#so much babble

[astracora]

someone's probably pointed this out cause i'm not browsing tags but

Caleb's flower is hydrangea.

Not only a flower that changes colour in differing soil (Caleb is a chameleon or changes who is is depending on the person he's talking to or where he is?)

But the meanings are;

One sided/obsessive love, heartlessness, frigidity/coldness, apology, family and gratitude.

[ravencromwell]

Rereading Dickens Christmas Carol for the first time in a long time. And the more I reread, the more it strikes me how seamlessly a queer reading could slip within these pages. Not an especially twee reading, wherein all Scrooge's troubles start and end with grief over Jacob Marley's death. For we know that Scrooge was a "Tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner!" And we know that he and Marley were "two kindred spirits"

And perhaps that very fact makes the similarities to queer life, unintended as they most likely were by Mr. Dickens, achingly poignant to me. Scrooge is, we're told, "secret and self-contained and solitary as an oyster." How much that resonates, for so many of us who shield our innermost selves but from a select group of friends. And we know that Scrooge and Marley were, at the very least, certainly that for one another. Scrooge is Marley's sole mourner; his sole executor and beneficiary; and even Dickens notes, "friend." How reminiscent is that of queer couples across history, estranged from their families?

Scrooge lives in a set of chambers that once belonged to Marley—clearly Dickens wanted us to believe Scrooge gave up his own dwellings after Marley's death to economize. But with only a flicker of change, those chambers become _their chambers, rented by Marley as the senior member of the couple. The place is so desolate Dickens notes "one could scarcely help fancying it must have run there when it was a young house, playing at hide-and-seek with other houses, and have forgotten the way out again." The perfect abode for two queer misers who wanted no one prying into their business.

Marley's name is still above the door of Scrooge's counting-house: a mark by which, no doubt, Dickens meant to convey Scrooge such a penny-pincher he couldn't bother to have it changed. But a thing can be both! mark of frugality to ludicrous excess and! mark of mourning. "sometimes," Dickens opines, "People new to the

business called Scrooge Scrooge, and sometimes Marley, but he answered to both names. It was all the same to him."

This is why "death of the author" matters so much, in expanding our interpretations of texts. It is vastly far from the lens Dickens would have intended. But, the idea of a ghost of queerness, so taboo in the society it could barely be glanced at sidewise in this tale that is all about the inexplicable and yet that lingers over everything becomes an astonishing lens through which to read this book. Thinking of Scrooge as a queer man, his "melancholy dinner at his usual melancholy tavern" becomes a eerie prefiguring of the hollowness of days spent by Isherwood's A Single Man. In this universe, little wonder Scrooge doubly hates mention of time with family, marriage, etc. when the precise nature of his grief is both unacknowledged and unacknowledgable.

And readings like this are vital, because the uncomfortable truth is, discrimination doesn't "discriminate between sinners and saints", to borrow a Miranda phrase. It is easy, in my liberal circles, to fight for queer people who hold "the good sorts of politics". But what about men like Michael Hess, culpable for supporting Reagan even as his contemptuous homophobia let the aids epidemic run rampant? How much harder is it to remember Michael had a partner? That he deserves empathy and compassion for being practically tarred and feathered out of the party upon his own aids diagnosis?

Expanding our imaginative universes to include queerness, not as redemptive panacea, but merely as one aspect of identity, personality, often in vicious conflict with others. Even! as we consider those stories equally worthy of being told feels vital if we're ever to truly express the complexity of what queer humanity looks like.

[twistedappletree]

it’ll forever be hilarious to me how wenchless hans is. he’s a young, conventionally attractive nobleman who spends a pretty decent amount of his time trying to pursue women in an admittedly insufferable way but even though he has money and status and could give any woman a more than comfortable life, despite whether they love each other or not, who’s the one getting all the wenches?

his peasant squire, henry. the one person on the entire planet who can’t shut up about hans, turns every conversation with others into something about hans, writes in his diary about “irresistible” hans, literally responds to women flirting with him by bringing up how dedicated he is to hans. and those same women are throwing themselves at him like darts.

there’s just something so deeply funny and pathetic about hans actively and persistently trying so hard to impress women while they all flock to his #1 fanboy, henry of skalitz, who’s practically writing gay fan fiction about himself and hans in his journal.

