Tumgik
#also all vets
willabee · 9 months
Text
Tumblr media
typical willabee behavior
7K notes · View notes
ibtisams · 9 days
Text
Today, my 15 day hunger strike is officially over. The solidarity and strength I feel is incredibly powerful and overwhelming. I can’t even properly put into words how fulfilling these past 2 weeks have been. I appreciate everyone who donated to Anera in honour of my hunger strike, and my friends who participated in solidarity.
My time off tumblr was freeing, though learning of all the hate campaigns for me and my friends and now receiving conspiracy theories about the people in my life has left a bad taste in my mouth. I’m grateful to have this platform so I can do everything in my power to help Palestine, but it’s hard for me to not become angry every time I log in to this site and there is less focus on Palestine and more focus on hate. It has become obvious there are some people who follow me because they want to learn about and help Palestine, but even more people who are only here to speculate on my personal life and view me as a fictional character.
I love and appreciate the Palestinian community I have found on tumblr, but it feels like now the site has turned into all of us having to always do everything we possibly can to get people to focus on Palestine while everyone else can use our efforts for performative reasons. It is not something I want to be a part of, and it does not make me feel good. The past 15 days have given me the clarity to see all of this for what it is, and so for the time being, I am going to continue to focus on the activism I can do in person, and more selectively use this blog to bring attention to gofundmes and resources. I hope this comes across as genuine as I feel right now, and helps some of you see how exploitative this website has become for Palestinians.
813 notes · View notes
jessiesjaded · 8 months
Text
I really, really wish people who don't have the capacity to properly take care of animals would simply accept and acknowledge that about themselves. This isn't even a post of me trying to be mean or judge anyone, I'm sure most people go into getting an animal with good intentions, but intentions and actions are different. If you don't have the time and the space and the care an animal needs, the animal will suffer. The fleeting joy of having a kitten or puppy or anything else doesn't last forever and they aren't toys to be put down and forgotten once you've moved past the inital excitement. If you don't have the ability to properly care for an animal, just accept that and simply admire them from a distance.
#the amount of people i know who flippantly just. buy a random pet with no prior planning or thought#and like its not always outright neglect#you can technically feed and groom a pet get them flee treatments etc but if you lock it outside 24/7 and spend no actual time#like why do you have that animal?#you should not have that aninal#if you have too much in your life to adequately care for one its vetter for YOU and for the animal to not have one#like this little cat is so sweet#actually the sweetest cat ive ever known and my cat tigs has always been a massive sweety already#so its saying something that shes been even sweeter#i mean i brushed her teeth and got matted fur off her and cleaned her eyes and she NEVER bit or scratched me once#shes so quiet and sweet#but the people across the road clearly just left her outside to her own devices her whole life#seemingly no vet checks. didnt feed her properly and i sometimes wonder if at all bc their next door neighbour was feeding her apparently#and he has no pets!! even he knew that shit was wrong#and now shes so sickly and small and malnourished and her teeth are rotting out of her head#and its just like ????#why have her#you could have realized you werent really the type for pets and given her to a shelter#and she would have been adopted 100%#but they kept her all this time but also not really bc its not like she was kept properly at all#its sad she didnt come over here sooner#i wish id had since she was a baby or even a year ago#bc then maybe i could have helped her more#its just so unnecessary. Animals are a privilege not a right.#and again like. go visit your cousin or uncle or sister or friends pet in that case#you might not have the time or ability but you could still enjoy animals wothout directly having one
284 notes · View notes
etirabys · 11 days
Text
something that peeves me in fiction – in a setting where society that hasn't mostly eliminated scarcity, anyway – is when someone really kindhearted takes in a near stranger in need (e.g. orphan, ex slave) and that person is their only project to whom they can give a lot of care. irl I feel like everyone who's exceptionally nice, or at least bad at drawing a line for their own health, has a full case load and is close to burnout
I don't mind this at all when there's a good plot reason for why X should be helping Y in particular and isn't already overbooked; I feel some ugh when X is depicted as someone who'd always help people in Y's shoes but has mysteriously evaded all other supplicants.
