Reading Really Old Books has given me another angle of perspective to why "show, don't tell" is so important: you can always tell what you can see, even if you can't know for sure what you're looking at. It helps mend the gap, both intentionally when you're not 100% sure of what you're talking about, and as an insurance just in case readers of the future might know more about it than you currently do.

If a book from the 1800s just dismissively says "his previously so strong-willed wife developed hysteria after the incident", I'm going to roll my eyes and dismiss this right back. But if the same incident is illustrated by describing the way she becomes frightened and starts shaking at the sight of something only marginally related to the tramatising incident, I can draw my own conclusions and go "oh, she's triggered by the sight of horse reins. The reins remind her of the Someone Got Stomped To Death By A Horse -incident, and she is triggered by the sight of them. This woman has PTSD." And I'll have more respect for the author, who clearly looked at whatever he saw in the enviroment of his time, instead of dismissively assuming that he knew what he was looking at, and trusting that the readers would do the same.

The concept of ADHD wasn't known during the time when William Stearns Davis wrote his book A Friend of Caesar. And had he known a term for it, he may not have used it. But in the way he wrote the book, you can see that Davis had read multiple accounts of the kind of shit that Julius Caesar apparently did in his life. And wrote the man who had died centuries before the author was born having The Symptoms exactly the same way as I do whenever I'm unmedicated.

it sucks a lot of emotional responses to distress are also emotional responses people associate with being dishonest. "ummm if you weren't lying why did you get so defensive" BECAUSE YOU ACCUSED ME OF LYING WHEN I DIDN'T..?

everyday I pray Zillow makes a comment section

all goofing aside I genuinely don't understand the urge to reimagine Taylor Allison Swift as a secretly queer icon when the pop music scene(TM) is like. literally overflowing with women who actually like women. Gaga and Kesha and Miley and Halsey are right there. Rina Sawayama and Hayley Kiyoko and Rebecca Black and Kehlani and Victoria Monét and Miya Folick if you're willing to get slightly less top 100. Janelle and Demi for them nonbinary takes on liking girls. like what are we doing here. like I'm not even saying you can't enjoy Taylor but why would you hang all your little gay hopes on her.

i want 60 thousand votes by next thursday

every autistic person watching this episode of dungeon meshi:

The devastating difference between how much time it takes to write something vs how fast people read it lol

finally, some good fucking heel

Team “not actually oblivious to flirting, just terrified of appearing presumptuous” represent.

i love the phrase "cruel and unusual." not only is what you're doing mean but it's also quite frankly fucking bizarre

i want to coin a phrase that's the opposite of writer's block. call it the muse's fire hydrant. thirty thousand story ideas are being beamed directly into your brain and if you don't write them all at once you will die.

I had a tattoo client ask if I ever used AI to design tattoos for me. Man I spent the better part of a decade doing shitty bit work as a graphic designer and now that I have the space to do whatever I want, I'm gonna let the computer generate random garbage for me? What next should I have a computer that eats my dinner and fucks my wife?

Frankly some of you should be hornier over weirder shit. The fear of being too genuine is the enemy of art. Be a bit of a pervert. It's good for the health. Doesn't have to be a sexual thing just own up to being a bit obsessed in some cringe shit it's fine.

Caves are weirder and more varied than you think