Flim Springfield

Unmute !

IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNMUTE!!!!

@jackalclot

shut up

Can’t believe I have a post on my blog yet again that boils down to “ancient Egyptians would have thought fucking the hybrid wolf-man version of Anubis that most people think he is was both gauche and illegal because they didn’t conceive of him as a wolf-man; they’d think you’re trying to fuck a dog”

You may also be wondering why I know so much about depictions of Anubis in furry art and it’s because friends who are furries send it to me to try to shock me. I am no longer shocked by the sight of Anubis erect and drooling like a canine while also looking at me with bedroom eyes. I wish I was.

#jokes on your egyptians loved fucking animals so much they drew pictures of it on their tombs #they're not gonna kinkshame anyone

As an Egyptologist I'm gonna pull rank on this one. So, source? Which tombs? The Giza ones? The ones at Beni Hassan? The Theban Tomb series? I'd genuinely be delighted to know where all this animal fucking is going on and from what period it dates to.

Multiple writings on the tomb depictions seem to trace back to Sexual Variance in Society and History by Vern Bullough, published in 1976. Unfortunately I can't get access without paying for it.

There's also this page from Bestiality and Zoophilia: Sexual Relations with Animals by Honi Miletski (granted, the myth of Cleopatra's bee vibrator has been thoroughly debunked by now, so I can't attest to the veracity of anything else written here.)

You'll notice none of that actually cites a tangible documented example. Not a specific tomb. Not a specific papyrus. Hardly even a specific time period. Like my guys when in Egypt's 4000+ year long civilisation was this taking place? Evidence for it should be well documented but it isn't an that should be sending red flags and warning lights flashing real hard.

That book, I'm afraid to say, is racist trash that seeks to paint the Egyptians in a bad light (degenerate animal fuckers) that cites more racist trash (Tannahill is a prime example because her sources, having looked at them before are just pulled out of her ass). I know I've come across people citing this at me before because I can see the 'fact' that Ancient Egyptian men tried to fuck crocodiles and quite frankly if you think about that for more than 10 seconds you'll realise that it's not even possible without actual death. There is no recorded instance of an Ancient Egyptian man fucking a cow. I believe in the Chester Beatty Dreambook (P.BM EA 10683), from the library of Qenherkhepershef, there's a dream interpretation for what a dream means if you dream of yourself fucking a cow and it was considered bad. But there's also one for If a man sees himself in a dream: seeing his penis erect (nḫt): BAD: this means victory (nḫtw) for his enemies**, so.... they're not exactly talking about reality. Nor did they with the Apis bull because that would have been like assaulting a form of the god Ptah on earth. Trust me.

I'm able to read hieroglyphs and know of no example of bestiality being recorded within a text. There's one legal text known as the Adoption Papyrus (P. Ashmolean Museum 1945.96)*** that states if a man's brother and wife do not accept the document commissioner's children (who are adopted) then 'may a donkey fuck you, may a donkey fuck your wife' which is a 'threat' and not an example of Egyptians willingly fucking animals. Also, as someone who has read a lot of Ancient Egyptian legal documents (because that's my specialism) there is no written law on bestiality because Ancient Egypt doesn't have a written legal code.

The goats at the temple of Mendes appears to be circular citation, as I've never once found in all my times dealing with this passage being cited at me any evidence that this happened at all other than tertiary sources telling me so.

I need people to repeat after me: If a book says that a poc civilisation engaged in acts that most would find abhorrent and does not cite a primary source (i.e. a specific papyrus/tomb/stele etc) but rather a bunch of hearsay from secondary or tertiary sources then what you're reading is likely wrong and also at the very least more than a little racist.

** https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA10683-3 and also; K. Szpakowska, 'Dream Interpretation in the Ramesside Age', in M. Collier and S. Snape (ed.), Ramesside Studies in Honour of K. A. Kitchen (Bolton 2011), 509-17.

*** Eyre, C. J. (1992). The Adoption Papyrus in Social Context. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 78(1), 207-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/030751339207800112

Fascinating watching this website contort around the idea of reaching out to and converting far right leaning individuals as if the same 3-4 stances aren't having a do-si-do while all being able to coexist

It's like

Outreach to radicalized individuals needs to happen, because without it their numbers just grow

But also

Outreach is time consuming and difficult, not guaranteed to work, and put you or people around you in danger by putting you on a radicalized persons radar

But also

We know that compassionate, prolonged outreach is remarkably effective. We also know emotional appeals are astronomically more likely to change someone's mind than factual ones when it comes to core beliefs

But also

most deradicalization works when someone who is close to the individual puts in the work to shift their perspective.

But also

You do not need to do this yourself/no one is obligated to do this thing that is difficult and dangerous and there is a ton of organizing work and also outreach work in our own political circle that needs doing and you should utilize your resources how you see fit

But also

You do not need to be nice to or coddle people who have done material harm

But also

Outright hostility only serves to reinforce the us vs. them mentality and makes it harder to deprogram people

But also

focusing on trying to win over radicalized individuals can't come at the expense of work to help victims/our community/those marginalized/etc.