I'm pro-fantasy but this kind of moral fantasy strikes me as a bit uglier than the others: you can be a nurturing figure who gives unconditional help without running something so unphotogenic as a vetting interview or cost/benefit analysis, but you'll never be overwhelmed, either
94 notes · View notes
soracities · 1 year
Note
Hey! It has been on my mind lately and i just wanna ask..idk if it would make sense but i just noticed that nowadays ppl cant separate the authors and their books (ex. when author wrote a story about cheating and ppl starts bashing the author for romanticizing cheating and even to a point of cancelling the author for not setting a good/healthy example of a relationship) any thoughts about it?
I have many, many thoughts on this, so this may get a little unwieldy but I'll try to corall it together as best I can.
But honestly, I think sometimes being unable to separate the author from the work (which is interesting to me to see because some people are definitely not "separating" anything even though they think they are; they just erase the author entirely as an active agent, isolate the work, and call it "objectivity") has a lot to do with some people being unable to separate the things they read from themselves.
I'm absolutely not saying it's right, but it's an impulse I do understand. If you read a book and love it, if it transforms your life, or defines a particular period of your life, and then you find out that the author has said or done something awful--where does that leave you? Someone awful made something beautiful, something you loved: and now that this point of communion exists between you and someone whose views you'd never agree with, what does that mean for who you are? That this came from the mind of a person capable of something awful and spoke to your mind--does that mean you're like them? Could be like them?
Those are very uncomfortable questions and I think if you have a tendency to look at art or literature this way, you will inevitable fall into the mindset where only "Good" stories can be accepted because there's no distinction between where the story ends and you begin. As I said, I can see where it comes from but I also find it profoundly troubling because i think one of the worst things you can do to literature is approach it with the expectation of moral validation--this idea that everything you consume, everything you like and engage with is some fundamental insight into your very character as opposed to just a means of looking at or questioning something for its own sake is not just narrow-minded but dangerous.
Art isn't obliged to be anything--not moral, not even beautiful. And while I expend very little (and I mean very little) energy engaging with or even looking at internet / twitter discourse for obvious reasons, I do find it interesting that people (online anyway) will make the entire axis of their critique on something hinge on the fact that its bad representation or justifying / romanticizing something less than ideal, proceeding to treat art as some sort of conduit for moral guidance when it absolutely isn't. And they will also hold that this critique comes from a necessarily good and just place (positive representation, and I don't know, maybe in their minds it does) while at the same time setting themselves apart from radical conservatives who do the exact same thing, only they're doing it from the other side.
To make it abundantly clear, I'm absolutely not saying you should tolerate bigots decrying that books about the Holocaust, race, homophobia, or lgbt experiences should be banned--what I am saying, is that people who protest that a book like Maus or Persepolis is going to "corrupt children", and people who think a book exploring the emotional landscape of a deeply flawed character, who just happens to be from a traditionally marginalised group or is written by someone who is, is bad representation and therefore damaging to that community as a whole are arguments that stem from the exact same place: it's a fundamental inability, or outright refusal, to accept the interiority and alterity of other people, and the inherent validity of the experiences that follow. It's the same maniacal, consumptive, belief that there can be one view and one view only: the correct view, which is your view--your thoughts, your feelings.
There is also dangerous element of control in this. Someone with racist views does not want their child to hear anti-racist views because as far as they are concerned, this child is not a being with agency, but a direct extension of them and their legacy. That this child may disagree is a profound rupture and a threat to the cohesion of this person's entire worldview. Nothing exists in and of and for itself here: rather the multiplicity of the world and people's experiences within it are reduced to shadowy agents that are either for us or against us. It's not about protecting children's "innocence" ("think of the children", in these contexts, often just means "think of the status quo"), as much as it is about protecting yourself and the threat to your perceived place in the world.
And in all honestt I think the same holds true for the other side--if you cannot trust yourself to engage with works of art that come from a different standpoint to yours, or whose subject matter you dislike, without believing the mere fact of these works' existence will threaten something within you or society in general (which is hysterical because believe me, society is NOT that flimsy), then that is not an issue with the work itself--it's a personal issue and you need to ask yourself if it would actually be so unthinkable if your belief about something isn't as solid as you think it is, and, crucially, why you have such little faith in your own critical capacity that the only response these works ilicit from you is that no one should be able to engage with them. That's not awareness to me--it's veering very close to sticking your head in the sand, while insisting you actually aren't.
