Pulled
Pulled

Pulled

Questionable
Questionable

Questionable

Greek Question Mark
Greek Question Mark

Greek Question Mark

Math Teacher
Math Teacher

Math Teacher

Errors
Errors

Errors

watching
 watching

watching

pulling
 pulling

pulling

i cant
 i cant

i cant

greeks
greeks

greeks

there
there

there

🔥 | Latest

Question Marks: DISABLED BODIES ARE NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY DON'T TOUCH THEM WITHOUT PERMISSION MOBILITY AIDS ARE NORMAL DISABLED PEOPLE HAVE RIGHT TO PRIVACY STOP YOUR CURIOSITY RESPECT DISABLED PEOPLE DON'T ASK INVASIVE QUESTIONS DON'T STARE SUPPORT DISABLED PEOPLE eCUTIEPATOODIEART minsugapuff: cutiepatoodieart: ♿reminders ♿ ID: nine pastel pink panels with brown-ish lineart illustrations and text in a thin font below each of them [first row]First panel: illustration of a cane with three flowers on itText: MOBILITY AIDS ARE NORMAL Second panel: illustration of three flowers with three leaves sticking outText: DISABLED BODIES ARE NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY Third panel: illustration of a palm with an X symbolText: DON’T TOUCH THEM WITHOUT PERMISSION [second row]First panel: illustration of a brain with two flowers and a bold question markText: STOP YOUR CURIOSITY Second panel: illustration of a disabled person symbol with a standing person symbol next to itText: RESPECT DISABLED PEOPLE Third panel: illustration of a lock surrounded by flowersText: DISABLED PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY [last,third row]First panel: illustration of three bold question marksText: DON’T ASK INTRUSIVE QUESTIONS Second panel: illustration of an open eyeText: DON’T STARE Third, last panel: illustration of two hands shaking each other with three flowers on themText: SUPPORT DISABLED PEOPLE
Question Marks: DISABLED BODIES ARE NOT
 PUBLIC PROPERTY
 DON'T TOUCH THEM WITHOUT
 PERMISSION
 MOBILITY AIDS ARE NORMAL
 DISABLED PEOPLE HAVE
 RIGHT TO PRIVACY
 STOP YOUR CURIOSITY
 RESPECT DISABLED PEOPLE
 DON'T ASK INVASIVE QUESTIONS
 DON'T STARE
 SUPPORT DISABLED PEOPLE
 eCUTIEPATOODIEART
minsugapuff:

cutiepatoodieart:
♿reminders ♿
ID: nine pastel pink panels with brown-ish lineart illustrations and text in a thin font below each of them
[first row]First panel: illustration of a cane with three flowers on itText: MOBILITY AIDS ARE NORMAL
Second panel: illustration of three flowers with three leaves sticking outText: DISABLED BODIES ARE NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY
Third panel: illustration of a palm with an X symbolText: DON’T TOUCH THEM WITHOUT PERMISSION
[second row]First panel: illustration of a brain with two flowers and a bold question markText: STOP YOUR CURIOSITY
Second panel: illustration of a disabled person symbol with a standing person symbol next to itText: RESPECT DISABLED PEOPLE
Third panel: illustration of a lock surrounded by flowersText: DISABLED PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY
[last,third row]First panel: illustration of three bold question marksText: DON’T ASK INTRUSIVE QUESTIONS
Second panel: illustration of an open eyeText: DON’T STARE
Third, last panel: illustration of two hands shaking each other with three flowers on themText: SUPPORT DISABLED PEOPLE

minsugapuff: cutiepatoodieart: ♿reminders ♿ ID: nine pastel pink panels with brown-ish lineart illustrations and text in a thin font bel...

