I strongly disagree with anyone who says Maleficent isn’t the best Disney villain. No singing, no dancing, no long expositions about her plans, no tolerance for bumbling comedy sidekicks (she electrocutes a whole room full of minions when she finds out they’ve fucked up and spent the last few years searching for a baby), just outright malicious intent.
I mean let’s take a look at her motivations compared to other popular Disney villains:
SCAR - Wanted to become King.
URSULA - Wanted to rule the seas.
WICKED QUEEN - Wanted to rule as the most beautiful woman in the land.
JAFAR - Wanted to rule in the Sultan’s place and/or obtain ultimate power.
Maleficient, by contrast, didn’t want any of that. She didn’t want more power. She didn’t want fame. She didn’t want to rule. She just wanted to raise hell. This is the woman who decided that every newborn child in the kingdom should die and that the land should be covered in darkness for one reason - SHE WASN’T INVITED TO A MOTHERFUCKING PARTY.
That’s right, the evil bitch basically condemned an entire kingdom to die at her hands because she didn’t get invited to a christening.
This is not a woman with a motivation. She cannot be reasoned with. Her actions cannot be rationalized. She is evil for the fun of being evil, not because she wants something.
THAT, my friends, is the ultimate villain. One who knows they’re evil and LOVES it.
I love her.
Dear White People: Start changing “Critics” to Racist Ass Whites. If a Black man sits on a Throne, Why do you find it offensive? I’ll tell you…Because you know damn well you’re afraid of seeing Black people (Especially a Black man) with Power. But you White folks had no Problem with this Bullshit right?
Here’s MCU’s white fave sitting on the throne in full regalia with honor guard.
The only reason they hate the Black Panther is because it’s a Black man in a position of power who answers to no white man.
Silly doggo chaser as follow-up to sad doggo comic
I was so surprised that our arsehole cat, Bob, turned out to be the bestest uncle to the kittens we got last year... (He's still a jerk to other cats, though)
Benny The Surrogate Cat Dad
Benny (Benedict Cumbercat) gets the most joy when his human mom brings home rescued kittens, so he can help look after them and show them the same love that he received when he was rescued. Whenever Ellen brings home an orphan baby (or a box of babies), Benny anticipates their arrival and is filled with excitement. He becomes their dedicated surrogate dad, and his fatherly instinct kicks in the moment he sees a kitten.
Written in the Bones. New comic, written by Christopher M. Jones & illustrated by Carey Pietsch.
I’m hoping to have printed copies of this at MOCCA, ABPCC, and TCAF this spring, and SPX in the fall! More info to come.
Me and Carey worked really hard on this comic; if you got something from it I’d love for you to reblog it, and maybe even buy a copy from Carey when she’s in town or even if she’s not. Thanks so much for reading.
It was a slow-build LOL... after looking at the pic for a bit it just started bubbling up and gaining steam.
Dungarees are so in right now
Corgi Fails At Hopping Over Fence
The Conservative attempts at morality are laughable.
It's the non-evil twins of our two orange "kittens"
I wonder if the person just walked away?
(I guess they would be easy to find, though)
Llamathrust is surprisingly a very large number that was created to quantify the power of the Saturn V rocket... It only took 1 llamathrust to send people to the moon.
There’s something about Studio Ghibli’s Water physics that I love
While it is a liquid, it tends to behave more gelatinously
It’s so beautiful while almost being awkward *bloop*
Gravity? Surface tension? No? Well, just let me hug her!!
Not even seeming to make skin or cloth wet
It looks so satisfyingly bouncy
Tell me what you guys think and what’s your fav movie thing about Ghibli
I remember hearing/seeing a post where Ghibli’s water always -looks- like how water -feels-.
Like when you’re crying it just feels like
And when it’s raining it’s like
Like Ghibli has that perfect look of water where yeah, it’s not exactly -realistic- but they capture the perfect feeling.
I love this and now I need to find a collection of gifs oh Ghibli hair. I love when it does the poof thing. None of this is realistic, but it is wonderfully emotive. Emotions usually feel more talk than physics anyways.
Ghibli movies tend to exude an almost dreamlike feeling or a feeling like nostalgia– like, the general mood of the films feel like summer in the country when the sun is shining and it’s quiet and there’s a breeze going, or the smell of fresh cookies from the oven or the way a freshly-laundered quilt feels when it’s wrapped around you by someone you love.