[cxnicalcherub]

i love fics where people write jason todd as this super rough and degrading daddy dom because in my mind, jason is soooo vanilla. like sure, he can manhandle and he does have some light brat-taming tendencies, but this man is kissing your tummy before going down on you. he’s intertwining your fingers while in missionary. he’s telling you how pretty you are and how well you take him. he’s pulling you into the shower with him afterwards and washing your hair for you. he wants to show you how much he loves you because lord knows verbally expressing vulnerability is nawt for him

[inkyarcturus]

Saw the meme and thought of them <3

[asexualbookbird]

BEHOLD! MY CURRENT HYPERFOCUS!

I've been making Emotional Support chickens the last three months! For all my friends! It's been fun going through scrap sock yarn and finding fun color combos! I put a weighted bean bag in the belly so they have some heft to them :)

I've learned a lot with each one. I think it was the purple one where I discovered I was doing wrap and turns wrong, and the blue one where I learned I was joining the first color change wrong. They've all gone to homes now, but there are still more in the knitting queue and I can talk about them publicly now! Yay!

bonus, the very first one I made who now lives in the yarn shop. Someone gave them a scarf :)

[pokeypoqi]

drew @snapscube's sonicsona babble!! oh my gosh shes so cute. ive never run to draw faster HAHAHA

[anghraine]

ROTJ ruled, as usual— it has more flaws than my beloved ESB for sure, and more than ANH, but the highs are so good and so rewarding in a way that never gets old.

One of my favorite parts this time around comes after Anakin tells Luke it's too late for him to ever go back (a belief explicitly shared by Palpatine, Yoda, and Obi-Wan, but not by Luke until that moment—and only for a little while). Luke withdrawing into "Then my father is truly dead" is always great, especially the shot of him in the lift, surrounded by taller men in Imperial uniforms with his shoulders and back rigidly straight and the warmth in his expression gone. But the thing that really makes it is not ending the scene with Luke disappearing, but letting that rejection linger by shifting to Anakin and just letting seconds tick by as he contemplates what's just happened.

He doesn't actually do much—just walks a few steps and reflects. His body language isn't overwhelmingly despondent or anything. Obviously we can't see his face. And yet we feel how hard that hit and how much he's dwelling on it. He's all but encouraged this response from Luke and yet it feels like it's really, truly sinking that this isn't at all what he wants from Luke.

He doesn't want Luke to call Palpatine (or anyone) master, I don't think; he just considers it inevitable, the only possibility other than Luke's death. And for Anakin, death above all is the thing to prevent.

Everything Anakin says is about things he or they must do, or what cannot be escaped, or destiny, but all of these things he says to Luke are ultimately about Not Getting Yourself Killed. There's no sense of choice beyond submission or destruction.

(Anakin does know he's done terrible things, clearly, but his takeaway from that understanding is that he's gone too far to turn back. That sense of powerlessness, the inability to make a choice that really means anything, pervades his characterization in ROTJ in particular.)

But I feel like, while he still feels powerless after Luke leaves, there's also this sense of a slow, half-buried epiphany. This isn't what he wants.

[bonefall]

[ID: Ask from @storiesandsquirrels, transcribed in alt text]

also: link to Cow Lore

There's one major misconception here I've gotta correct before answering earnestly; Holsteins do need Super Duper Food. This is one of their major problems as a breed, you need to give them high quality feed for high quantity, low quality milk.

But! That said! These are valid questions that deserve real responses. In spite of the quick correction, I actually want to answer them as you phrased them because I think it would be more illuminating. I'm going to try and summarize them as I go along;

Question 1: "Why wouldn't we want to use The Most Efficient Cow?"

The simplest answer is disease. My ""prediction"" came true, and bird flu has mutated to spread extremely easily through the infected udders of Holsteins. No one has died of bovine-contracted HPAI yet, but with Brainworm Bobby and his love of raw milk in charge of the CDC...

well. my last prediction was prophetic. let's hope this one's not.

Minmaxing a breed for one specific purpose always means intensive inbreeding. Like I mentioned, 9 million Holsteins are genetically equivalent to 60 individuals. A more genetically diverse population is one that will be better at preventing disease outbreaks, and reducing their severity when they do.

