we not surviving ep 9

in the WHOLE franchise?????

they leave us on a cliffhanger, leave us hanging on the cliff for a week and go “btw its gonna hurt your ass a lot when you fall down” okay mr Muto

Lovers in hell

Being an adult is weird.

No More Blues MV

omg i’m gonna cry

There’s currently 4 other people in my office today!! 🙃

TOMORROW TOMORROW TOMORROW TOMORROW AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Dear Journal,

It's been several months now. I'm halfway through my pregnancy, and we now know we're having a boy. I haven't told Mireya, but I've been spending more time with her so maybe it won't be such a harsh blow to have a brother instead of a sister.

I'm still having a hard time. School has been extra rough since I got pregnant, and even my professors have noticed my work hasn't been as good as it once was.

I pretend it's senioritis. But I know the truth.

The truth is just that I'm not ready to be a mother of three small children. Sure, Mireya and Tomás will be starting elementary school soon and then we'll only have the littlest one at home, but that doesn't make it feel easier.

Jax has been a lifesaver through the process. He's taking care of most of the stressful aspects of moving and planning for a new baby, because he can see that I'm struggling. I am so frustrated at feeling this way, but I can't shake it. I know I'll love this baby as much as my other babies, but right now it's just hard.

Daily Haikuku, no. 344

When you and she can finally be together, what happens to me?

--haikuku

Yes yes I’ll forever be a Nanami simp but…

I can’t believe this finally happened!!! Saw him in the manga, read the stuff written on him here (yes I admit it /lh) , and now… we’ll get to hear him and see him animated oh my god.

i've been seeing a revival of the lorax lately and i know it's mostly ironic, but the fact that i'm also seeing people on instagram start to simp for the onceler just set me back a decade

❤️🥹

Hear me out. Arguing that singular “they” has been used as a gender neutral pronoun forever is buying into the premise that human patterns of behavior have to not have changed to be legitimate. It’s kind of like how conservatives are just as happy to call us “progressives” as we are? Because in their mind there was a proper way of doing things in the past that we are straying from. The linguistics never mattered. They didn’t say incorrect things and that made them queerphobic, they were queerphobic and found incorrect things to say. Anyway, I’d like to actually address the linguistics now if that’s okay, because now that you know *they’re* wrong regardless of the facts, I can say that *we* don’t have the facts. Hear me out. A conservative could argue “‘they’ was gender-not-specified, not ‘nonspecific,’ it always referred to ‘someone of either of two genders,’” and they wouldn’t be wrong that humans always fell into one of two grammatical genders, BUT IT IS CONSERVATIVE PROJECTION that those two grammatical genders narrowly corresponded to two specific gender identities. Gender neutrality in Greek and Latin isn’t the third gender called “neutral” because people are always one of two genders, so despite already having a grammatical neutral, gender nonconformity (which we can easily observe) was described in-pronoun rather than out, so masculine was not specified AND non-specific. That’s why latinx was a white thing, Spanish-speakers didn’t need “enlightened” anglophones to dictate to them what was gender-sensitive in their language, as if they had never considered queerness linguistically. That’s kind of the problem with saying history is a bunch of old white guys. Whiteness as it exists now was invented LAST CENTURY. Our system of classification that makes historical figures or even entire populations “white” or “non-white” is a frankly irrelevant projection ethnographically. It’s like sorting fish species by color, it’s irrelevant cladistically. We do not have LGBTQIA+ patterns of human behavior because we have a more tolerant benevolent society than ever before. That is a Western-centric idea of progress that happens to put a lot of non-whites lower on the trajectory, which looks suspiciously like the hierarchy that conservatives wanted anyway. We need to consider the possibility, actually, that we had a uniquely INTOLERANT society very recently and history is in fact quite tolerant. Just because the mechanical minutiae were different doesn’t mean that human patterns of behavior are so significantly different now than they have been before. Our ancestors weren’t unenlightened rubes who thought there were only two genders. One country of “White people” had radically puritanical ideas and the past three centuries have been the story of its rising hegemony as it exports those ideas not just into the current global populace, but onto the past as well. The entire premise has to be rejected that history is conservative and that queerness is progressive. Queerness is human, their cisheteronormative projection onto human history is a denial of humanity that we shouldn’t buy into in the process of denying it. We have to accept the possibility that the method of expressing ourselves may be new and unique to our culture and constitute a definite *change*, but it would be unfair to deny our ancestors the same breadth of expression we have. In other words, we can be idiosyncratic without the past being worse for not matching us.

CRITICAL HAYLEY WILLIAMS VIDEO INCOMING

Day 1 of moving, wish me luck!

The impossible task of picking my 10 favorite albums of 2022 is upon me.

Send prayers