But also

People who are deradicalized need a community to reintegrate to or what's the point.

But also

You don't have to welcome someone who's done harm into your community.

But also

Sometimes your desire to not allow someone who has reformed reintegrate into a community has less to do with harm reduction and more to do with punishing them for previous wrongdoing

But also

You never owe forgiveness to anyone who has harmed you.

But also

Outreach to radicalized individuals needs to happen, because without it their numbers just grow.

Just ad infinitum. Just a never ending ouroboros of "You're an idiot for how you engage with this famously thorny issue".

Just pick one of the bullet points above and work at it, and if someone else wants to work at one of the other ones, we're all trying to make things better. Maybe be less snarky and self righteous.

Disney princesses meeting their princes for the first time.

it progressively gets more awkward each movie

I'm convinced Mythbusters needs a reboot. Misinformation or mythinformation if you will, is at an all time high. We NEED the show that promotes critical thinking to come back. It doesn't need the same cast, in fact I think it would be better with some fresh faces. Imagine all the good it would do if you could just show your crazy uncle the Mythbusters reboot episode that debunks his anti-vaxx conspiracy in an easily digestible and entertaining format.

A million and a half people replied with this, which I appreciate:

Source

thinking about when i was small, how my mom told me that pipe cleaners were just a tool until people started idly shaping things with them and it grew so popular that they were marketed as crafting materials. and that story about how the original frisbees were disposable pie plates that students flattened to throw. and how when i was a child i had a wooden mancala set with shiny, colorful stones, but on invention it was played with rocks and grooves dug into the dirt. and middle school, paper football and tic-tac-toe and mash and mad libs, games that just need pen and paper. and before that, games of pretend with pirates and princes and masked marauders. how at slumber parties after lights out, we used to whisper storytelling games, i say one sentence and you say the next. and shadow puppets. and the way all the kids in the neighborhood used to divide into teams and throw fallen pine cones at one another. and the floor is lava game, and the quiet game, and the games i play with my coworkers that are just words and retention. and "put a finger down" on the high school bus. and little girls clapping together, and how the first jump-rope was undoubtedly just a length of rope who knows how long ago, and how natural it is to play, how we seek play at every age and with any resources we have and with whatever time we can squeeze it into in a day. i'm not an anthropologist or a psychologist but i think after food and shelter and water and air what comes next is games and stories and laughter. i think that there is nothing -- not sex or fighting or forming unlikely bonds with animals -- there is nothing more human than to play.

Haven't figured out a politic way to word this but before saying someone/thing "makes you uncomfortable" please ask yourself this important question: is it any of your fucking business

At least say "I am uncomfortable with" instead. Own your own shit

"This person is making me uncomfortable" suggests they're actively doing something to or at you. And sometimes people are! But sometimes. You are just uncomfortable with people when they aren't doing anything. And that's on you not them.

"The homeless man on the bus is making me uncomfortable" verses "I am uncomfortable with the homeless man on the bus." You see the difference

Hello I would like to make a fanfiction complaint.

When someone is saying a word that starts with a digraph but they get cut off at the beginning of the word you have to include the whole digraph or else the sound is different and it doesn't read the same.

Ok thanks.

I love you.

Take it from someone who has done progressive activism in real, not-just-online ways and also knows a ton of people for whom that's like, their job, and has also lived in red, purple and blue states (Texas, Michigan, Maryland, Massachusetts): activism is much, much harder to do in places where the law and the politicians are actively hostile to your politics. As such, it is not a replacement for voting. You have to vote. You shouldn't just vote, but you should vote and do the other things. This is why everyone who is actually serious about activism that actually does stuff is telling you to vote.

I get really frustrated by the argument on Tumblr of "voting is just one step, it's not the only thing you can do!" because I can never tell if that person is saying "your activist credentials aren't hurt by voting, you can still do all those other things!" - which is true! and good! and some people need to hear it! - or "it's just one of many types of activism that you can do, it's one option" - BAD. It is not. It is the foundational step. You can't really do all that other stuff, or can't do it as well and as effectively, if you don't have the infrastructure in place that you create by voting in the right people and voting out the wrong ones.

This is especially weird given that the Republican Party is increasingly flirting with the idea of violent retaliation against peaceful protesters - and that our history is replete with examples of that happening when they did it in places with hostile politicians, e.g. the civil rights movement in Southern states. Yeah, that imagery ultimately helped them, but it's not the 1960s anymore, we don't have three TV channels everyone watches, you can't guarantee that the people who most need to see it will, or without it being filtered through a bunch of bullshit demonizing the protesters. And a lot of people died or were otherwise hurt in the process, and their lives should matter to you. And a lot of how we ultimately defeated that was because the federal law forced Southern states to comply with all that. Because the people in the federal government making these decisions (like LBJ) were open to the cause of civil rights - which was one of the reasons that civil rights activists made voter registration so key to their efforts in 1964! It wasn't a thing that the activists in those states were able to force on racist, hostile politicians in places like Alabama without help from other people they voted for in the federal government.

