Avatar

such like raise veluet tearmes

@gothhabiba / gothhabiba.tumblr.com

🪬 Najia. 1995. Victorianist. he / she / they. 🪬
Avatar

sometimes fashion bloggers seem overly dramatic on this app but once you follow enough of them and start getting to see the shit they are constantly embroiled in you realize they are out here fighting for their lives. a lot of them are not just plumbing the vile depths of uncredited Pinterest boards but physically scanning magazines by hand, and half of them are just stealing posts from the other half (not reblogging, outright downloading and reposting) and for absolutely zero material benefit whatsoever. all of them are anonymous so they don't even get clout. they're constantly being undeservedly banned or having posts censored because Tumblr staff doesn't understand the difference between porn and a fashion editorial. they are truly some of the hardest posters on this site. in it purely for the love of the game

Avatar

on the other hand some of them think they should be making a living wage for reblogging images so it's really a diverse peergroup

i mostly agree with u except sometimes these fashion archivists do have names.

“All the girls I’ve been following for years on Tumblr really are the ones who have been pushing the culture forward. People still use screen caps Sharifa (@afirahs) would make from shows like Martin and a Different World from like years ago. Same with all the music videos her and Bri (@brimalandro) posted. Bri and Selina (@surra-de-bunda) both use to scan so much content from old mainly music magazines. I see them pop up all over IG. Zaina (@larrydavid420) has been on every major pop diva’s mood board. Random stylist has been eating from her aesthetics forever now. All of Raevin’s (@sheabutterbitch) Tumblr text posts get stolen regularly by the love and light girls on Twitter…

- Rashida Renee Ward

she’s on tumblr @/evilrashida & would surely appreciate financial compensation for her work

libertarian bdsm enthusiast who doms using nudge theory

"instead of telling my sub to be a good girl im going to use behavioural economics to adjust the choice architecture so that its easier and more convenient to be a good girl"

Anonymous asked:

i have a syndrome where i expect all context in my brain to telepathically beam into my words. your answer was nevertheless very helpful, as i did mean crochet

💞💞💞

Avatar

On April 21, Ali Hussein Julood, a 21-year-old living in the Iraqi town of Rumaila, on the outskirts of one of the world’s largest oil fields, died from leukaemia. He was told by doctors that pollution from gas flared in the nearby field, which is operated by British Petroleum (BP), had likely caused his cancer. “Gas flaring” is a low-cost procedure used by oil companies to burn off the natural gas expelled during drilling. […] [I]t also contributes to global warming […]. Some of the pollutants released during this process, such as benzene, are known to cause cancers and respiratory diseases. Ali, who had been battling cancer for six years when he died, was only the latest victim of the environmental degradation caused by international oil companies like BP in Iraq.

In towns and villages near the country’s vast oil fields, thousands of other men, women and children are still living under smoke-filled skies and suffering avoidable health problems because company executives insist on putting profit before lives. […]

[A] confidential report from the Iraqi health ministry recently obtained by the BBC blamed pollution from gas flaring, among other factors, for a 20 percent rise in cancer in Basra, southern Iraq between 2015 and 2018. A second leaked document, again seen by the BBC, from the local government in Basra showed that cancer cases in the region are three times higher than figures published in the official nationwide cancer registry.

Like many other problems and crises that are devastating the lives of ordinary Iraqis today, the chain of events that led to the poisoning of southern Iraq’s skies by international oil companies also started during colonial times.

