#but I no longer have access to it | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

pathos-logical · 2 years

Text

How to Keep Doing Descriptions (from someone who does a fuckton)

Plain text: How to Keep Doing Descriptions (from someone who does a fuckton)

This is a list aimed mostly at helping people who already write IDs; for guides at learning how to do them yourself, check my accessibility and image description tags! I write this with close to two years of experience with IDs and chronic pain :)

Get used to writing some IDs by using both your phone and your computer, if you can! I find it easier to type long-form on my laptop, so I set up videos and long comics on my phone, which I then prop up against my laptop screen so I can easily reference the post without constantly scrolling or turning my head

I will never stop plugging onlineocr.net. I use it to ID everything from six-word tags to screenshots of long posts to even comic dialogue! On that last note, convertcase.net can convert text between all-caps, lowercase, sentence case, and title case, which is super helpful

Limit the number of drafts/posts-to-be-described you save. No, seriously. I never go above 10 undescribed drafts on any of my four blogs. It doesn’t have to be that low, but this has done wonders (italics: wonders) for my productivity and willingness to write IDs. If I ever get above that limit, even if it’s two or three more, I immediately either describe the lowest-effort post or purge some, and if I can't do that then I stop saving things to drafts no matter what. No exceptions! Sticking to this will make your life so much easier and less stressful

My pinned post has a link to a community doc of meme description templates!

Ask! For! Help! Please welcome to the stage the People’s Accessibility Server! It’s full of lovely people and organized into channels where you can request/volunteer descriptions and ask/answer questions

I make great use of voice-to-text and glide typing on my phone to save my hands some effort!

Something is always better than nothing!!! A short two-sentence or one-sentence ID is better than no ID at all. Take it easy :)

If you feel guilty about being unable to reblog amazing but undescribed art, try getting into the habit of replying to OP’s post to let them know you liked it! This makes me feel less pressured to ID absolutely everything I see

This is a sillier one, but I tag posts I describe as "described" and "described by me." When saving to drafts, I never preemptively tag with "described by me," since for some reason that always makes me feel extra pressure and extra stress. Consider doing something similar for yourself if that applies!

I frequently find myself looking at pieces of art which feel like they need to be considered for a bit before I can write an ID for them, and those usually get thrown into drafts, where the dread for writing a comprehensive ID just builds. Don’t do that! Instead, try just staying in the reblog field for a bit and focus on the most relevant aspects of the piece. Marinate on them for a little; don’t rush, but don’t spend more than a handful of seconds either. I find after that the art becomes way easier to describe than it initially seemed!

On that note, look for shortcuts that make IDs less taxing for you to do! For example, I only ever describe clothes in art if they're relevant to the piece; not doing that every time saves a lot of time and energy for me personally

Building off of that, consider excusing yourself from a particular kind of ID if you want to. Give yourself a free pass for 4chan posts, or fanart by an artist who does really good but really complex comics, whatever. Let it be someone else's responsibility and feel twice as proud about the work that you can now allot more energy to!

As always, make an effort to find and follow fellow describers! It’s always encouraging to get described posts on your dash, and I find that sometimes I'm happier to ID an undescribed post when the person who put it on my dash is a friend who tagged it with "no ID"

TL;DR: To make ID-writing less stressful and more low-effort, use different devices and software like onlineocr.net and voice-to-text, limit the amount of work you expect yourself to do, and reach out to artists and other describers!

#i have no idea if there's a real audience for this post but this is a genuine list of things i do to help myself out #i hope it can help someone else out too <3 #accessibility #image descriptions #my posts #kay talks #long post #this has been in my drafts for so long i'm exiling it because i can't stand wondering if it's coherent any longer

1K notes · View notes

coffeeghoulie · 23 days

Text

Mushy May Day 16: Cooking A Special Recipe

Cumulus, Mountain, and Dew introduce Aeon to the joys of kahlua chocolate chip cookies.

Thank you to @forlorn-crows for putting Mushy May together, and thank you to @ghuleh-recs for making the divider! <3

"Hey, junie, look what we got while we were out shopping!"

Mountain and Aeon both look up from the round of Mario Kart they're playing, Aeon cursing under their breath as their Toad crashes into a wall, the 'wrong way' sign flashing over his head.

Dew's stuck his head into the living room from the kitchen, holding up a brown glass bottle with a red and yellow label, shaking it. The full bottle sloshes, and Mountain perks up. "Oh shit, you got kahlua. I know what that means."

"Fuck yeah, you do," Dew crows, eyes wide.

