Avatar

The life and times of a legal adult

@aspiringwarriorlibrarian / aspiringwarriorlibrarian.tumblr.com

Multifandom but mainly RWBY, some writing, some essays pretty pictures, lots of love, and the occasional fanfic. She/her, username is the same on dreamwidth and discord. Will tag anything if you ask. Enjoy!
Anonymous asked:

Shame that animated shows don't really do songs anymore outside of a designated musical episode, those were really memorable.

It takes up a lot of time so you have to justify it to the network.

Avatar

no one tells you this when youre a kid but balconies are a liminal space more than any ai generated fakeplace with twilight movie filter and yellow tiles in it lol. youre somewhere between the ground and the firmament youre inside your house but outside of it you hear whats going on both in your house and the street you walked through a window and you didnt fall. europe did two things right and balconies came a close third

Avatar

balconies love and light peace on planet earth !!

Avatar

bitches say with their whole chest that self-diagnosing complex mental illnesses without the proper research or understanding is harmful to sufferers of said mental illnesses and ultimately does more harm than good, and then those same bitches will jump at the chance to slap the label ‘narcissist’ and ‘sociopath’ on people they Do Not Like.

Avatar

Nicknames: when you shorten someone’s name affectionately

Nicholasnames: when you elongate someone’s name affectionately

Kinda boring fact that I nevertheless think is interesting time! The word nickname doesn't actually have anything to do with the name nick/Nicholas. It actually comes from a middle English phrase " an eke nom" which meant "other name"

I haven’t been able to get the full video but we just celebrated one of our steam locomotives turning 145 by chucking a chocolate cake into her firebox

Since I keep forgetting, I wanted to remind you:

Getting worse isn’t a character fault, and it isn’t a failure on your end.

Your disabled/chronically ill body is not your fault. You didn’t decide that this would be the best way to live, you didn’t choose to become disabled; you didn’t choose to be born into a disabled body.

Getting worse isn’t a personal failure. Your body is trying its best with what it has, and it getting worse doesn’t reflect your character.

It’s not your fault that this is the body you have, but it’s not your body’s fault, either— even if you have a disease/condition that is turning itself onto your body to attack it, it isn’t your body’s fault. Its working with what is has, even if it seems like it’s against you all the time. Trust me, I know how it is.

It’s hard to not hate something that hurts you, but keeping recognition that it’s working in the only way it knows how is important.

Be kind to you, and to your body.

Salaries in the 1890s

aka just how poor are Jonathan and Mina, anyway?

My best guess is that Jonathan earns in the range of £150 to £200. (I’ve upped this estimate since I had a guess previously - so I might still be wrong). A junior clerk earned around £20-25; a senior clerk up to £100. A solicitor on a good salary earned £500-£1,000, but Victorian professional salaries usually started low, and then had large pay rises – as much as £20 per year.

Meanwhile Mina earns £75-£80 as a teacher. But when they get married, they’ll be living solely off Jonathan’s salaries – only unmarried women are allowed to be teachers.

So are they poor? Definitely a lot poorer than their friends. Arthur Holmwood is upper-class, with an income of at least £5,000 but his father’s income might be as much as £150,000. An income of £150 would make Jonathan only just middle-class.

But… the average male salary in the 1890s was £56; for all workers, it was £42/14/- . A servant might earn as little as £10 per year, though they’d get food and accommodation.

So why, when Jonathan is probably earning three times the average salary, does Mina say, “Jonathan and I will start in life in a very simple way, and shall have to try to make both ends meet”?

I think the main reason is because £150 is the absolute minimum threshold in the 1890s for employing a full-time servant – even at £200 it’s a stretch.

When Agatha Christie looked back on her life in the early 20th century, she wrote:

“Looking back, it seems to me extraordinary that we should have contemplated having both a nurse and a servant. But they were considered essentials of life in those days, and were the last things we would have thought of dispensing with. To have committed the extravagance of a car, for instance, would never have entered our minds. Only the rich had cars.”

And that was written about 1919, when wages were higher and cars cheaper. Jonathan and Mina would struggle to afford one servant; they definitely can’t afford two.

The fun thing about this is that for any Victorian reader, the obvious solution is just to wait a few years before marrying – Jonathan’s pay will increase, Mina can keep earning.

They love each other too much to do that though <3

I went into dracula daily knowing almost nothing abt dracula and I absolutely could not have predicted a single thing that's happened so far. canon wife guy jonathan harker goes on a quick business trip and gets homoerotically kidnapped by an eccentric teaboo who is also pretending to be his own servants when jonathan isn't looking. meanwhile his fiancée's bestie has been proposed to by three different men, including a 1897 podcaster and a cowboy. dracula steals jonathan credit card and starts wearing his clothes around town, then boards a ship and eats the entire crew before realizing he doesn't know how to drive. the anime boy hasn't even shown up yet.