Arbitrarily adding a moral element to something that does not exist as an agent of moral rectitude but rather as an exploration of deeply human impulses, and doing so simply to justify your stance or your discomfort is not only a profoundly inadequate, but also a deeply insidious, way of papering over your insecurities and your own ignorance (i mean this in the literal sense of the word), of creating a false and dishonest certainty where certainty does not exist and then presenting this as a fact that cannot and should not be challenged and those who do are somehow perverse or should have their characters called into question for it. It's reductive and infantilising in so many ways and it also actively absolves you of any responsibility as a reader--it absolves you of taking responsibility for your own interpretation of the work in question, it absolves you of responsibility for your own feelings (and, potentially, your own biases or preconceptions), it absolves you of actual, proper, thought and engagement by laying the blame entirely on a rogue piece of literature (as if prose is something sentient) instead of acknowledging that any instance of reading is a two-way street: instead of asking why do I feel this way? what has this text rubbed up against? the assumption is that the book has imposed these feelings on you, rather than potentially illuminated what was already there.
Which brings me to something else which is that it is also, and I think this is equally dangerous, lending books and stories a mythical, almost supernatural, power that they absolutely do not have. Is story-telling one of the most human, most enduring, most important and life-altering traditions we have? Yes. But a story is also just a story. And to convince yourself that books have a dangerous transformative power above and beyond what they are actually capable of is, again, to completely erase people's agency as readers, writers' agency as writers and makers (the same as any other craft), and subsequently your own. And erasing agency is the very point of censors banning books en masse. It's not an act of stupidity or blind ignorance, but a conscious awareness of the fact that people will disagree with you, and for whatever reason you've decided that you are not going to let them.
Writers and poets are not separate entities to the rest of us: they aren't shamans or prophets, gifted and chosen beings who have some inner, profound, knowledge the rest of us aren't privy to (and should therefore know better or be better in some regard) because moral absolutism just does not exist. Every writer, no matter how affecting their work may be, is still Just Some Guy Who Made a Thing. Writing can be an incredibly intimate act, but it can also just be writing, in the same way that plumbing is plumbing and weeding is just weeding and not necessarily some transcendant cosmic endeavour in and of itself. Authors are no different, when you get down to it, from bakers or electricians; Nobel laureates are just as capable of coming out with distasteful comments about women as your annoying cousin is and the fact that they wrote a genre-defying work does not change that, or vice-versa. We imbue books with so much power and as conduits of the very best and most human traits we can imagine and hope for, but they aren't representations of the best of humanity--they're simply expressions of humanity, which includes the things we don't like.
There are some authors I love who have said and done things I completely disagree with or whose views I find abhorrent--but I'm not expecting that, just because they created something that changed my world, they are above and beyond the ordinarly, the petty, the spiteful, or cruel. That's not condoning what they have said and done in the least: but I trust myself to be able to read these works with awareness and attention, to pick out and examine and attempt to understand the things that I find questionable, to hold on to what has moved me, and to disregard what I just don't vibe with or disagree with. There are writers I've chosen not to engage with, for my own personal reasons: but I'm not going to enforce this onto someone else because I can see what others would love in them, even if what I love is not strong enough to make up for what I can't. Terrance Hayes put perfectly in my view, when he talks about this and being capable of "love without forgiveness". Writing is a profoundly human heritage and those who engage with it aren't separate from that heritage as human because they live in, and are made by, the exact same world as anyone else.
The measure of good writing for me has hardly anything to do with whatever "virtue" it's perceived to have and everything to do with sincerity. As far as I'm concerned, "positive representation" is not about 100% likeable characters who never do anything problematic or who are easily understood. Positive representation is about being afforded the full scope of human feelings, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and not having your humanity, your dignity, your right to exist in the world questioned because all of these can only be seen through the filter of race, or gender, religion, or ethicity and interpreted according to our (profoundly warped) perceptions of those categories and what they should or shouldn't represent. True recognition of someone's humanity does not lie in finding only what is held in common between you (and is therefore "acceptable", with whatever you put into that category), but in accepting everything that is radically different about them and not letting this colour the consideration you give.