And what even is the Most Efficient Milk Cow? If you're only selecting for pure milk production to drive down its cost, you get a breed of cattle that lacks every other important trait that would make it good livestock;

They get sick more often, due to inbreeding depression and lack of physical fitness, requiring more antibiotics and veterinary care.

They are bad parents who will need more human intervention to birth and raise calves

They won't be good grazers, meaning they need a specific food grown for them, increasing how much "functional" land is actually dedicated to cattle husbandry.

Their carcass won't yield as much meat, so more cattle have to be raised and slaughtered to meet demand.

Their bodies will burn out much quicker than a healthier animal, meaning you need to replace your livestock more often.

When it comes to living beings, "efficiency" is "fragility." It's not a stable system to begin with.

Even with the pure logic aside, just, step back here and look at the situation with a heart. We'd be making unhealthy, short-lived animals lacking critical instincts to lead good social lives. AND we probably haven't even fixed the "less land" problem, just shifted the land off-site.

For what? For more milk? We have SO MUCH milk we don't even know what to do with it!

Question 2: "Isn't an overabundance of cheap milk a good thing?"

no.

Under the infinite genius of Capitalism, thousands of gallons of milk just gets poured into the sewer daily because there's too much of it. Transporting it to a processor would cost more than it's worth, sometimes the processors turn milk away because they don't want to overproduce products, and even the US government can't subsidize every last drop; it still has 1.4 billion pounds of cheese in various caves and warehouses across the country.

The price of milk cannot get any lower because it's already being sold below the cost it takes to produce it, and yet, we're still here literally pouring it down the drain.

[photo from bill ulrich who photographed a farmer dumping milk back during the pandemic. this isn't even a recent photo. this happens every time there's a milk surplus. im using this photo because i like the farmer's cunty little pose. look at him. "just ain't right"core.]

And milk being dumped into the sewer is more than just wasteful. It's a biohazard.

Milk doesn't stop rotting when it's dumped. If you live downstream of a milkhouse, improper milk disposal reeks.

It's full of nutrients, too, which causes diatoms, cyanobacteria, and other types of algae to go into overdrive-- causing a Harmful Algal Bloom event in the water, or HAB.

HABs are horrific. There's HUNDREDS of different types. They can suck up oxygen and create "dead zones" which kills all aquatic life, they can poison the water supply for an entire town, and some can even cause toxic fumes that make it hard to breathe on land.

Now, listen, I don't want to scare you into never dumping out rotten milk or anything! It's that on an industrial scale, it's REALLY REALLY bad if a farm overproduces milk-- especially crummy milk that can't be made into decent cheese or other dairy products.

In fact, if we did produce milk on a smaller scale, it would be better for everyone! Unless you're a Milk Guzzling Fiend like I am, you probably wouldn't need to buy a whole gallon at a time. In countries like Italy, it's sold fresh and in smaller containers, and you're just expected to pick it up as you need it.

This is why milkmen used to exist, and still do in places that are cool; they'd deliver your supply fresh from the creamery. Less waste, less stress! The "subscription model" is actually sooooooooooo much better for milk production, since it helps to stagger out those "surges and drops" of demand that leads to milk dumps.

Question 3: "If the cow eats less, doesn't that mean less land for pasture, which is a good thing?"

There's a lot to unpack within this sentiment. It's actually based on a couple of common assumptions on a few levels, which are incorrect in fascinating ways. Challenging this means opening up your worldview on how complex keeping livestock actually is!

I'll start with the simpler part;

You could cut fresh pasture out of the equation entirely and shove a cow into a concrete pen with a food box-- but are you counting the land growing the fodder?

When you grow corn the way that we do on industrial farms in the US, it's unbelievably destructive. Unending oceans of monoculture. Fogged with pesticide, pumped full of fertilizer which causes HABs like dumped milk does, sprayed with thousands of gallons of wasted water.

When you look at this image, I need you to understand you are looking at a dead zone. Like a suburban lawn, just because it's green doesn't mean it's good. Nothing grows here but corn and pests of corn, which gets poisoned and dies without returning any of that energy to the ecosystem.

This is usually what is being given to "grain-fed cattle," either when they're sent to a feedlot to hit their slaughter weight, or when they're lactating so they need the extra nutrition. It's also so nasty it's inedible to human beings.

Now, a lot of cattle farmers will just supplement their cow's diet, doing a mix of pasture feeding (much cheaper) and grain feeding (quicker gains). But the facts on this are clear; pasture-kept cattle result in LESS emissions and need LESS total space than cows in confinement.