Question Marks: flamethrowing-hurdy-gurdy: flamethrowing-hurdy-gurdy I have had this on my mind for days, someone please help: I mean, how do we see a pug and then a husky and understand that both are dogs? I'm pretty sure I've never seen a picture of a breed of dog I hadn't seen before and wondered what animal it Do you want the Big Answer or the Small Answers cos I have a feeling this is about to get intense Oooh okay are YOU gonna answer this, hang on I need to get some snacks and make sure the phone is off The short answer is "because they're statistically unlikely to be anything else The long question is "given the extreme diversity of morphology in dogs, with many subsets of dogs' bearing no visual resemblance to each other, how am 1 able to intuit that they belong to the 'dog set just by The reason that this is a Good Big Question is because we are broadly used to categorising Things as related based on resemblances. Then everyoneI have Fun Facts like "elephants are ACTUALLY closely related to rock hyraxes!! Even though they look nothing alike!!" e realized abou t genes and evolution and so on, and so now we These Fun Facts are appealing because they're not intuitive. So why is dog-sorting intuitive? Well, because if you eliminate all the other possibilities, most dogs are dogs. To process Things- whether animals, words, situations or experiences our brains categorise the most important things about them, and then compare these to our memory banks. If we've experienced the same thing before- whether first-hand or through a story then we know what's happening, and we proceed accordingly If the New Thing is completely New, then t question marks, shunts into a different track, counts up all the Similar Traits, and assigns it a provisional category based on its similarity to other Things. We then experience the Thing, exploring it further, and he brain pings up a Our brain t categorises the New based on the knowledge and traits. That is how humans experience the universe. We do our best, and we generally do it well. This is the basis of stereotyping. It behaviours (racism), some of our most challenging problems (trauma), helps us survive (stories) and sharing the ability with things that dont have it leads to some of our most whimsical creations (artificial In fact, one reason that humans are so wonderfully successful is that we can effectively gain knowledge from experiences without having experienced them personally! You dont have to eat all the berries to find the poisonous ones. You can just remember stories and descriptions of berries, and compare those to the ones you've just discovered. You can benefit from memorics that aren't your own! On the other hand, if you had a terribly traumatic experience involving say, an eagle, then your brain will try to protect you in every way possible from a similar experience. If you collect too many traumatic experiences with eagles, then your brain will not enjoy eagle-shapecd New Things. In fact, if New Things match up to too many cagle-like noise!! 。The hot Glare of the Yellow Eye CLAWS VERY BAD VERY BAD Then the brain may shunt the train of thought back into trauma, and the person will actually experience the New Thing as trauma. Even if the New Thing was something apparently unrelated, like being generally pointy, or having a hot glare. (This is an overly simplistic explanation of how triggers work, but it's the one most accessible to people.) So the answer rests in how we categorise dogs, and what "dog" means to humans. Human brains associate dogs with universal categories, such efour legs Mcat Eater e Soft friend An BORK BORK Anything we have previously experienced and learned as A Dog gets added to the memory bank. Sometimes it brings new categories along with it. So a lifetime's experience results in excellent dog-intuition And anything we experience with, say, a 90% match is officially a Dog. Brains are super good at eliminating things, too. So while the concept of physical doggo-ness is pretty nebulous, and has to include greyhounds and Pekingese and mastiffs, we know that even if an animal LOOKS like a bear, if the other categories don't match up in context (bears are not usually soft friends, they don't Bork Bork, they don't have long tails to wag) then it is statistically more likely to be a Doggo. If it occupies a dog-shaped space then it is usually a dog. So if you see someone dragging a fluffy whatnot along on a string, you will go, Mop? (Unlikely-seems to be self propelled.) ° Alien? (Unlikely-no real alien ever experienced.) Threat? (Vastly unlikely in context.) Rabbit? (No. Rabbits hop, and this appears to scurry.) (Brains are very keen on categorising movement patterns. This is why lurching zombies and bad CGl are so uncomfortable to experience, brains just go INCORRECT!! That is WRONG!" Without consciously knowing why. Anyway, very few animals move like domestic dogs!) Very fluffy cat? (Maybe-but not quite. Shares many characteristics, though!) Eldritch horror? (No, it is obviously a soft friend of unknown type) Robotic toy? (Unlikely too complex and convincing.) animal detected!!! Thi s is a good animal!! This is pleasing!! It may be appropriate to laugh at this animal, because we have just realized that it is probably a DOG!! Soft friend, alive, walks on leash. It had a low doggo-ness quotient! and a confusing Snout, but it is NOT those other Known Things, and it occupies a dog-shaped space! Hahahaha!!! It is extra funny and appealing, because it made us guess!! We love playing that game * PING! NEW CATEGORIES ADDED TO "Doggo set mopness, floof. Snout. And that's why most dogs are dogs. You're so good at identifying dog shaped spaces that they can't be anything else! The science of identifying Good Boys
Question Marks: flamethrowing-hurdy-gurdy:
 flamethrowing-hurdy-gurdy
 I have had this on my mind for days, someone please help:
 I mean, how do we see a pug and then a husky and understand
 that both are dogs? I'm pretty sure I've never seen a picture of a
 breed of dog I hadn't seen before and wondered what animal it
 Do you want the Big Answer or the Small Answers cos I have a
 feeling this is about to get intense
 Oooh okay are YOU gonna answer this, hang on I need to get some
 snacks and make sure the phone is off
 The short answer is "because they're statistically unlikely to be anything
 else
 The long question is "given the extreme diversity of morphology in
 dogs, with many subsets of dogs' bearing no visual resemblance to each
 other, how am 1 able to intuit that they belong to the 'dog set just by
 The reason that this is a Good Big Question is because we are broadly
 used to categorising Things as related based on resemblances. Then
 everyoneI
 have Fun Facts like "elephants are ACTUALLY closely related to rock
 hyraxes!! Even though they look nothing alike!!"
 e realized abou
 t genes and evolution and so on, and so now we
 These Fun Facts are appealing because they're not intuitive.
 So why is dog-sorting intuitive?
 Well, because if you eliminate all the other possibilities, most dogs are
 dogs.
 To process Things- whether animals, words, situations or experiences
 our brains categorise the most important things about them, and then
 compare these to our memory banks. If we've experienced the same
 thing before- whether first-hand or through a story then we know
 what's happening, and we proceed accordingly
 If the New Thing is completely New, then t
 question marks, shunts into a different track, counts up all the Similar
 Traits, and assigns it a provisional category based on its similarity to
 other Things. We then experience the Thing, exploring it further, and
 he brain pings up a
 Our brain t
 categorises the New
 based on the knowledge and traits. That is how humans experience the
 universe. We do our best, and we generally do it well.
 This is the basis of stereotyping. It
 behaviours (racism), some of our most challenging problems (trauma),
 helps us survive (stories) and sharing the ability with things that dont
 have it leads to some of our most whimsical creations (artificial
 In fact, one reason that humans are so wonderfully successful is that we
 can effectively gain knowledge from experiences without having
 experienced them personally! You dont have to eat all the berries to
 find the poisonous ones. You can just remember stories and
 descriptions of berries, and compare those to the ones you've just
 discovered. You can benefit from memorics that aren't your
 own!
 On the other hand, if you had a terribly traumatic experience involving
 say, an eagle, then your brain will try to protect you in every way
 possible from a similar experience. If you collect too many traumatic
 experiences with eagles, then your brain will not enjoy eagle-shapecd
 New Things. In fact, if New Things match up to too many cagle-like
 noise!!
 。The hot Glare of the Yellow Eye
 CLAWS VERY BAD VERY BAD
 Then the brain may shunt the train of thought back into trauma, and
 the person will actually experience the New Thing as trauma. Even if
 the New Thing was something apparently unrelated, like being
 generally pointy, or having a hot glare. (This is an overly simplistic
 explanation of how triggers work, but it's the one most accessible to
 people.)
 So the answer rests in how we categorise dogs, and what "dog" means to
 humans. Human brains associate dogs with universal categories, such
 efour legs
 Mcat Eater
 e Soft friend
 An
 BORK BORK
 Anything we have previously experienced and learned as A Dog gets
 added to the memory bank. Sometimes it brings new categories along
 with it. So a lifetime's experience results in excellent dog-intuition
 And anything we experience with, say, a 90% match is officially a Dog.
 Brains are super good at eliminating things, too. So while the concept
 of physical doggo-ness is pretty nebulous, and has to include
 greyhounds and Pekingese and mastiffs, we know that even if an animal
 LOOKS like a bear, if the other categories don't match up in context
 (bears are not usually soft friends, they don't Bork Bork, they don't have
 long tails to wag) then it is statistically more likely to be a Doggo. If it
 occupies a dog-shaped space then it is usually a dog.
 So if you see someone dragging a fluffy whatnot along on a string, you
 will go,
 Mop? (Unlikely-seems to be self propelled.)
 ° Alien? (Unlikely-no real alien ever experienced.)
 Threat? (Vastly unlikely in context.)
 Rabbit? (No. Rabbits hop, and this appears to scurry.) (Brains are very
 keen on categorising movement patterns. This is why lurching zombies
 and bad CGl are so uncomfortable to experience, brains just go
 INCORRECT!! That is WRONG!" Without consciously knowing why.
 Anyway, very few animals move like domestic dogs!)
 Very fluffy cat? (Maybe-but not quite. Shares many characteristics,
 though!)
 Eldritch horror? (No, it is obviously a soft friend of unknown type)
 Robotic toy? (Unlikely too complex and convincing.)
 animal detected!!! Thi
 s is a good animal!! This is
 pleasing!! It may be appropriate to laugh at this animal, because we have
 just realized that it is probably a
 DOG!! Soft friend, alive, walks on leash. It had a low doggo-ness
 quotient! and a confusing Snout, but it is NOT those other Known
 Things, and it occupies a dog-shaped space!
 Hahahaha!!! It is extra funny and appealing, because it made us
 guess!! We love playing that game
 * PING! NEW CATEGORIES ADDED TO "Doggo set mopness, floof.
 Snout.
 And that's why most dogs are dogs. You're so good at identifying dog
 shaped spaces that they can't be anything else!
The science of identifying Good Boys

