#it’s understandable and honestly

[thisshadowwrites]

i have seen gay porn less homoerotically charged than whatever the fuck they were doing in that hyundai civic

[jonnywaistcoat]

Magnus fandom, 2016: We're horny for this lady made of worms!

Me: Huh. Unexpected, I'm not sure how to feel about that.

Magnus fandom, 2024: We're horny for this guy made of needles!

Me: Of course you are, my children. Be free.

Magnus fandom 2024: We're horny for this bulbous oozing clown man!

Me: I think 95% of your are being facetious, but the true 5% can go with god.

Magnus fandom, just now: We're horny for a member of the British Aristocracy!

Me: Gross. No. Absolutely not. Sick freaks the lot of you. I am officially kinkshaming. You disgust me.

[t4tails]

theres so much happening here

[magnusbae]

To illustrate this post by @mayahawkse I would like to visualize to you the difference:

A post in 2023:

A post in 2014:

A zoom out of the same post:

This is what a community looks like.

See how in 2023 almost all of the reblogs come from the OP, from their few hours/days in the tag search. Meanwhile in 2014 the % of reblogs from OP is insignificant, because most of the reblogs come from the reblogs within the fandom, within the micro-communities formed there. You didn't need to rely on tags, or search, or being featured. Because the community took care of you, made sure to pass the work between themselves and onto their blog and exposed their followers to it. It kept works alive for years.

It's not JUST the reblog/like ratio that causing this issue, it's the type of interaction people have. They're content with scrolling and liking the search engine, instead of actually having a reblogging relationship with other blogs in their community.

Anyways, if you want to see more content you like, the only true way to make it happen is to reblog it. Likes do not forward content in no way but making OP feel nice. Reblogs on the other hand make content eternal. They make it relevant, they make it exist outside of a fickle tumblr search that hardly works on the best of days.

If you want more of something, reblog it.

[suddenly-frankenstein]

his guardian angel

[bananonbinary]

jfc i just saw a "morally grey girlboss" poll and mabel pines was one of the contenders. she's not morally grey she's not a girlboss she's 12 and never makes a single moral decision that's worse than "you have stuff going on but i'm focused on my own problems" what are you fucking talking about

[princehoneytea]

i love you WEIRD SCIENCE MIKU!!!!!

[drulalovescas]

Why do this??? Why show us that Dean wanted out?? That Dean thought about quitting hunting. Retiring. That Dean wanted to LIVE. When you intended from the get go to impale him on a rusty rebar. Because "it was always gonna end like this." Because "it was supposed to end like this, right?" Because Dean „HAD TO DIE?????” What do you mean Dean would never stop hunting when you’ve literally showed us he wanted to???? What do you mean Dean wanted to die hunting when he literally said he DIDN'T??

[cybersodas]

These are all technically reposts but I think I’ve finally got my redesigns of deep cut where I want em.

[evelynpr]

Congratulations My Hero Academia for providing, possibly, the biggest and longest legit straightbaiting yet in shonen history.

Bonus points that their final chapter was released on yaoi day.

[carnivalcarriondiscarded]

a couple scribbles i cleaned up. also i think i like drawing him in varying states of distress

[henryofwales]

Prince Henry of Wales Henry Fox

[letsplaythermalnuclearwar]

Homer!Odysseus and Epic!Odysseus would try to kill each other if they ever met

[shinynewmemories]

Listen to me Suzanne Collins did not have to give Katniss and Peeta a history before the games. She did NOT have to do that. She could have just had their story begin when Peeta's name was called. She could have had them be total strangers until the moment of the reaping.

Like: "And the boy tribute is... Peeta Mellark!" Katniss: Who's that? Or she could have made them vaguely familiar with each other! Peeta's name is called and Katniss just thinks, Oh, I know that name! He's in my class, actually. Poor boy... Anyway!

Either way, SC could have written the rest of the story exactly the same! I think many authors would have done that! Because if Peeta's purpose in the book was to be Gale's competition, to be one of the 3 corners of a love triangle, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE WAY TO DO IT!! But that's NOT how she did it because that's NOT what Peeta is.

And who is he? To Katniss, Peeta's someone who saved her and her family and received nothing in return except a beating. Peeta's someone she has had her eye on but has never worked up the courage to talk to. Peeta's someone she associates with kindness and hope. And all this before the start of the events of the book! Just because WE, the READERS, met Gale before Peeta and immediately felt a connection with him does NOT mean that was Katniss's experience! And that's what SC is trying to tell us!

To dismiss Katniss and Peeta's past as unimportant or inconsequential compared to whatever Katniss and Gale have in the present is to fundamentally misunderstand Katniss as a character and, as a result, condemn oneself to never fully understand the choices she makes in the future.

Suzanne Collins wrote it that way on purpose because she had something to say. And no one will ever be able to convince me that something wasn't "It was always going to be Peeta".

[greenieflor]

Hey maybe a group of creatives deciding that they want control over their content and don't want to waste time and resources begging for ad revenue is like. A good thing

[hedgehogcryptid]

I’ve realized that the main reason I don’t give a fuck about Red Hood’s actual canon crimes is not that I think they’re justified, or reasonable, or even just funny. He has been shown doing very fucked up shit that at times has very little, if anything, to do with any reasonable moral code. But the reason I don’t care is that I’ve steadily become very critical of villain framing. It’s so very common to have a villain say something very reasonable like “poor people shouldn’t die” and then complement it with “and I will kill babies about it.” If the first statement is reasonable, and the narrative does not provide a reason that justifies the balls-to-the-wall batshit “solution” the character came up with, then I assume the author is either deliberately or subconsciously villainizing a specific group of people for no reason, and I don’t vibe with that. At that time I no longer care about what the author/narrative actually has to say and my reaction becomes “the narrator is actually a biased witness and anything they say about this person’s actions should be taken as exaggeration”. Oh, so Jason is an indiscriminate killer who thinks every petty criminal deserves to die? Wrong. They’re exaggerating and taking the facts out of context. So he killed a hundred people in prison with barely any provocation? It probably wasn’t that many and the ones he did were trying to kill him to begin with, with no intervention from the guards, so it was self defense. He attempted to kill a child? Wrong, that was a two-sided fight between two teenagers, he just won so the other one’s bitter. Like, I don’t care how much made up context I need to stuff in there to make it make sense, I will do it because the narrative decided to frame the homeless kid from a poor neighborhood as the villain against the nice and kindhearted humanitarian billionaire so its logic is fucked from the get-go