Also, and it may sound harsh, but I think people forget that fictional characters are fictional. If I find a particularly fucked up relationship dynamic compelling (as I often do), or if I decide to write and explore that dynamic, that's not me saying two people who threaten to kill each other and constantly hurt each other is my ideal of romance and that this is exactly how I want to be treated: it's me trying to find out what is really happening below the surface when two people behave like this. It's me exploring something that would be traumatizing and deeply damaging in real life, in a safe and fictional setting so I can gain some kind of understanding about our darker and more destructive impulses without being literally destroyed by them, as would happen if all of this were real. But it isn't real. And this isn't a radical or complex thing to comprehend, but it becomes incomprehensible if your sole understanding of literature is that it exists to validate you or entertain you or cater to you, and if all of your interpretations of other people's intentions are laced with a persistent sense of bad faith. Just because you have not forged any identity outside of this fictional narrative doesn't mean it's the same for others.
Ursula K. le Guin made an extremely salient point about children and stories in that children know the stories you tell them--dragons, witches, ghouls, whatever--are not real, but they are true. And that sums it all up. There's a reason children learning to lie is an incredibly important developmental milestone, because it shows that they have achieved an incredibly complex, but vitally important, ability to hold two contradictory statements in their minds and still know which is true and which isn't. If you cannot delve into a work, on the terms it sets, as a fictional piece of literature, recognize its good points and note its bad points, assess what can have a real world impact or reflects a real world impact and what is just creative license, how do you possible expect to recognize when authority and propaganda lies to you? Because one thing propaganda has always utilised is a simplistic, black and white depiction of The Good (Us) and The Bad (Them). This moralistic stance regarding fiction does not make you more progressive or considerate; it simply makes it easier to manipulate your ideas and your feelings about those ideas because your assessments are entirely emotional and surface level and are fuelled by a refusal to engage with something beyond the knee-jerk reaction it causes you to have.
Books are profoundly, and I do mean profoundly, important to me-- and so much of who I am and the way I see things is probably down to the fact that stories have preoccupied me wherever I go. But I also don't see them as vital building blocks for some core facet or a pronouncement of Who I Am. They're not badges of honour or a cover letter I put out into the world for other people to judge and assess me by, and approve of me (and by extension, the things I say or feel). They're vehicles through which I explore and experience whatever it is that I'm most caught by: not a prophylactic, not a mode of virtue signalling, and certainly not a means of signalling a moral stance.
I think at the end of the day so much of this tendency to view books as an extension of yourself (and therefore of an author) is down to the whole notion of "art as a mirror", and I always come back to Fran Lebowitz saying that it "isn't a mirror, it's a door". And while I do think it's important to have that mirror (especially if you're part of a community that never sees itself represented, or represented poorly and offensively) I think some people have moved into the mindset of thinking that, in order for art to be good, it needs to be a mirror, it needs to cater to them and their experiences precisely--either that or that it can only exist as a mirror full stop, a reflection of and for the reader and the writer (which is just incredibly reductive and dismissive of both)--and if art can only exist as a mirror then anything negative that is reflected back at you must be a condemnation, not a call for exploration or an attempt at understanding.
As I said, a mirror is important but to insist on it above all else isn't always a positive thing: there are books I related to deeply because they allowed me to feel so seen (some by authors who looked nothing like me), but I have no interest in surrounding myself with those books all the time either--I know what goes on in my head which is precisely why I don't always want to live there. Being validated by a character who's "just like me" is amazing but I also want--I also need-- to know that lives and minds and events exist outside of the echo-chamber of my own mind. The mirror is comforting, yes, but if you spend too long with it, it also becomes isolating: you need doors because they lead you to ideas and views and characters you could never come up with on your own. A world made up of various Mes reflected back to me is not a world I want to be immersed in because it's a world with very little texture or discovery or room for growth and change. Your sense of self and your sense of other people cannot grow here; it just becomes mangled.