Aeon's brow furrows. "It's ten in the morning on a Thursday, are we starting to drink this early?"

Mountain reaches over, rubbing Aeon's shoulder. "No, petunia, it's not for drinking, at least, not right now. We're making cookies."

"Oh, fuck yeah, cookies," Aeon pauses their game, spamming the button with such urgency that Mountain cackles, standing from the couch. "Is Cue helping?"

"It's her recipe," Dew says, leading the two other ghouls to the kitchen. There are grocery bags on the kitchen counter, things the Abbey can't grow or make themselves. Semi sweet chocolate chips, butterscotch pudding mix, the thick glass bottle of rum and coffee liqueur that Dew sets down with a clink.

Cumulus looks up from where she's sorting things in the fridge, hair tied back. "Boys," she greets the three of them. "You helping make cookies?"

"Unless that means you have too many cooks in the kitchen,'' Mountain says, reaching to grab the big bag of all-purpose flour from the top shelf of the cupboard. "Though I don't think Aeon's ever had your cookies before."

"You're in for a treat then, bunny. If it's too many people," she says, "I'll just kick Dew out."

"Hey!" he protests, but there's laughter in his voice; he knows she's teasing.

Aeon glances over at her as she pulls out the carton of eggs. "Can you get the cup and spoon measures out of the drawer by the sink?" Cumulus asks, moving to preset the oven. Aeon nods, scrambling to comply and moving out of Dew's way as he grabs bowls and a rubber spatula.

Mountain fetches baking powder ("Not soda, right, hummingbird?" "Yep, soda makes them flatter than I want them." "Like Dewey's ass?" "I can hear you!") and salt. He takes the measures from Aeon and shows them how to level the measuring cups of flour, dumping them into a bowl with the pudding mix. Aeon adds the spoons of baking powder and salt.

Dew takes care of the wet ingredients, both types of sugar and softened butter and vanilla and a healthy pour of kahlua. Cumulus takes the bottle when he's done, slyly pouring half a shot for all four of them.

"Add a little bit at a time," Mountain directs Aeon, taking the wet bowl from Dew. "I'll stir."

Aeon nods, biting their tongue in concentration, trying not to spill the dry ingredients. Bit by bit, the dough starts to form, and Cumulus adds the chocolate chips, all four of them trying to be slick and snatch a few while the other three aren't looking. Inevitably they catch each other stealing chunks of dough, cackling at the absurdity of trying to be sneaky.

Once the dough's ready, Cumulus goes to one of the cabinet drawers, pulling out an ice cream scoop . "Mount, there's a baking sheet with parchment paper on the counter, could you grab that for me?"

"'Course," he hums, already turning to grab it for her. Cumulus scoops the dough onto the baking sheet, evenly arranging them in rows. Once the sheet's full, she slides it into the oven.

"Alright, ten minutes on the clock," she hums, turning to gather the shotglasses and passing them out. "Cheers."

They down their shots before rinsing out the glasses and cleaning up the dirty dishes. Mountain keeps an eye on the stove clock as the kitchen fills with the scent of baked goods. "How long do you think it'll take for Swiss to come throw himself on top of these?" Mountain asks.

"I don't think hiding them on top of the fridge will work this time," Cumulus hums. "I mean. It'll keep Aurora and Dew from getting them at least."

"Wait." Dew's brow furrows, a look of distress falling over his features. "Is that where they went last time? I thought they were all gone."

"Oh, Dewey," Cumulus coos, laughing. "Oh, Dew, I'm so sorry."

"Cue!" He shouts, playing up his upset.

Mountain ruffles his hair, and the fire ghoul sputters, frantically trying to fix his hair. "Don't worry, firefly, we get first dibs."

Dew smiles smugly, settling back against the counter until the stove clock says it's been ten minutes. He gets up, turning to Aeon, leveling them with a serious look. "Please don't ever do what I'm about to do, I'm a fire ghoul, I don't need a hotpad. You will burn yourself if you try."

He opens the oven, pulling the tray out with his bare hands and taking the spatula from Cumulus, moving the finished cookies from the tray to a plate. They're round little things, golden brown and the chocolate chips gooey.

Cumulus waves her hand casually, using her wind to cool the cookies til they're just on the right side of warm. "Aeon, you get first pick. Enjoy."

She grins as Aeon picks one, tentatively taking a bite. The others all watch, grinning as their eyes go wide, a nearly pornographic moan slipping from their lips. "Holy fuck, Cue," they say with their mouth still full.

