Certain people are convinced that I am either a slightly butch lesbian or a slightly effeminate gay man in a womans body.

 

koistyjayne:

Here’s some clips of Craig Ferguson laughing to brighten your day.

Oh man. I love this dude so much, he’s hilarious. I’m gonna miss this show come the new year.

puckish-thoughts:

THERE IT IS AGAIN!  THERE IT FUCKING IS!  i’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS PHOTO FOR YEARS AND NEVER COULD FIND IT!!  THE LAN PARTY WITH THE GUY DUCT-TAPED TO THE CEILING!!  BACK IN ANCIENT TIMES WHEN PEOPLE STILL USED CATHODE MONITORS AND WHEN COUNTERSTRIKE WAS THE NEW THING.  THIS SHIT IS REAL.  THIS IS REAL SHIT.  SHIT THAT HAPPENED.

puckish-thoughts:

THERE IT IS AGAIN!  THERE IT FUCKING IS!  i’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS PHOTO FOR YEARS AND NEVER COULD FIND IT!!  THE LAN PARTY WITH THE GUY DUCT-TAPED TO THE CEILING!!  BACK IN ANCIENT TIMES WHEN PEOPLE STILL USED CATHODE MONITORS AND WHEN COUNTERSTRIKE WAS THE NEW THING.  THIS SHIT IS REAL.  THIS IS REAL SHIT.  SHIT THAT HAPPENED.

(Source: unregistered-hypercam2)

Anonymous asked
The doctor will never be a woman. There are plenty of women in the show that are admirable role models. I think you're just full ofsh it. Stop pushing your american views onto Doctor Who, a BRITISH show, with BRITISH values. It's unbelievable how obnoxious and hypocritical feminists are, especially you third-wave feminists. Always spouting "equal rights" but, "Can't hit me, cause I'm a girl!" You probably won't respond to this because you know I'm right and the whovianfeminism stance is weak.

markdoesstuff:

whovianfeminism:

This was so beautiful that I had to put it up on my wall and examine it as if it were an exquisite piece of art. 

image

"Manpain" by Anonymous

Above we have a quintessential example of early 21st Century prose by an aggrieved man. The author of this piece is unknown, but we can surmise by his inability to properly say “shit” to a woman and his assurance that he likes “admirable” female characters that he is most likely a “Nice Guy.”

The anonymous author employs deliberate obtuseness in order to provoke a reaction from his audience. Notice how he pretends no British individual supports the idea of a woman portraying the Doctor, despite clear evidence to the contrary, even amongst actors who have portrayed the titular character on the show. Then there is the stunning self-centeredness regarding his perception of third wave feminism; he is only interested in equality it grants him the “right” to hit the women whose arguments make him so incoherently angry that he is unable to rationally reply.

His final challenge attempts to trap the reader. Do we respond and grant him the audience and validation he so desperately seeks, or do we ignore him and let him believe he has won? But perhaps we have a third option: to turn the focus back on him and examine how his comments display his deep insecurity in his own sense of masculinity, something he feels can only be reclaimed by challenging a girl on the internet to a fight and preemptively declaring victory because he fears he cannot engage with her on an intellectual level.

a work of goddamn art oh my god

coffeecatsandcigarettes:

haveabowlofwhore:

don’t ever let this die

i just watched this 20 times in a row..

(Source: weloveshortvideos.com)

popgeometry:

Carmen San Diego - Day 26 of 100 days of pop culture portraits by Alan D. 
PRNTS

popgeometry:

Carmen San Diego - Day 26 of 100 days of pop culture portraits by Alan D

PRNTS

mikerugnetta:

This is a photo of Gaza posted with this tweet which I saw after someone I follow RT’d it. I haven’t fact checked anything about this photo. If it is in fact Gaza, the timing of it, nothing. Given what I know of the conflict and what has been reported on the news the above depiction is believable. Believability is not truth, it just resembles it. This image might be a fake. I have a feeling it is not.
The thing with this photo I find the most curious is its color. The Before image is much more saturated than the After. The sky is more blue, the red buildings are more red. The After image is toned down. The sheer destruction has something to do with this. Colorful architecture and plant life is obscured or obliterated. But certain buildings, the sky and objects clearly visible in both photos do appear less saturated in the After photo. Seems like less red and blue saturation but someone with a better eye for this kind of thing should correct me.
I don’t posses nearly the expertise to say why this might be. Perhaps it’s on purpose or perhaps it is not. These images were necessarily shot at two different times so maybe the difference in daylight, camera, lens or a dozen other factors contribute to the difference in color. Either way I think it’s noteworthy because of the association of vibrance of color with vibrance of life. In the after photo it is as if the life has been drained from the city itself and in a significantly less metaphorical sense that is exactly true.