Art has always been about dialogue, always about a me and a you, a speaker and a listener, even when it is happening in the most internal of spaces: to insist that art only ever tells you what you want to hear, that it should only reflect what you know and accept is to undermine the very core of what it seeks to do in the first place, which is establish connection. Art is a lifeline, I'm not saying it isn't. But it's also not an instruction manual for how to behave in the world--it's an exploration of what being in the world looks like at all, and this is different for everyone. And you are treading into some very, very dangerous waters the moment you insist it must be otherwise.
Whatever it means to be in the world, it is anything but straightforward. In this world people cheat, people kill, they manipulate, they lie, they torture and steal--why? Sometimes we know why, but more often we don't--but we take all these questions and write (or read) our way through them hoping that, if we don't find an answer, we can at least find our way to a place where not knowing isn't as unbearable anymore (and sometimes it's not even about that; it's just about telling a story and wanting to make people laugh). It's an endless heritage of seeking with countless variations on the same statements which say over and over again I don't know what to make of this story, even as I tell it to you. So why am I telling it? Do I want to change it? Can I change it? Yes. No. Maybe. I have no certainty in any of this except that I can say it. All I can do is say it.
Writing, and art in general, are one of the very, very, few ways we can try and make sense of the apparently arbitrary chaos and absurdity of our lives--it's one of the only ways left to us by which we can impose some sense of structure or meaning, even if those things exists in the midst of forces that will constantly overwhelm those structures, and us. I write a poem to try and make sense of something (grief, love, a question about octopuses) or to just set down that I've experienced something (grief, love, an answer about octpuses). You write a poem to make sense of, resolve, register, or celebrate something else. They don't have to align. They don't have to agree. We don't even need to like each other much. But in both of these instances something is being said, some fragment of the world as its been perceived or experienced is being shared. They're separate truths that can exist at the same time. Acknowledging this is the only means we have of momentarily bridging the gaps that will always exist between ourselves and others, and it requires a profound amount of grace, consideration and forbearance. Otherwise, why are we bothering at all?
398 notes · View notes
hippolotamus · 5 months
Text
Fuck it Friday/Last Line Challenge 🌻
Tumblr media
Last night, there I am, lovingly thinking of having enough energy to write on my current WIPs, when @pirrusstuff and I start discussing cowboy boots. Specifically ones with sunflowers on them. And that, friends, is how we ended up here. Please accept this brain dump of words in which Buck is the local livestock vet that Eddie Diaz absolutely cannot stand, but is forced to deal with.
“Bobby.” Eddie’s tone borders on a whine. “There’s nothing else you can do?” “‘Fraid not. I’ve pulled out every trick I know. Ya gotta call him.” Bobby pauses for what Eddie’s certain is only dramatic effect. “Unless, of course, you want her to get an infection or, more realistically, die.” Eddie sighs and lets his head drop between his shoulders. He knows Bobby’s right, even had a feeling it might come to this before Bobby started throwing him nervous glances when Lola didn’t appear to be progressing. Unfortunately, now, there’s no time to waste on Eddie’s petty grudge.   Without looking up from where he’s crouched next to his very pregnant, very distressed mare, Eddie holds his hand out expectantly.   “Already dialed for you,” Bobby says, a little too smugly, handing him the phone.   “‘Lo?” The familiar voice answers, sounding like he’s chewing. Logically, Eddie knows it’s just coincidental timing, but it still feels like a purposeful slight. “Buckley, I’ve got a mare in labor, stalled. Between me and Nash we’ve tried everything we can think of, but we’re gonna need a hand here.”   There’s a long pause that would make him think they got disconnected except for the loud crunching.  “Huh,” Buck finally says. “So there is something you can’t do.” “Are you coming or not?” Eddie spits back. He can practically hear the smirk forming on Buck’s lips.  “Don't worry, sunshine. Be right there.” 