People on twitter are saying glasses aren’t a disability aid, and like… I get glasses have been pretty normalized, but I’m poor and need my glasses to drive/see in general/stop myself from getting migraines so… if my glasses break, I’m pretty fucked. Not being able to see is a disability for many, actually.

People don't seem to understand that there's more symptoms to vision loss than just "blurry vision".

Without my glasses, aside from not being able to legally drive, I get horrible migraines because of the strain put on my eyes.

Headaches and migraines go hand-in-hand with vision loss.

Hell, even when I'm wearing my glasses, if one eye's vision gets even slightly worse, the migraines are back because the eyestrain is back.

And at least in the US, vision care isn't covered by regular health insurance. (Which is ridiculous, of course, but hey, that's the world we live in)

There have been numerous studies that show that students in low-income school districts struggle academically because of their unmet vision needs. And almost as soon as these students are provided with the vision care they need, their academic performance improves.

Yes, glasses are one of the most destigmatized disability aid, but that doesn't mean they're any less of a disability aid, and that doesn't mean that poor vision is any less of a disability.

And hell, there's still stigma around glasses. How many TV shows and movies show the nerdy, unpopular, ugly character suddenly become more "improved" when they remove their glasses? How many TV shows and movies make fun of glasses-wearers, especially their panic when they lose their glasses? How many glasses-wearers are depicted as socially-awkward, ugly, old, and unpopular? The only characters who wear glasses usually are unpopular nerds, elderly people, and nagging secretaries! There's still a hell of a lot of stigma around glasses, and just because they're very common, doesn't mean there still isn't soooo much stigma that needs to be worked on.

no but the same way that phones and laptops are guilty of scheduled obsolescence, entertainment conglomerates, and to some extent even regular writers just trying to ‘make it big’, are treating stories as though they’re meant to have a built-in expiration date. it’s the obsession with plot twists that ultimately mean nothing, it’s shock for shock’s sake, it’s the way spoilers are treated as inherently experience-ruining. stories are written for the first viewing and the first viewing only, because after you’ve seen something once, why would you want to see it again? so it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t hold up on a second viewing or if the entire plot is ruined if you go into it knowing a single detail. you’re only going to care once, aren’t you?

but like. is that really true? is it really true that an experience with a piece of art is only worth having once? is it really not worth it to create something that will be loved enough that its lovers come back to it? that’s so much

Avatar

It is where I live, and it's a big city.

we need to be loud about this, have an environmental protest. something, anything. we’re ruining our planet. i want to do something but i don’t know where to start

word. there should have been alternatives for us all along.

i've been cleaning out bookshelves and due to me not doing this nearly often enough i still have a number of my parents books in my room, which i would speculate they have not looked at in decades.

today i found an extremely obvious star wars ripoff published in 1991 and the blurb nearly killed me

That blurb is doing some really good dodging because the actual plot is that “young Starfire” is the king’s nephew trying to reinstate the Empire and the theocracy after it was overthrown by a revolution and democracy was established, which is bad because Royals Are Special.

In Star Wars space travel feels extremely old but in Star Trek it still feels new.

In Star Wars basic space travel is boats and in Star Trek it’s airplanes I guess is what I’m saying.

In Star Wars very smart 4 year olds know how hovercraft work. In Star Trek you still need a person with at least 6 years of graduate school to fix a loose wire.

In Star Wars, humanity has seen and settled in the entire galaxy.

In Star Trek, they've seen about 10% of it.

You’re feeding my Star Trek takes place 10,000 years before Star Wars crackpot theory

Anonymous asked:

The argument I was trying to make was that in volume 6 Illia said that their actions at haven “already won people over” meaning the racists within the kingdom where less racist as a result of saving haven, obviously they weren’t doing it for that reason but that’s still what apparently happened. It still should have been done but the. To say that racism was being combatted as a result kinda ruins it for me. And I misunderstood as I thought you said the refugees would be moved to managerie

I mean, I get that and why it wasn't received well, but frankly the storyline with the Faunus was never going to satisfy everyone. There are far too many who see converting someone to your side as somehow betraying the cause and far too few who are willing to do the difficult, thankless work of it. It's true that "racists reform" plotlines are often poorly made and put the burden on marginalized people to redeem them rather than the racist to redeem themselves, and that it's not fair to ask that of them. But we do need to tell them, and we need to tell the truth about them, which is that it's not an easy or satisfying process.

But the Menagerie going to Vacuo to help out isn't about that. It's about the fact that there are people in need and they are equipped to help them. If some of the helpless refugees decide to be less racist as a result, good for them. But that’s far from the goal here and it never has been.