#so yeah that's the rant

[bixels]

As gen-AI becomes more normalized (Chappell Roan encouraging it, grifters on the rise, young artists using it), I wanna express how I will never turn to it because it fundamentally bores me to my core. There is no reason for me to want to use gen-AI because I will never want to give up my autonomy in creating art. I never want to become reliant on an inhuman object for expression, least of all if that object is created and controlled by tech companies. I draw not because I want a drawing but because I love the process of drawing. So even in a future where everyone’s accepted it, I’m never gonna sway on this.

[marsipain]

Norwegian Mikus :)

Left is Miku as a russ and right is Miku in a bunad!

[soulsforsales]

Two things I’ll never understand:

Jason Todd being a “womaniser”

Idk wtf dc is on with this one but Jason Todd is not and never will be a womaniser. Like that man might be a 6 foot wall of muscles, trauma, and repressed emotions but he has zero to no experience when it comes to sex. He died as a virgin and was resurrected as one, he was groomed by Talia (acc to some canon representations, I think) so he already didn’t think of sex as this amazing or perfect thing and even if he does have sex where he feels comfortable and safe — he will cry, like who are you kidding??? Jason has mentioned that he can’t distinguish between romantic and platonic love, he’s always been too focused on his missions/job/goal to care about romance— where in the fucking hell is this guy getting time to fuck around with women??? Dc??? wtf????

Jason Todd being a cheater.

I get why people think this bcs other males in the Bat Family have not always been very… faithful, let’s say. But Jason Todd cheating on his woman??? NO FUCKING WAY. This man has had no glimpse of what a healthy and safe relationship is supposed to look like and if he finds someone who gives him that??? If he finds someone who loves him unconditionally, someone who sees behind the mask and loves the broken boy, someone who doesn’t flinch even when all of him is bare— I bet you my biscuits Jason would never even look at someone else let alone think about cheating. Jason Todd is not just any men — he’s the man. He’ll worship someone who gives him the love he’s always been deprived of. When he loves someone, he’s all in. He loves fiercely and loudly; that’s just who Jason Todd is. He’s never cheating. Period.

[gods-favorite-autistic]

To me there’s like a line between the Bad Kids who were always themselves extremely authentically and that fucked them up socially (Riz, Adaine, Gorgug) and the Bad Kids who spent a good portion of their lives playing a part and that fucked them up mentally (Fabian, Kristen, Fig)

[arcanegifs]

Here are some Season 2 Arcane GIF comparisons before and after I color and sharpen them! | Season 1 Comparison GIFs

[starscream-is-my-wife]

Sometimes a day makes you want a Starscream to bite and squeeze

[imclou]

can't believe fnaf brought me out of art hibernation man what a turn of events

[anghraine]

It's interesting (if often frustrating) to see the renewed Orc Discourse after the last few episodes of ROP. I've seen arguments that orcs have to be personifications of evil rather than people as such or else the ethics of our heroes' approach to them becomes much more fraught. Tolkien's work, as written, seems an odd choice to me for not wrangling with difficult questions, and of course, more diehard fans are going to immediately bring up Shagrat and Gorbag.

If you haven't read LOTR recently, Shagrat and Gorbag are two orcs who briefly have a conversation about how they're being screwed over by Sauron but have no other real options, about their opinions of mistakes that have been made, that they think Sauron himself has made one, but it's not safe to discuss because Sauron has spies in their own ranks. They reminisce about better times when they had more freedom and fantasize about a future when they can go elsewhere and set up a small-scale banditry operation rather than being involved in this huge-scale war. Eventually, however, they end up turning on each other.

Basically any time that someone brings up the "humanity" of this conversation, someone else will point out that they're still bad people. They're not at all guilty about what they're part of. They just resent the dangers to themselves, the pressure from above, failures of competence, the surveillance they're under, and their lack of realistic alternative options. The dream of another life mentioned in the conversation is still one of preying on innocent people, just on a much smaller and more immediate scale, etc.

I think this misses the reason it keeps getting brought up, though. The point is not that Shagrat and Gorbag are good people. The point is that they are people.

There's something very normal and recognizable about their resentment of their superiors, their fears of reprisal and betrayal that ultimately are realized, their dislike of this kind of industrial war machine that erases their individual work and contributions, the tinge of wistfulness in their hope of escape into a different kind of life. Their dialect is deliberately "common"—and there's a lot more to say about that and the fact that it's another commoner, Sam, who outwits them—but one of the main effects is to make them sound familiar and ordinary. And it's interesting that one of the points they specifically raise is that they're not going to get better treatment from "the good guys" so they can't defect, either.

This is self-interested, yes, but it's not the self-interest of some mystical being or spirit or whatnot, but of people.

Tolkien's later remarks tend to back this up. He said that female orcs do exist, but are rarely seen in the story because the characters only interact with the all-male warrior class of orcs. Whatever female orcs "do," it isn't going to war. Maybe they do a lot of the agricultural work that is apparently happening in distant parts of Mordor, maybe they are chiefly responsible for young orcs, maybe both and/or something else, we don't know. But we know they're out there and we know that they reproduce sexually and we know that they're not part of the orcish warrior class.

Regardless of all the problems with this, the idea that orcs have a gender-restricted warrior class at all and we're just not seeing any of their other classes because of where the story is set doesn't sound like automatons of evil. It sounds like an actual culture of people that we only see along the fringes.