Tagged by my love @lizzie-bennetdarcy @hoodie-buck @buddierights @spotsandsocks @daffi-990 @thewolvesof1998 @jamespearce9-1-1
no pressure tagging mi amor @disasterbuckdiaz @callmenewbie @giddyupbuck @wikiangela @eddiebabygirldiaz @exhuastedpigeon @lemonzestywrites @steadfastsaturnsrings @weewootruck @malewifediaz @thekristen999 @loserdiaz @heartshapedvows @underwater-ninja-13 @fortheloveofbuddie @eowon @jesuisici33 @apothecarose @watchyourbuck @monsterrae1 @shortsighted-owl @stereopticons @elvensorceress @spagheddiediaz @chaosandwolves @wildlife4life @your-catfish-friend @911onabc @the-likesofus @honestlydarkprincess @spaceprincessem @fionaswhvre @barbiediaz @pirrusstuff @messyhairdiaz @gayedmundodiaz @theplaceyoustillrememberdreaming @evaneds @maygrantgf @buckbuckgoose @statueinthestone and anyone else who wants to share 💖
101 notes · View notes
snekdood · 11 months
Text
hey if ur in the midwest or more specifically missouri here’s some websites i’ve found helpful for finding native seeds and live plants (they’re not all in missouri or the midwest specifically but have some seeds from around here too bc truly human made borders are fake and plants go wherever they want so):
wildseedproject.net
mowildflowers (this websites cool bc they’ll deliver live plants to you if you live nearby enough and they also go to different places around missouri all year to sell plants at festivals or events or whatnot)
nativewildflowers.net
swallowtailgardenseeds.com
strictlymedicinalseeds.com
toadshade.com
treeseeds.com
ouriquesfarm.com
putnamhillnursury.com
sugarcreekgardens.com
prairiemoon.com
seedvilleusa.com (also on etsy)
mybutterflylady on etsy
everwilde.com
and if u ever need help or info or whatever about plants or even find a place to exchange plants and buy some on a forum check out dave’s garden
if anyone knows any other websites and wants to add them on i’d totally appreciate that c: !
(i will update this with more websites too if i come across any)
235 notes · View notes
lampfacedstudios · 1 month
Text
Tumblr media
have really rough couple of weeks filled with death and emotional trauma and other fun things out of your hands?
draw self indulgent nonsense
35 notes · View notes
aibidil · 10 months
Text
Oh, friends. I'm sitting here with my dog dying on my lap. Send us some love and strength?
87 notes · View notes
mammalidentifier · 2 months
Note
Do you know if male mules typically have nipples?
I wasn’t sure and I also couldn’t find a straight answer for that (I’m surprised at how little information there is on animal nipples online. Doesn’t anyone get curious about random topics like this?) so I went down a little rabbit hole and resorted to looking at images and watching videos of male mules being gelded, heh.
Well, what I can tell you is that none of the mules I saw during this brief research had nipples! Of course, the conclusion here isn’t that male mules never have them, since it was a small sample size. But there’s a possibility they might favor their horse half on this aspect!
26 notes · View notes
Text
i swear i have the body of a 50 yr old. i did something mildly active for less than an hour today and my back Aches. who authorized this
#my back: oughhhh im so weak you need to lay down and be still for ten hours#honey i do not have the patience nor the time for that#i am chugging this soup and then im Really Fuckin Crunching The Packing & Cleaning#my mother gets here at like 2 am and i want to get shit done before she arrives#so that i can be told i did a good job for once in my damn life#sorry that was pathetic!#i actually am just a spiteful creature that wants to prove that Hey. maybe i can be relied upon this one time#bet she expects to get here to see an absolute mess w/ not nearly enough packed#JOKES ON YOU FUCKER IM DOIN IT ALL ON MY OWN#i got shit done Without you. ha!#also i want to go whale watching tomorrow#i need to be on the water... i need it.... big aminal please...#rambles from the bog#i feel so. Independent. and tired#took the cats to the vet all on my own. got them a prescription. rode in two ubers and made casual conversation both times#completely fumbled a brief interaction with a really cute girl who was definitely outta my league#me: wants to talk to cute girl. if she offers to get the door for you say Yes#brain: look at the floor. ignore her. say 'no ive got it' when she offers to get the door for you#sobbing and wailing. totally won otherwise lmao#my cats were so good!!! they were so sweet and they Listened!#they stayed on the weighing plate & let their claws be clipped#they were so friendly and nice and WELL BEHAVED WHAT WAS THAT#when i try to clip their claws i get squirmy mc wormie and little miss war crimes#i walk away with new scars and nothin to show for it#but noooo. vets do it and not a peep. not a single wriggle. no hisses or meows. just hangin out#man. at least my cats are comfy enough with me to be up front w their desires#fuckin fakers... beautiful sweet well behaved fakers....#the vets absolutely loved them btw. all three people that were in the room loved how sweet my little critters were <3#i am Proud tbh
56 notes · View notes
saintbleeding · 1 month
Text
man since i have had any cats at all i have wanted three cats. and i have three cats. anddddd it rules. and they are all. very healthy and very loved and. what! a blessing. i love u my kitties..........................