"Yeah?" she laughs, taking her own cookie. Dew and Mountain are quick to snatch one for themselves.

"That's really fucking good," they say, taking another big bite of cookie.

"They are," Dew says, biting off nearly half of his cookie. His eyes flutter shut. "Fuck. Just as good as I remember."

Mountain makes a similar noise to Aeon as he chews. "Yep. Uh-huh. We need to find a spot to hide these so they last for longer than an afternoon."

There's thudding footsteps, and Swiss skids on socked feet into the doorframe. "I smell kahlua cookies," he pants, eyes wide and a little crazed, a grin splitting his face.

Cumulus shares a look with Mountain and Dew, and all four of them burst into laughter.

#the cookie recipe they use is a approximate reverse engineering of my mother's 'secret' recipe that she makes once a year #i have been begging her for it since i turned 21 and it became legal for me to buy all of the ingredients #she is still keeping it close to her chest (i turn 23 in two weeks lmao)#they are fucking /heavenly/#the last time she gave me some i put them on top of my fridge to make it an inconvenience to eat them and try and make them last longer #i could have eaten them all at once they're that good i promise im not exaggerating #mom pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee (i say like she has access to my tumblr lmao)#anyways #dot's writing #mountain ghoul #dewdrop ghoul #cumulus ghoulette #aeon ghoul #swiss ghoul #mushy may 2024 #the band ghost #the band ghost fanfiction

67 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?

#this is so much longer than i intended but yeah. those are my very long 2 cents #tbh i also think social media makes it worse in a way especially bc “transparency” has become a form of public vetting which is insane to m #me* transparency and honesty are not the same thing ans its ludicrous that this is where we're at and while we all have to live with this #demand for transparency i do think it affects writers differently bc the whole art as mirror thing comes to the fore in this argument #why would you sit with your feelings about a book when its easier and more accessible for you to @ the authors twitter handle #but anyway #ask #anonymous #book talks

399 notes · View notes

jonstarks · 7 months

Text

youtube

the grunt, the heavy breathing, the twitching, the slammed, the low voice, holy shit balls.... never recover from this

#I'm terminally jonsas for life #god....damn #jonsa #im staying here till i die #or no longer have access to the internet #Youtube

78 notes · View notes

2sw · 3 days

Text

hey guys. I don't mind people reposting my gifs on other sites to express their own love for sam, I love to see it actually, but please do not use mine for archive/gif accounts. thanks xx

#you might wonder what's the difference but it actually is different #especially when the archive account is for the show not just one character #the thing is. I don't like that I can't choose who can or can't access my gifs #I know it's inevitable when you share things online but at least I can block people or hide their tags here #which I rarely do but still I'm holding onto that illusion of control. please let me have it😭😭😭#the things I've seen in my notifs... and how some people talk about sam in general...#I just have serious trust issues with this fandom sorry 😭#also there are reasons why I decided to post gifs on tumblr even tho I'm more used to twitter #so pls don't give me more things to worry about. this website alone is already too stressful lol #slowly realizing I'm not made for this shit...... I sincerely admire all sam stans who's been around here longer than me #it's only been like a year and a half and I'm already falling apart... :)

34 notes · View notes

dreamsy990 · 2 months

Text

this joke mightve worked better for dream drop distance in retrospect

44 notes · View notes

pastadoughie · 17 hours

Note

You were talking about a piece of yours not getting a lot of notes, and I wanted to say that the piece in question is really eyestrainy and is pretty much just visual noise to me, so it wouldn't surprise me if that was part of the reason it got less notes? I know I'm not the only person who experiences issues with art pieces that have that sort of composition.

i? already went ahead and tagged it after you said that?? like, hours ago?? dont send me things complaining about an issue i already fixed, + the post alr included an alt ver that didnt havethe BG or glitch FX so is less eyestrainey. not my fault if people dont block tags or read the actual post

+ the lack of engadgement on my serious art is extremely common and not dependant on weather or not its eyestrainey, its been happening for as long as ive been on tumblr, so its not a tagging issue

#ask #asks #bunhype #the beast speaks #screaming and scampering #+ saying an artwork i spent hours is just “visual noise” is really fucking mean jesus #maybe #actually open the readmore and look at the alt ver #i appreciate people telling me abt accessibility concerns hence why i tagged it rlly soon after but if you dont even go through the effort #to read the actual post then u no longer have a valid point #iguess i should add that for context the asker reblogged the art hours ago with similar text and then sent me this ask #hours after i edited it to fix the issue

20 notes · View notes

topnotchquark · 6 months

Note

I am new to motogp, but what the fuck is the deal with Uccio and the rosquez drama in 2015.