And this whole matter of "but if they're people, we have to think about ethics, so they can't be people" is a weird circular argument that cannot account for what's in LOTR or for much of what Tolkien said afterwards. Yes, he struggled with The Problem of Orcs and how to reconcile it with his world building and his ethical system, but "maybe they're not people" is ultimately not a workable solution as far as LOTR goes and can't even account for much of the later evolution of his ideas, including explicit statements in his letters.

And in the end, the real response that comes to mind to that circular argument is "maybe you should think about ethics more."

[locklylemybeloved]

FRIENDLY REMINDER THAT WHILE VALENTINES DAY ITSELF IS LOWKEY A CORPORATE CASH GRAB TODAY IS STILL ABOUT CELEBRATING LOVE BUT THAT MEANS ALL LOVE NOT JUST ROMANTIC AND SEXUAL LOVE YES I MEAN PLATONIC AND FAMILIAL LOVE PLEASE REMEMBER THAT ROMANTIC AND SEXUAL LOVE ARE NOT THE ONLY TYPES OF LOVE WORTH CELEBRATING ON THIS LOVELY WEDNESDAY

(Caps ID below the cut)

[Caps ID: friendly reminder that while valentines day itself is lowkey a corporate cash grab today is still about celebrating love but that means all love not just romantic and sexual love. yes i mean platonic and familial love. please remember that romantic and sexual love are not the only types of love worth celebrating on this lovely wednesday]

[ender-of-the-sender]

I love joey because how the hell does he look like his own younger brother

When I look at Pete, I dont see just see Joey, I see Ted

[jo-ke10n]

Real krusie hours

Not platonic or romantic but a secret third thing

[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.

[mugwot]

funnyjokespunperson

[milkamel]

I’ve been thinking about Fount of Knowledge and beasts in general lately. Devsis know what they’re doing when they’re throwing crumbs of information at us but no clear backstory for the guy. They know that Shadow Milk is one of the most mysterious and important beasts and that revealing things too early wouldn’t be wise. Also he’s a fan favorite lol.

Anyway what got me thinking was the term “beasts” in general. I don’t know if it's just me but this name feels kind of dehumanizing (or in their case decookienizing-?). As if the talk is about the creatures who are feral, unintelligent and cannot be reasoned with, when in reality these beasts are like other cookies, just more powerful and created for a bigger purpose. The whole description of their fall from Elder Faerie made that first impression on me, they feel intimidating and unpredictable.

I just wonder if virtues were viewed the same way? Not as cookies with feelings but as a symbol of a certain virtue? When it comes to Fount I have a headcanon that he was treated more like a “living library” rather than a person. He didn’t have any meaningful connections (besides the other beasts) as cookies viewed him as someone above them, a godly creature they cannot reach and only use him to gain knowledge he offers (kinda similar to Mystic Flour and how cookies demanded her blessings and even resorted to violence when denied).

And even Shadow Milk’s good gift affection line kinda hints at that?

“Ha-ha-ha! Not bad. What do you want?”

Like who reacts to a gift like that? It’s as if he expects to be asked of something in exchange for it (like when gods are given offerings so they’d share their wisdom) and it’s a normal occurrence which is sad. This cookie doesn’t know genuine kindness or compassion of course he freaked out when PV offered it to him, perhaps he expected it to be a trap because that’s how it usually is.

It’s no wonder he got corrupted. Imagine being created with the sole purpose of fulfilling such an important role and having big expectations without being able to decline. No childhood, just an endless knowledge in your head by default that you must share with others, kind of hard to stay sane.

And if we assume that one of the reasons why Shadow Milk started telling lies was because cookies didn’t like the knowledge he presented it becomes even sadder. That’s his purpose, what he was created for yet he’s being disliked and judged for doing that? Then what he’s supposed to do? Does he even do his job right? That’s what the witches wanted yet others don’t seem happy. He isn’t happy.

(The whole milkcrowns and tear-themed things related to Smilk that I heard ppl mention make it worse ngl)

But he is quite fulfilled when he breaks away from that role and does what he wants. When he’s the puppeteer and not on the strings, when he finally has control and freedom. No expectations, no responsibility, just a world you can twist however you wish. And when he finally has it he gets locked away. Tragic fate.

I feel bad for every beast but Fount,, oh my precious Fount,, he breaks my heart

(can't believe such a majestic cookie turned into this thing)

[weirdglassthing]

LOA Shiptober Day 4: How They Met

October content month was ambitious..

This one took me. Shockingly long. Whoops! I’ll probably end up jumping around the prompt list and it might extend into November 😋

I’ll try to do day 31 on the actual date of Halloween though 🫡

[hyper-alice]

Random thought but I actually love If I Loved You

I used to not like it that much, for no reason in particular but it just never really stood out to me. Especially since if you listen to the soundtrack without all the talking scenes it comes right after Just For Once and. You can’t do that to me.

Anyways I think I like the acting better than the actual song. Just the way they’re moving and stuff idk.

The way they walk away from each other after each chorus, just the way they walk.

The way Steph keeps bending a bit like she’s trying to patronize Pete.

The audience cheering when Pete throws the hot chocolate cup kills me too

I think this clip is my favourite part though. The joke of Pete miming a baseball bat when he mentions football. The way Steph looks over her shoulder before she does that walk, checking to see Pete’s reaction because obviously the whole time they’re essentially just trying to get a reaction out of the other. Nothing groundbreaking, of course, I just enjoy watching it.