I’ve been to places that have been bombed out and dust and ash do cling to buildings somewhat obscuring colours but you’re right, this appears to be more than that. Perhaps this is merely indicative of my own cynicism but I wouldn’t put it past a less than reputable news company to desaturate a photo (or increase saturation on the before photo, or both) in order to make it seem more sad and devastating and align with viewer expectations. People are used to seeing conflict in movies and old black and white historical documentaries, they don’t imagine that a clear sky in a war zone is just as vibrant blue as it is out their front door. It does raise an interesting question about the ethics of doing that though. If a photo doesn’t fully convey the emotional reality then is it okay for them to slightly enhance it so that it does? If it’s not okay with computer software like photoshop then what about with camera lens filters et al. which essentially do the same thing before the light hits the sensor and the “actual” image is taken?I also find it interesting that we do, as you said, associate “vibrance of color with vibrance of life” considering that in nature super vibrant often also means super poisonous/venomous/run-away-ous. I understand the lack of colour being correlated with death and decay but (at least on initial inquiry) I would have thought moderation of colour to be the most life affirming. Of course that sort of pre-assumes that our preference for colours is mostly genetic which is probably ascribing it too much credit however it’s still a curious question as is the whole nature-nurture balance in, well, pretty much any human behaviour topic.
I’ve so many questions, and probably too much caffeine.

mikerugnetta:

This is a photo of Gaza posted with this tweet which I saw after someone I follow RT’d it. I haven’t fact checked anything about this photo. If it is in fact Gaza, the timing of it, nothing. Given what I know of the conflict and what has been reported on the news the above depiction is believable. Believability is not truth, it just resembles it. This image might be a fake. I have a feeling it is not.

The thing with this photo I find the most curious is its color. The Before image is much more saturated than the After. The sky is more blue, the red buildings are more red. The After image is toned down. The sheer destruction has something to do with this. Colorful architecture and plant life is obscured or obliterated. But certain buildings, the sky and objects clearly visible in both photos do appear less saturated in the After photo. Seems like less red and blue saturation but someone with a better eye for this kind of thing should correct me.

I don’t posses nearly the expertise to say why this might be. Perhaps it’s on purpose or perhaps it is not. These images were necessarily shot at two different times so maybe the difference in daylight, camera, lens or a dozen other factors contribute to the difference in color. Either way I think it’s noteworthy because of the association of vibrance of color with vibrance of life. In the after photo it is as if the life has been drained from the city itself and in a significantly less metaphorical sense that is exactly true.

I’ve been to places that have been bombed out and dust and ash do cling to buildings somewhat obscuring colours but you’re right, this appears to be more than that. Perhaps this is merely indicative of my own cynicism but I wouldn’t put it past a less than reputable news company to desaturate a photo (or increase saturation on the before photo, or both) in order to make it seem more sad and devastating and align with viewer expectations. People are used to seeing conflict in movies and old black and white historical documentaries, they don’t imagine that a clear sky in a war zone is just as vibrant blue as it is out their front door. It does raise an interesting question about the ethics of doing that though. If a photo doesn’t fully convey the emotional reality then is it okay for them to slightly enhance it so that it does? If it’s not okay with computer software like photoshop then what about with camera lens filters et al. which essentially do the same thing before the light hits the sensor and the “actual” image is taken?

I also find it interesting that we do, as you said, associate “vibrance of color with vibrance of life” considering that in nature super vibrant often also means super poisonous/venomous/run-away-ous. I understand the lack of colour being correlated with death and decay but (at least on initial inquiry) I would have thought moderation of colour to be the most life affirming. Of course that sort of pre-assumes that our preference for colours is mostly genetic which is probably ascribing it too much credit however it’s still a curious question as is the whole nature-nurture balance in, well, pretty much any human behaviour topic.

I’ve so many questions, and probably too much caffeine.