In the early 20th century, as its navy transitioned from coal to petrol, Britain found itself in increasing need of oil to run its empire and fuel its numerous war efforts. […] In 1912, Britain formed the Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC) with the purpose of acquiring concessions from the Ottoman Empire to explore for oil in Mesopotamia. Following World War I, it brought modern-day Iraq under its own mandate […]. By 1930, the TPC was renamed the Iraqi Petroleum Company (IPC) and was put under the control of a consortium made up of BP, Total, Shell and several other American companies. Together, they pushed for a series of “concession agreements” with the newly formed Iraqi government which would give them exclusive control of Iraq’s oil resources on pre-defined terms for long periods. By 1938, the IPC and its various subsidiaries had already secured the right to extract and export virtually all the oil in Iraq for 75 years. These concessions were granted to the IPC and its subsidiaries while Iraq was ruled by British-installed monarchs and under de facto British control. Thus the state had almost no negotiating power against the British-led consortium […] In 1955, the Iraqi government started to voice its desire to use the gas being flared in Rumaila and Zubair for electricity generation. In 1960, while negotiating a concession with the IPC, then-Iraqi Prime Minister Abd al-Karim Qasim formally asked the company to let Iraq exploit the gas that it was not using. The same demand came up again and again […], but IPC and its subsidiaries repeatedly turned the Iraqi government down. […]

Following the 2003 invasion, the Iraqi oil industry was once again privatised as a result of pressure from the US and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). As was the case in the early 20th century, any negotiations on oil extraction rights took place when Iraq was still under foreign occupation […]. When the process of auctioning off oil fields in southern Iraq began in 2008, the Iraqi government offered foreign oil companies long contracts of up to 25 years, reminiscent of the early concessions agreements with the IPC. These included stabilisation clauses, which insulated foreign companies from legal changes that might emerge over the course of their contracts. This meant that the companies were, and continue to be, unaffected by any environmental regulations passed by the Iraqi government to reduce pollution […].

Looking back at the development of the oil industry in southern Iraq makes apparent that the kind of pollution that killed Ali has been in the making for some 70 years. His death – like the deaths of many others who succumbed to pollution-related cancers in his country – was not an unavoidable tragedy, but the natural consequence of a long history of colonial violence and extractive capitalism.

Predatory colonial practices that began over a century ago caused southern Iraq’s vast oil reserves to be left under the sole control of foreign companies today – companies that over and over again put profit before the lives of the Iraqi inhabitants of the lands they exploit.

Ali’s death is yet more proof that colonial violence is far from over and that it has many different faces.

Text by: Taif Alkhudary. “Southern Iraq’s toxic skies are a colonial legacy.” Al Jazeera (English). 12 June 2023. [Some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me.]

Avatar

Alright, not to be the world’s most obnoxious asshole yet again, but I’m gonna do it because god knows no one else can be bothered.

This is a failure on the part of the social media manager. The article as you can clearly see in the headline of the link is not talkign about deodorants being fake. People ahve been trying to be less stinky for millenia and that’s not going to stop any time soon.

It’s talking about antiperspirants being a scam.

And that distinction is a big one.

Antiperspirants are Things Which Reduce Your Sweatiness. Not your stink, the water coming out of your skin.

Some people have conditions that cause excessive sweating, and those people definitely do still need antiperspirants (or, IDK, maybe not need?? But if they want them they should have them).

The problem is, the profusion of them has created a situation where wholly normal amounts of sweat are pathologized (treated as an illness that needs to be cured).

And, in a shocking twist that shocks no-one, this pathologization especially targets women (and non-white people of all genders, though the article is about women and not about race).

The social media manager replaced the very specific term antiperspirant in their tweet with the related but not synonymous term “deodorant.”

Which fundamentally undercuts the article’s point, and opens the gate for people to make shit-head comments like “oh so you just think everyone should be stinky huh.”

It’s probably an honest mistake, although not one that anyone who read the article should be making.

But for fucks sakes, if you think women aren’t expected to be magically clean and pure in even the most hard labour situations, I’m going to have to point you to every piece of media over the last century that shows post-apocalyptic men covered in dirt and sweat, and post-apocalyptic women being clean shaven, with styled hair and makeup.

Women are allowed to sweat.

That’s the point of the article. That sweating is a normal human function that women also have.

Amazing how that was twisted into Feminists Want Us To Be Filthy And Smell Bad.

Almost like that’s the exact kind of bullshit the article is talking about or something.

The irony abounds.

Anyway, antiperspirants give me infected cysts on my underarms because of the mechanics of how they work, and deodorants are still good and part of my daily hygiene. Get fucked.

