place i can see a twisty arm happening on a lemon is on the top. like if the fruit is developing from the original growth point into a body then why are the offshoots developing the opposite way, from a body into a twisty thing? when in a Buddha’s hand, it totally makes sense because the twisty things are growing outward anyway. 
im no pomologist but the similarities in the growth patterns really do reflect in The Demon Fruit. 


@gallusrostromegalus 

WAIT I KNOW THIS ONE!
The short version is that Citrus is a slutty, slutty genus of plants that can knock up pretty much any other member of the genus and uh… it’s mots recent relative as of 7 million years ago, becuase why not. Usually that makes for tasty children like tangerines and whatnot, but sometimes Weird Shit happens.
All modern citrus are descended from Mandrin oranges, Pumelos and Etrogs, the latter being closest to lemons and which looks like this:
It’s big and lumpy and mostly pith but also tasty as hell so Ye Ancient Malay Archipeligo Orchard Guy gets to breeding these for more tasty innards, presumable inventing lemonade in the process.  YAMAOG also finds out that it’s REALLY easy to seriously mess with the overall appearence of the fruit of these very inbred etrogs, and starts breeding all kinds of nonsense, like Bhudda’s palms, Modern Lemons and Grapefruit.
YAMAOG also noticed that in addition to the occasional ugly inbred mule child, you can also get really strange looking fruit if the tree gets sick, is malnourished, if any part of the flower is damaged, or if the weather just sucks that year.  In addition to being a Major Slut, Citrus is also a Fussy Bitch.
Looking at the Demon Fruit, my best guesses are
If you’ve had weird-shaped fruits off that tree before, you might have a very strange hybrid tree like the dachsund-pitbull one of my neighbors owns.
If it’s only the one fruit, and your tree is producing otherwise normal lemons, that particular flower or branch took some kind of damage or had a viral infection, which fucked up all the hormones and hence your lemon has gone all Ending-Of-Akira on you.
GOOD NEWS FOR BOTH SCENARIOS: unless the fruit looks like it’s actually rotting, it’s safe to eat!  weird fruit shapes in lemons pretty much never makes them dangerous, just maybe a bit more tart than usual.
Enjoy a nice glass of demonfruit juice!



@motorizedduck

relevant

arianod: rainbowbarnacle: alexander-lamington: gallusrostromegalus: jhaernyl: botanyshitposts: spirit-of-science: thebloggerbloggerf...

Facebook, Omg, and Saw: Red @redgermz Saw this on Facebook and sent it to my brother, who is a pharmacist. Unsa man na b 10:29 AM Paracetamol OMG pseudonymsobriquet: klubbhead: halcyonjester: xmagnet-o: cfluffiness: Someone in facebook also posted this too Omg Mediglyphics This shit’s infuriating Oh, this is a type of shorthand! There are 3 main types, but from my research, this looks to be American Gregg Shorthand. As you can see, there are set symbols for every letter. Let’s break one of the words down: Using the Gregg Alphabet as reference, we can see most of the letters in “atrophied” are present. But why no “o” vowel, and why is “ph” written as “f”? Simple. In shorthand, you cut out all vowels in a word when writing it down, with the exception of words that BEGIN or END with a vowel (hence the “a” at the start being present), or like in the “i” in “atrophied”, to make it more readable when the sound could be harder to distinguish if it isn’t written. In “atrophied” if the the “i” isn’t written, it could be hard to tell if the writer meant a “fud”, “fad”, “fod” or “fid” sound, for example. Also, since Shorthand is a phonetic writing system, you are encouraged to write down the phonetic sounds of words rather than the actual letter blends - in this case, write an “f” instead of a “ph”. So in actuality, these aren’t just meaningless scribbles - it’s Gregg Shorthand, a writing system developed to take down notes more quickly than when written out in full, which is very useful in a medical or journalistic environment. Some people can even write over 100 words in a minute! And, it’s been in use since John Robert Gregg invented it in 1888! Wow! So old! Isn’t language amazing~? Ya tenéis traductor.
Facebook, Omg, and Saw: Red
 @redgermz
 Saw this on Facebook and sent it to
 my brother, who is a pharmacist.
 Unsa man na b
 10:29 AM
 Paracetamol
 OMG
pseudonymsobriquet:

klubbhead:

halcyonjester:


xmagnet-o:

cfluffiness:


Someone in facebook also posted this too


Omg

Mediglyphics


This shit’s infuriating

Oh, this is a type of shorthand! 
There are 3 main types, but from my research, this looks to be American Gregg Shorthand.


As you can see, there are set symbols for every letter. 
Let’s break one of the words down:
Using the Gregg Alphabet as reference, we can see most of the letters in “atrophied” are present. But why no “o” vowel, and why is “ph” written as “f”? 
Simple. In shorthand, you cut out all vowels in a word when writing it down, with the exception of words that BEGIN or END with a vowel (hence the “a” at the start being present), or like in the “i” in “atrophied”, to make it more readable when the sound could be harder to distinguish if it isn’t written. In “atrophied” if the the “i” isn’t written, it could be hard to tell if the writer meant a “fud”, “fad”, “fod” or “fid” sound, for example.
Also, since Shorthand is a phonetic writing system, you are encouraged to write down the phonetic sounds of words rather than the actual letter blends - in this case, write an “f” instead of a “ph”. 
So in actuality, these aren’t just meaningless scribbles - it’s Gregg Shorthand, a writing system developed to take down notes more quickly than when written out in full, which is very useful in a medical or journalistic environment. 
Some people can even write over 100 words in a minute! And, it’s been in use since John Robert Gregg invented it in 1888! Wow! So old!
Isn’t language amazing~? 

Ya tenéis traductor.

pseudonymsobriquet: klubbhead: halcyonjester: xmagnet-o: cfluffiness: Someone in facebook also posted this too Omg Mediglyphics ...

Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho. 2 hrs Well, this just happened. Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The packed auditorium went wild. Wow. I'm just speechless CHO! NERT SE prasLE THE caMERa 2G CRap! IG a stock N HEET CRP SERNG P 1RT ENTM FR MA RA what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: houroftheanarchistwolf: aawb: starsapphire: is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that? It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot.  It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.  I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..? And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.  Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing. We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine.  What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do. This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks:  Also:  He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence. You can see her butthole for chrissakes I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers. Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity. Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs. Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock. Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you. bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works Lol body painting literally Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way
Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho.
 2 hrs
 Well, this just happened.
 Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of
 my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for
 fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The
 packed auditorium went wild.
 Wow. I'm just speechless
 CHO!
 NERT SE
 prasLE THE
 caMERa 2G
 CRap! IG a
 stock N HEET
 CRP SERNG P
 1RT
 ENTM
 FR
 MA
 RA
what-the-fandomm:

2sunchild2:

kukumomoart:
chancethereaper:

aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works

Lol body painting literally


Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year

i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way

what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: aunti...