They just FEEL good. Even the sad movies still give off that same feeling. It’s almost tangible, but still feels like a fond memory.
It’s really hard to describe kfjhsfjk.
studio ghibli has a weird way of having both very little and alot of movement at the same time
I’m not alone. Dude every movie does this to me.
People who ‘love nature’ but violently hate their native coyotes, spiders, snakes, and scavengers are fake.
Here’s the thing about the post. You don’t have to love or even like every animal. You can dislike things! Humane, intelligent pest control is fine and necessary. This isn’t the issue and never has been.
It’s violent, blind hatred and hypocrisy that’s the problem. People who gush over foxes and owls and hawks but want coyotes and snakes dead in the next breath. People who will rescue prey from predators because predation is mean. People who find it appropriate to leave sadistic comments on pictures of spiders or snakes someone is appreciating or owns. People who insist on labeling species as ‘good’ or ‘evil’. This is the sort of behavior that bothers me.
People who only appreciate nature when it’s aesthetically pleasing to them and want to destroy the parts they find ugly and unpleasant don’t truly understand or love it. They love an ideal that isn’t actually representative of reality.
Ok, but what good are wasps? I’m really curious.
Wasps are one of the single most important insect predators. They control not only other insects but also spiders, as well as acting as pollinators for certain plants (such as fig trees, which famously cannot fruit without a wasp inside them) there are hundreds of different types of wasp, the vast majority of them harmless to or fearful of humans.
Mosquitoes, on the other hand, serve literally no purpose and could vanish with little ecological impact.
Ugh SO MANY people have added this same claim to this post.
People WANT it to be true, so it makes for great clickbaity sensationalism, but there really aren’t any scientifically sound findings that mosquitoes are “ useless,” only one bad claim that went viral back in 2010.
For one thing, they too are pollinators of many crepuscular and nocturnal flowers. For another, they make up a bulk of the diet of countless other species and NO other insect can produce so, so many individuals from such meager, even polluted conditions.
If it exists, it has a role. Nothing in nature exists independent of the world around it. So even if something is here to just spread disease or be a minor part of some really obscure branch of the food web or to pollinate one specific plant - it has a role. So everyone can stop trying to come up with cheeky examples of things they personally dislike to see if they can have a “gotcha!” moment over on people who are actually educated on biology/ecology. Seriously this post has been floating around my dash all week filled with “Yeah but what about x shitty bug???” I don’t know Sharon how about you hop on Wikipedia for literally one minute and find out?
People especially love to name “parasites” in these conversations, because everyone hears that the definition of a parasite is in itself something “of no benefit to its host.”
….But there’s a bigger picture. A predator doesn’t “benefit” its prey, either, but we know its existence is necessary to prevent overpopulation, and the same is actually even more true of parasites. In fact, parasites are pretty much running the whole predator/prey balance.
Ever wonder how so many little fish get caught and eaten by sea birds? Even with the whole vastness of the ocean to hide in? There’s tasty plankton near the surface, true, but fish have had eons of evolution to notice when a sky-monster is swooping down to stab it with a beak that only reaches a microfaction into the ocean.
Parasitic worms make the difference. Parasitic worms are the #1 reason a fish gets caught by an albatross, all day every day, because the worms evolved to get from a fish to a bird to complete their life cycle and slow the fish’s reaction time or outright alter its behavior. One common variety actually causes fish to stop and “flip over” every so often, which allows birds to spot their lighter underbellies instantly.
Take the worms away and the birds plummet. When the birds plummet the fish skyrocket, but then the plankton and everything else they eat suffers and there’s a whole chain reaction of population shifts all the way down.
Luckily? ….When a population of animals become too densely overcrowded, you can often leave it to parasites once again, as well as viruses and bacterial or fungal infections - sometimes several in cahoots - to start spreading like wildfire and cull a species back down to stable levels or eliminate it entirely before it expends every possible resource. Parasites and disease are nature’s true ultimate regulators and safeguards against innumerable disasters.
(The constant threat of this scenario, by the way, is likely why sexual reproduction evolved. Animals that simply multiplied and multiplied all by themselves were selected against because they too easily used up their resources and all died from some contagion or another. )
Now maybe some people are thinking “if the circle of life thing goes this deep and is really this precarious haven’t we fucked it up 100% irreversibly almost everywhere?”
bogleech: “I respect [insect/spider/thing] outdoors but IN MY HOME IT DESERVES DEATH” is one of the...