In fact, there were a LOT of benefits!

Overall gas emissions from the cows dropped by 8%

Ammonia pollution was down by 30%

Not needing to run farm equipment for fodder planting and harvest reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 10%

Rotated crop fields didn't sequester carbon; but the newly converted perennial grasslands store as much as 3,400 pounds per acre.

The outside cows did produce less milk volume, but the milk they did produce was higher quality. So, looking at all the benefits here, it's clear that pasture is actually something that should be embraced for ecological reasons, not rejected.

In FACT, it should be EMPHASIZED. Because, this is the mind-blowing part,

Pasture can ALSO be an ecosystem.

In fact, I'm a Warrior Cats guy who once did a deep dive on moorlands just so I could write WindClan better. There are entire biomes that only exist because of grazing, and British lowland heath is one of them!

Keeping cattle in a sustainable, ecologically sound way is going to look different depending on where in the world you're doing it. So many earnest, good-willed people have bought into the lie that humans are a problem, and that everything "associated" with us becomes a barren wasteland as if we are tainted. YOU are not the problem! The problem is, and always has been, exploitation. Unsustainable relationships with the land we're part of.

Indigenous people in Europe, Asia, and Africa have been keeping cattle for thousands of years. In North America, cattle can be used to maintain ecosystems that have been badly affected by the colonial eradication of the American Bison. In South America, Brazil specifically has been making incredible advances with highly efficient integrated crop-livestock-forestry farming.

Generally, pastures here in the US are not as intensely managed as an equivalent crop field. Some people fertilize them, or water them mid-summer, but absolutely not to the same extent as industrial corn farms. Cattle are typically rotated between pastures, allowing each to re-grow before they come back to graze again.

Obviously, yes, overgrazing can be an issue. Not every open space should be converted into a pasture, and the destruction of other environments to turn into cow land is a problem. But that is an issue of bad land stewardship, not the mere practice of keeping livestock.

Bottom line, though? Cattle who can graze and survive outside are better for the environment than cattle that can't.

...but hey, you know what Holsteins happen to be really bad at?

EVERYTHING. GRAZING.

They are notoriously terrible grazers. They can't do megan THEEEEE thing that cows are known for. Fragile frames, a lack of fat to keep them warm outside, increased demand for food, distaste for any rough forage, horrible mothering instincts, the list goes on. Holsteins are a NIGHTMARE to try and keep outside all year round compared to other breeds.

(especially heritage breeds, like the Milking Devon, Florida Cracker, or Texas Longhorn. Between these three, you'd be totally covered in 80% of American climates.)

I've already explained why it's not actually very good or important that we minmax milk volume, but even if that was actually something we should value, there are so many downsides that they would absolutely not be the dominant cow breed in a truly "efficient" system.

"Less cows means less cow food and cow land" is sound logic, but Holsteins are not the right cow for that job.

Question 4: "How could this be done in a way that doesn't increase cost of living?"

I'm not sure how to answer this question, simply because I'm not Bonestar, Leader of AmericaClan. Wish I was. I would rule tyrannically.

It's worth noting that Brazil is the second largest producer of beef in the entire world, AND the number one largest exporter of it, AND only puts 30% of its land to total agricultural use. The USA dedicates over 50%. And also Brazil is net reducing its amount of agricultural land while increasing output.

It seems clear to me that the USA actually has a massive food waste and resource distribution problem, to the point where the price we pay for stuff is actually wildly disconnected from the actual value of the goods and labor.

I think the way that us Americans tend to frame our conversations on these topics as "growth" vs "cuts" instead of asking how to minimize waste by making existing systems more efficient prevents us from solving problems. We're also just... really culturally resistant to the idea of anything being more "expensive," even if it ends up costing us a lot more money in waste or mismanagement later.

Penny wise and dollar foolish ass country.

Question 5: "What can we personally do about this?"

I mean, I wasn't making a call to action in Cow Lore, I was just explaining to one of my regulars why I don't like Holsteins LMAO. Since you're asking though...

I don't think we can change the wider trend in the dairy industry without actual government intervention and regulation, though, and that's very unlikely in the current political environment. they just sent random dudes to Ausalvador-Birkenau and when the Supreme Court said "bring this specific person back" they said "nuh uh." fellas I don't think we're getting better dairy regulations in the foreseeable future.