21 notes · View notes
harbingersecho · 4 months
Text
some short felix stuff. also price is there for a second
27 notes · View notes
compacflt · 9 months
Note
what dog would icemav get?
im guessing no mangy devil chihuahuas or rescues (compacflt can't be seen with anything but a purebreed) golden retriever might be too on the nose, how about a malinois or a german shepherd maybe an english bulldog (ugly)
idk. i don’t really have a dog in this fight (i don’t care) (pun intended). but it definitely would have to be like a Real Dog. yeah nothing smaller than 70 lbs. a Real Dog. other than that i don’t have any opinions. could be a mutt or a rescue! but it would have to be, you know, handsome and upstanding and like, a Real Dog that you can, like, do stuff with. it is very cliche and on the nose and maybe im only saying this bc i, like, don’t care at all about dogs but ice does seem like the white lab/golden retriever guy and mav strikes me as a german shepherd guy. there are many reasons i don’t think they would ever have a dog (what would they do with the dog?) but not being able to agree on the breed might be one reason they never get a dog. arguing and bickering etc
46 notes · View notes
seagull-scribbles · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
I see so much art for the future Rise turtles, BUT WHAT OF THESE!? So i did a quick messy sketch during my 1hr lecture
2003 - S3E21
#TMNT#TMNT 2003#honestly been obsessing over these#Raphs gained some weight hes like those old war vets that sit in bars all day i love him#also another raph with an eye injury to add to the list#Leo’s not even blue#so funny he raided the kraangs wardrobe from s1/s2 i think#mikey really committed to the no clothes aesthetic#also yeah i know 2012 also has grown up apocalyptic versions ill get to that i havent watched s4/s5 of that show yet#but look at these old men#these geezers#raph smiled once when he hugged Donnie#and he also was like ninjitsu who as he started throwing glass#Leo forgot hes a turtle with a shell but that’s fine hes senile#him and raph held hands i was sobbing#mikey you where forgotten too quickly ill mourn you i love you#also spoilers for e23 but when Donnie’s like YOUR ALL YOUNG AND MIKEY YOU HAVE BOTH ARMS#the brothers are like hello Donnie and dont even question it#they all went to their dream world and Donnie went through the horrors#very excited for 2012 which is the only version of my knowledge to have a future Donnie…TECHnically#anyway yeah these guys love them April didnt mourn them enough#ive decided the oversized jacket raph has was found at caseys#hed got it cheap in a sale even thought its ginormous and then this chunky dude found it and was like for me :)#took me ages to figure out why Leo wasn’t wearing glasses and then drawing this i was like oh shell his mask is gone#dont look Leo in the yes hes like Medusa you’ll turn to stone#raphael splinterson#leonardo splinterson#Michaelangelo splinterson#TMNT SAINW#SAINW
106 notes · View notes
3-aem · 10 months
Text
im genuinely upset at all the ppl falling for threads/insta over twitter at this time ngl. i hope yall realize that the lizard man mark zuckerberg wants you to live in his ballsack fr and has been making moves to establish meta as the social media Monopoly since forever ago and ur basically spreading ur legs at him for free
and jokes aside having one corporation dominate social media is genuinely insane. if meta got up one day and decided we’re going to abuse our terms of service and also just be evil now- oh wait they have been doing that and clearly have no intention of changing ever
55 notes · View notes