“I respect [insect/spider/thing] outdoors but IN MY HOME IT DESERVES DEATH” is one of the most common responses I see in regard to treating tiny creatures with respect and it’s just really sad people fall back on that so eagerly to excuse what’s still completely senseless destruction.
A bedbug or a tick or something else that wants your blood, sure, that makes sense, but a spider wandering into your house is still minding its own business hunting flies and crickets. It doesn’t know this big cave “belongs” to an animal that arbitrarily hates it for being there, and no, spiders do not just climb into your bed and bite you in your sleep.
The vast majority of flies, moths, beetles and anything else that small that ends up in your house actively *does not want* to be in such a place because it’s doomed to starve or dehydrate. Others are just trying to come in from the cold, and even if it’s your food they’re after, they don’t know that it’s “your” food. They especially don’t know that it upsets you for something 1/1000th your size to take a bite of that food; most other big animals don’t care, so they have no reason to be cautious of it.
People talk like it’s some kind of delinquency to be punished or something. It feels kinda more like reaching for a justification to enjoy a tiny moment of socially acceptable sadism.
Do what you really have to do to protect yourself from a deadly allergy or something but don’t be an asshole to something just because it made a wrong turn it can’t even comprehend.
Look at this face:
HOW TO MAKE A CUTE DRESS OUT OF SHORTS
put shorts on
put legs in one leg hole
pull up and on to shoulder
And here we have glitterweave sporting a beautiful Sunset Yellow
NEVER forget to accessorize
well one of us is going to have to change
I really think
I’m winning this.
(Yoga pants do the trick)
Send this to all the straight boys
hasan minhaj: it is insanity to think that 1.5 billion muslims want to destroy the earth
OH IT’S A DOG
The Escanaba Daily Press - Mar 22, 1949
The recipes include Wine-fried Muskrat, Muskrat a la Terrapin, Maryland Shredded Muskrat, Muskrat Salad, Muskrat Pie, Pickled Muskrat, and Stewed Muskrat Liver. However, it doesn't include Cream of Muskrat Casserole, a delicacy that we posted about back in 2013.
You can read or download the full booklet at archive.org.
A muskrat - via wikipedia
Makes sense... that's a hella lot more keystrokes.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
They need to bring back Circus of the Stars!
“did chris evans actually jump that high to grab onto that helicopter in civil war?”
friendly reminder that chris vaulted with ease over chris pratt after just telling him less than a minute before that he would be able to clear him if he only put his head down.
I want a Celebrity Obstacle Course show where all the pretty people can show off their hard stunt work for us and also occasionally eat it, because they need to be humbled sometimes. The judges would be career stunt people, to give them visibility, because they work even harder. Shirts optional.
You wouldn’t even finish the phrase “Celebrity Ninja Warrior” before Chris would start jumping up and doing yelling “Me! Me! Pick me!”
Anyone know how to contact Netflix about this?
Celebrity. Ninja. Warrior.
This needs to happen.
I hope you like it, Kinakobun
is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what
That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING
What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?
It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot.
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.
I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?
And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.
Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.
We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine.
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks:
He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.
You can see her butthole for chrissakes
I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine. He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE.
This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.
I remember being in comic creator forums and the guys telling each other to literally trace screenshots of porn to learn to draw women. 🙄
Now, being a pornographer and all-around Naked Girl™ myself, I obviously have no problem with porn. In fact, my love of erotic work is a huge part of why I dislike porn being used for comic book references.
Porn is only effective when everything is not porn. If everything is porn, it stops being thrilling.
Also, most of these artists are men profiting off the sexual objectification of women. There’s no participation of any actual women who see any benefit of this. People knock strip clubs, but they’re full of women deciding to be there, and leaving with money in their pockets. Real life human sex workers have way more agency than comic book women drawn by men.
Also, a lot of these artists wouldn’t say they’re making porn. They try to shirk the stigma of being a pornographer by claiming this is just a regular way to draw women. And it’s not just the individuals, it’s the companies hiring them. Marvel isn’t saying they’re making smut books. They get to stay Good and Pure. And if they just owned up to making porn, and committed to it, it could be so great! One thing I know making smutty comics is audiences love reading smut where the characters have a lot of history and backstory to them, and superhero comics have decades of character development. An actual canon line of comics where we get to see Spiderman fuck would possibly kill some fans with the number of orgasms they’d have.
THIS seems very important!!!