My brother in Christ are u stupid? Why don't you tell Vale to put all his stamina and mental games on f.ing Lorenze, the actual threat to the 10th? You could scheme the divorce in 2016 or sth you stupid Ipad stand!

Oh my god! An opportunity to analyse Uccio! Persona non grata and public enemy number 1 on motogpblr (btw, are there any Uccio shooters on Tumblr? My inbox is a safe space, I wanna hear your side of the story).

There is no way for me to know for a fact why Uccio ended up being the first domino to fall that led to Sepang 2015 but I did look around to see if I could find a bit more about the relationship between Vale and Uccio.

These two go all the way back to the crib, literally. Uccio mentioned in an interview that Tavullia is a small town and they were only a few months apart in age so they ended up at the only day care in the town together.

Uccio has been called a bumbling fool and a freeloader and what not (look at this post openly roasting him for being Vale's Lackey) and despite my dislike of him I won't do the same (for once lol). Vale shot to stardom at a young age doing the death sport that required him to travel extensively. What better way to feel grounded than to have your childhood friend near you at all times (the fact that Vale didn't leave Tavullia for flashier places like Monaco or wtv has been reiterated in so much writing about him, and Uccio has said the same). There is definitely an element of familiarity and comfort that both Vale and Uccio seek from each other. Uccio mentioned that they would come back from a weekend of racing, put down their suitcases and immediately get on the phone with each other, which, teenage bestie-ism is such a force lol it could power cities if harnessed.

Anyway, back to racing. The consensus is that Vale didn't have the best rivals in Biaggi and Gibernau, they were inconsistent and susceptible to mind games. Vale enjoyed the initial years of his career as an untouchable, peerless talent. And then..... the winds changed direction :)

Vale was 36 in 2015, most pro athletes are considered done and dusted at that age. He had been putting his body through years of premier class motorcycle racing. Add to that how bad the Ducati years had been and just, so much life had happened. I don't want to talk about Sic's death, but that too and while racing at that. Vale had already started working on the academy (Franky was signed in 2013 afaik). Vale had moved on from the glittering, ebullient, darling of every circuit personality. Imo choosing to be a mentor and doing that well is among the most impressive things Vale has done but when you mentally cross the rubicon to accept your youth is decidedly over, it changes things. For starters, it's a real question of whether you've already chosen to hang your boots. What I'm trying to say is, a lot was at stake in 2015 for Vale. The kind of, calm and bemused, quietly malicious as and when required public persona that Vale has honed over the years needs the solid bedrock of consistent winning to seem graceful. It wasn't just a championship at this point, it was a question of pride and cementing your legacy and being the architect of how the world perceives you when the odds have been stacked against you for a while.

Back to Uccio. He simply didn't trust or like Marc. Or anyone who was on the racetrack at the same time as Vale (he didn't even spare sweet nothings for Viñales). I have no concrete theory for said distrust short of just saying Uccio is a bit of a slimy character (this interview of Uccio when he's doing his best impersonation of henchman from an old Hollywood western). Uccio wasn't even happy when Marc made the infamous visit to the ranch in winter of 2014. Guess the whole "Marc is helping Jorge win" thing was Uccio's attempt at reminding Vale of his ruthless nature that he thought Vale was finding hard to tap into (Vale did say Marc was an updated model of him). A friend once said that a lot of time public facing figures aren't as cruel or rancid in their interpretation of the world as much as the followers of said people. So Uccio started talking shit and given the circumstances of 2015, it made an impact.

Ultimately the odds were stacked high and Vale made a mistake. I suppose Vale knows a thing or two about how pressure can make someone succumb to errors :)

So that's my take on the whole deal. Uccio, croney par excellence, used Vale's desperate title bid in 2015 to purge some of his misplaced blood lust. He made Marc his target because according to him the young ones on the grid were nothing but a nuisance. Vale fucked up and let it drive his paranoia and made a big fucking mistake.

#sorry for the delay my big girl jobs needed attention and I managed my time poorly this week and winters make me want to sleep for longer #thank you anon for the question I loved having to read and hustle for it #sorry brevity is NOT my strong suit I'll work on it #another thing is that shit just goes missing from the internet :(#its heartbreaking all the interviews and stories you want to access have turned to dead links #i love asks I'm finally making my way through them!!!!!#any excuse to talk about Vale lol #uccio salucci #valentino rossi #uccio #vale #motogp #asks #anon #sepang 2015

37 notes · View notes