angry-emoji

[angry-emoji]

I was feeling agitated and artblocked yesterday so I decided to give my brain a rest by watching TV and then the next thing I knew these were in front of me

[angry-emoji]

[angry-emoji]

Eye of the Storm, by Harut Danielyan, 2025

Source

[angry-emoji]

the generational gap between me and the people my age who use chat gpt

[angry-emoji]

You don't have to like weed but I find people who are vehemently anti-weed but claim to be left leaning infuriating. If you go into a rage because you smelled someone smoking pot, how the fuck do you expect to form community with people addicted to meth? It's easier to say you hate smokers than to say you hate all drug users in leftist spaces because one makes you sound a bit like a square while the other is the writing on the wall. You aren't anti-weed, you're anti-drug user and anyone who uses substances is not safe around you.

[angry-emoji]

[angry-emoji]

a short comic about the twelve dancing princesses!

in the original fairy tale, the princesses drug a whole lot of hopeful would-be princes, fully aware they’ll be executed in the morning. and then they dance all night, every night, so hard they shred their shoes. that’s…always unsettled me a bit. the princesses might not be actively malicious, but they’re not really kind, either, and they’re definitely not human.

what always surprised me the most, though, is the guy who sees these casually murderous dance machines and goes ‘i wanna marry one’ instead of ‘fuck this shit i’m out’. so this is the comic about that other guy.

[angry-emoji]

why is it when people ask me what i want as a gift i immediately become someone who enjoys nothing at all and has never wanted anything a day in their life.

[angry-emoji]

by Laerte Coutinho

[angry-emoji]

I wish all environmentalists a very suck cocks in hell

[angry-emoji]

One of those insidious little things I notice sometimes is how much the window of 'appropriate for children' content has shrunk within the past 20 years. The range of things it is socially acceptable to show a 10-year-old has never been more limited, and it's happened incredibly quickly.

Take, for instance, Star Trek: TNG. I grew up watching TNG. I was a little young for it as it was airing, but it got syndicated almost immediately and they would show an episode most weekday evenings on the Space Channel, and I'd watch it with my lifelong Trekkie mom. This was a very common thing. I was by no means unusual for watching Star Trek as a child.

Star Trek: TNG has lots of sex in it! It's never explicit (unless you have a particularly niche interpretation of some of the borg stuff) but on many an occasion you'll have a few characters doing a bit of making out followed by a closing door or fade to black, and then they wake up in bed together. If you know what sex is, you know that is what is being implied here. Even my 8-year-old self, whose understanding of the subject mostly came from books of ancient mythology that used words like 'ravish' and 'the pleasures of the couch' a whole bunch, could tell that what was happening was sex.

And I am not bringing this up as a 'see, I watched all this inappropriate stuff and I turned out just fine!'. I'm bringing it up to argue that TNG's level of sexual content is not inappropriate for children (I'm not using the legalese 'minors', because I think that lumping children and teenagers together in this conversation would make it nonsense. Star Trek is obviously appropriate for teenagers. Don't use 'minors' when you mean either children or teens, it just muddies the waters).

The point is that Star Trek: TNG was very obviously designed to be watched by children and teenagers. There's a whole character in the main cast whose role in the show is to be an audience insert for children and teenagers. The moral tone of TNG, its occasional dips into 'don't do drugs, kids' type messaging, and its general avoidance of graphic violence all scream 'we are designing this with an audience of children - but not just children - in mind'. It's a family show. It's supposed to be watched by the whole family.

Which means that, until at least the end of the 90s, this amount of sexual content was generally considered appropriate for kids to see. It's not pornographic - it's not even graphic. Maybe the very most conservative parents wouldn't let their kids watch TNG, but that might have had more to do with all the socialism and atheism.

So, why did that change? Why do we now have such a strong bullwark between 'things kids are allowed to know about' and 'things for GROWN UPS ONLY 18+ Minors DNI', and why have we relegated even the most discreet references to sex to the second category only?

And the next time you find yourself experiencing that knee-jerk 'think of the children' reaction, consider: would what you're looking at have been ok on Star Trek: TNG in the 90s?

[angry-emoji]

hate it when you experience something of better quality and then you’re doomed to no longer be satisfied

[angry-emoji]

this image came to me in a sudden burst of enlightenment

[angry-emoji]

my grandma sent me a picture of my dog with his new xmas present and i need a fucking inhaler LOOK AT HIM

oh to feel a fraction of the unbridled joy he is experiencing

[angry-emoji]

[angry-emoji]

[angry-emoji]

this is what it felt like yesterday when i had to delete 1k photos to make enough room in my phones storage to redownload the taco bell app