There are lots of dedicated activists in Texas who want to help women there get abortions in every way they can; they still could only do so much once it was totally banned there, once Roe fell, and now their work is largely focused on helping Texas women travel out of state. The nationally-celebrated abortion clinic where I lived in Austin had to close and move to New Mexico after the Dobbs decision. Who is in power matters. The laws they pass matter. The way you do something about that? You fucking vote.

Likewise, a lot of this website and the broader left-wing Internet seems to acknowledge that trans rights are way worse in red states like Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, etc. than in blue states like on the West Coast or in New England/the Mid-Atlantic, or even in purple states with Dems in power (e.g. Michigan, Minnesota, Arizona, Pennsylvania). Same with reproductive rights. Okay, why do you think that is? Do you think the activists in Michigan or Massachusetts just care more than the ones in Montana? Or do you think it perhaps has something to do with who's passing laws? And why do you think this pattern holds so consistently in terms of whether that state is run by Democrats or Republicans??? In Michigan and Arizona in particular, they got where they are specifically because voters rejected extreme Republican policies en masse.

Voting comes before everything else. It is not just "one of many options." That's like saying that, say, showering is optional as long as you moisturize or something. Or brushing your teeth is optional. No, those are foundational things for cleanliness; the other stuff is on top of that. You need voting to make your activism work.

Voting is the reason for a lot of the other activism: So we can maintain the right to vote.

also the people of Chicxulub Puerto are fully aware of this, and even created a memorial for all of dinosaurkind on their own dime!

and personally, I think this single heartfelt block of concrete is more fitting than any number of sleek expensive monoliths in the world's best museums.

at an unremarkable time in this unremarkable place, the world ended, once. it's good to remember that.

— bunjywunjy on tumblr

hbomberguy’s latest video on plagiarism has made me completely rethink literature and writing. I have never once so much as considered intentionally plagiarizing anyone or anything, but I think there’s something more that has come out of this: the names of the people who created the works Somerton (and others) ripped off.

Plagiarism isn’t only bad because it is lazy and disrespectful, it’s bad because it buries the truth. If you can’t find a source, the conversation is over. Somerton’s sources are fairly easy to find by simply searching his plagiarized lines, but that isn’t true in most cases. Most of the time, the line from statement to source is a lot less clear.

Today, I was writing a report on English Ivy, which is an invasive species here in the US. I wanted to know when it was introduced and I at last found a source claiming it was introduced to the Americas “as early as 1727” on a .net website that seems quite reputable (it has multiple major universities credited in its home page), but there is no citation for where this date came from. I dug deeper and found a pamphlet created by a city government in Virginia that made the same claim, only to discover the first source linked in their bibliography. Another website (a botanical garden’s page) gave the same date with the same source hyperlinked. Of course, I have classes to attend and things to do and probably not enough time to follow the lines back to where this 1727 date came from, but if I had not just watched this video, I wouldn’t have given that date a second thought.

Of course, it doesn’t matter in the long run exactly what year hedera helix was introduced to the Americas, but it makes you wonder how many facts have been so vaguely attributed that it becomes completely impossible to figure out where they originated (and further, whether or not they’re true at all).

This post is back on my dash, and it reminds me of this Kurzgesagt video that's come out since:

Thinking about how wild it is that enshittification starts as a way for the rich to squeeze the populace for more money but ends up infecting everything so even luxury products decline in quality. They’ve got more money than fucking God now and for what? Literally they can’t even buy fun nice stuff for themselves because they killed craft.

Anyway this post is about Dhaka muslin but it’s also about everything.

guess it's time to post agha shahid ali's poem about dhaka muslin

And now, as a Republican administration takes hold of the Executive Branch, we watch the Republican party do its traditional stance change from "respect the power of the states! states' rights built this nation!" to "Unitary Executive Theory! Any state that defies the president is illegal and wrong and needs to be invaded!"

Again, I'm 99% certain part of why Trump was stunned a president ISN'T a dictator is because Fox and their ilk spent 8 years acting like Obama WAS a dictator ruling by fiat despite 1) not true and 2) the party outside of power, the GOP, were fighting and stymieing his administration the entire way at the state AND federal level. Heck, part of Biden's willingness to ignore the GOP and move left was due to how they treated Obama, he knew the obstructionism was coming regardless of what he did, so he might as well get some progressive priorities in when we do!

However, now we have an emboldened Trump with a cult-like following of True Believers not only behind him, but in government as well. This DOES give the Dems a small opportunity tho, if they can drive a wedge between the True Believers and the Rest of the Conservatives. This is doable. The House Dems have done it admirably these past two years. BUT we need to get more of an audience for it. We need to find ANY Republican Rep or Senator in a remotely swing district or state and MAKE THEM ANSWER for any bullshit other members of their party pull in service to Trump.

One of the biggest priories those people have is Holding Their Seat. Even if we set aside all the selfish reasons to want to keep it, to them, losing their seat to the other party means they cannot pass the Important Conservative Legislation they want to pass. If you make them think "ooh, tying you to this crazy thing puts your seat in danger" you might get somewhere.

Obviously won't stop all the bad stuff, but might stop the worst of it. Again, use your state reps and local politicians. National politicians communicate with them to see what the locals are thinking.