The science of identifying Good Boys

Question Marks: MONTREAL CANADIENS Current Lineup Pacioretty - Danault - Gallagher Drouin - Galchenyuk - Hemsky Lehkonen Plekanec - Shaw Byron- Holland - Mitchell Alzner - Weber Benn-Petry Davidson - Schlemko Price - Montoya B: Martinsen, Morrow OISCUSSION NHLDISCUSSION Looking at the Montreal Canadiens current lineup brings up a ton of question marks. Aside from Carey Price, this team is no where near a Stanley Cup Contender, and perhaps they aren't even a playoff team. Perhaps not even a playoff team with Price on top of his game. Despite acquiring Drouin, their offence looks depleted after losing Radulov. Should someone in their top six get injured (don't bet against Gallagher...), that would bring Andrew Shaw into the top six. This team will not be able to score. Their centermen are still unimproved. How can you make the playoffs with Phillip Danault as your number one center!?! Radulov won't be able to pick up that top line as he did last year, so Phillip's weaknesses will no longer be sheltered. And then there's their defence. OH... Their defense... They are slow. They are sluggish. They are old. They are defensive minded, which will help take some of the pressure off Price, but won't help kick start offence. It's pretty obvious this team does not look very good on paper. Luckily the Canadiens still have $14 Million in cap space to shore up some holes, but why hasn't that been done yet...? HAS THE MONTREAL CANADIENS STANLEY CUP WINDOW CLOSED? Canadiens Montreal NHLDiscussion
Question Marks: MONTREAL CANADIENS
 Current Lineup
 Pacioretty - Danault - Gallagher
 Drouin - Galchenyuk - Hemsky
 Lehkonen Plekanec - Shaw
 Byron- Holland - Mitchell
 Alzner - Weber
 Benn-Petry
 Davidson - Schlemko
 Price - Montoya
 B: Martinsen, Morrow
 OISCUSSION
 NHLDISCUSSION
Looking at the Montreal Canadiens current lineup brings up a ton of question marks. Aside from Carey Price, this team is no where near a Stanley Cup Contender, and perhaps they aren't even a playoff team. Perhaps not even a playoff team with Price on top of his game. Despite acquiring Drouin, their offence looks depleted after losing Radulov. Should someone in their top six get injured (don't bet against Gallagher...), that would bring Andrew Shaw into the top six. This team will not be able to score. Their centermen are still unimproved. How can you make the playoffs with Phillip Danault as your number one center!?! Radulov won't be able to pick up that top line as he did last year, so Phillip's weaknesses will no longer be sheltered. And then there's their defence. OH... Their defense... They are slow. They are sluggish. They are old. They are defensive minded, which will help take some of the pressure off Price, but won't help kick start offence. It's pretty obvious this team does not look very good on paper. Luckily the Canadiens still have $14 Million in cap space to shore up some holes, but why hasn't that been done yet...? HAS THE MONTREAL CANADIENS STANLEY CUP WINDOW CLOSED? Canadiens Montreal NHLDiscussion

Looking at the Montreal Canadiens current lineup brings up a ton of question marks. Aside from Carey Price, this team is no where near a...