So I think the most productive thing to do is focusing on supporting small farms and heritage breeds. Get involved in your community garden or heritage society if you have one.

Not only is that generally a very rewarding thing, but it will be helpful to you in case The Situation Gets Worse. Knowing your neighbors and having real human connection is your best defense against economic recession.

Supporting the locals is always a great thing to do, which can be as simple as going to farmer's markets. You don't need to buy fancy food every day to make an impact on your community-- it can be a treat sometimes!

You could also subscribe to the Livestock Conservancy's free newsletter, where they talk about the work they're doing and upcoming events. If you're a knitter, crocheter, or any other kind of fiber artist, you could even join in on a challenge they're running where you make items out of rare wool for prizes!

Should you end up liking the work they do, you can become a member for 4$ a month, or go to one of their educational events.

Even just talking about the problem can do a lot! Did you know the Highland Cow was actually critically endangered in the USA within the past 10 years? It was the work of the Livestock Conservancy, plus a surge in their popularity, that helped to bring their numbers up. Word of mouth is a powerful thing.

All that said, remember, you can't solve every problem. It's a big world and there's a lot of them. Being made aware of an issue doesn't mean you have to drop what you were previously doing-- just care a lot about something that you want to improve, and let that guide you.

[sandflakedraws]

Do you draw other trolls? Like Guy Diamond, Creek, delta dawn?

like, trolls outside of the main cast of trolls band together and world tour? sure! i've actually drawn delta a few times and never posted about it for one reason or another.

i just really love the cast for movies 2 and 3 a lot, so they get the most rotation.

ah, that said - i don't think i'll draw creek much, if at all. he's jus not my kinda guy :T

[patron-saint-of-lesbeans]

It seems silly to ask of you all but could you please pray with regard to my chronic pain? If God wills it healed, let it be so, and if not, pray that I can manage it with humility and patience.

[daughterofthequeen]

Real ones don’t know if they want a Bob or need a Yelena

[stargatelov3r]

SG-1 TITLE DROPS: 1.6 THE FIRST COMMANDMENT

+ Bonus

[tatarstani]

i scroll up to top of my whatsapp conversation with my cousin and first message she ever sent me was tell me that ukraine was shelling her mosque. i won’t say i traumatised because i live in kazan but i do think this shit is going to stay with me for the rest of my life

[ficauthor]

Tale of two Stans never fails to make me sad. What do you mean these two overly dependent assholes both end up at the worst lowest points of their lives at the same exact moment? What the fuck!? How was it that of everything in their lives to coincide it's them being at their lowest that meet.

What do you mean their childhoods never gave them a chance to be individuals and so all of their weaknesses and blind spots caught up with them in the end. What do you mean that without Ford, Stan was destined to get himself into trouble? What do you mean that without Stan, Ford was destined to get himself in trouble? What the fuck!

What do you fucking mean that they depended on one another because that's all they ever knew.

What do you mean Ford never bothered to learn to read when people wanted to use him cause he had Stan? What do you mean Stan never learned to think ahead because he had Ford?

I'm so haunted by the fact that Ford was able to mostly keep his life stable for a few years but in the end his inability to truly read and connect with people got to him. Why did filbrick make him think he was only good for one thing so he pushed himself too far in a way it was easy to take advantage of? What do you fucking mean his fatal flaw is he's convinced he's never good enough and thus is easy to manipulate?

I'm gutted by the fact that Stan was never doing well by any means but he was surviving against the odds and doing better than terrible. Until his tendency to push things, to prove himself, got him in too deep. Why did filbrick convince him he was good for nothing so he pushed himself to find something he was worth? What do you fucking mean his fatal flaw is he's convinced he's never good enough and thus he's always pushing himself to the edge at great risk to his own safety even?

What do you mean their flaws as people are reflected and can only make full sense with the context of the other. What do you mean!

filbrick Pines how the HELL did you fuck up your sons in a way so poetic and fucked up its beautifully tragic?

[pricesprincess]

"Baby! Look! The bookstore has a sale!"

John is tired and ready to go home but he puts up with my addiction 😌🥹

thank you so very much for a doodlebob done by @temeyes you were such a wonderful person to commission, thank you again 🩷