[ID: two tweets. a tweet by Slate reads "deodorants were created to solve a fake problem and thrived thanks to the patriarchy." It links to an article titled "All-Natural Deodorants Are a Scam, but Honestly, Antiperspirants Are a Scam Too." the article image is a stick of tarte's "clean queen" on a pink background with two white arrows pointing to it. second tweet is a reply by "UcKema @ los angeles - DC" reading "Come to an anime convention and you will delete this." this reply has 35 replies, 290 retweets, and 4,404 likes. the "like" heart is read, showing that the person who took the screenshot liked the tweet. end ID]

Anonymous asked:

m[redacted]. najia what do you use to weave in ends on thread projects? i have a darning needle and sewing needles and neither seem sufficient

I’m not sure exactly which fibre crafts you’re referring to—for anything like a knitting or crochet project where you’re using yarn, you’ll want a sharp tapestry needle (of sufficient size for you to put the yarn through its eye). Leave several inches of excess yarn and weave it through (not around—that’s what the sharp tapestry needle helps with that a dull darning needle wouldn’t be able to do) the stitches that make up the body of the project in one direction for a couple inches, then change direction and do the same thing for another couple inches—this will make it harder for the woven-in end to work its way back out and cause your project to unravel. Nimble needles has a really good video on different ways to make the woven-in end as unnoticeable as possible in a lot of different kinds of projects.

If you’re talking about embroidery or sewing, or any knitting or crochet project where you’re using cobweb or other seriously fine yarn, I’d say to use as small a sewing needle as you can get the thread through (to minimise disturbance of the fabric). Do the same as described above for knit or crocheted fabric. For a sewing project, I don’t “weave in” the ends so much as make a knot and bury it—if you look up “how to bury a knot” you should find plenty of explanations!

my gender and sexual identities are in deliberate bad faith, in fact

[ID: reply from warkipinetree reading “I’m telling you my identities because I wish to befuddle and disorient you, or perhaps waste your time”. end ID]

Avatar

After some small-scale demonstrations of ‘direct air capture’ (DAC) technology, which suck CO2 out of the atmosphere by chemical means, the 2022 US Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has devoted $3.5 billion to developing four DAC hubs. But it’s clear to me that deploying them to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is pointless until society has almost completely eliminated its polluting activities.

To understand why, think of CDR [carbon dioxide removal] as a time machine. Take the proposed US DAC hubs, for example. Each facility is eventually expected to extract one million tonnes of CO2 each year.

In 2022, the world emitted 40.5 billion tonnes of CO2 (P. Friedlingstein et al. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14, 4811–4900; 2022). At that rate, for every year of operation at its full potential, each hub would take the atmosphere back in time by almost 13 minutes, but in the time it took to remove those 13 minutes of CO2, the world would have spewed another full year of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Meanwhile, if everyone on Earth planted a tree — 8 billion trees — it would take us back in time by about 43 hours every year, once the trees had matured.

The time-machine analogy reveals just how futile CDR currently is.

We have to shift the narrative as a matter of urgency. Money is going to flood into climate solutions over the next few years, and we need to direct it well. We must stop talking about deploying CDR as a solution today, when emissions remain high — as if it somehow replaces radical, immediate emission cuts.

Carbon dioxide removal is not a current climate solution — we need to change the narrative, David T. Ho, 4/4/2023 in nature ( doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00953-x

An important time to remind people that laws can’t force you to do anything

And only cowardly bootlickers care about meaingless garbage like “the law” especially laws  passed by worthless nauseating little creatures like this piece of shit Nazi goatfucker

Breaking the law is always correct when the law is wrong. Just make sure you use any and all means availabe to get away with doing so

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Thursday said richer nations with their "historic debt" to the planet should foot the bill for environmental damage that is being hoisted on poorer countries.

"Who polluted the planet in these last 200 years were those who made the industrial revolution," Lula said in a speech to a large crowd in front of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France, at the "Power Our Planet" event.

"And for this, they have to pay the historic debt they have with planet Earth," he added, arguing that developed countries should take responsibility for financing the preservation of forests in low-income countries.

Source: reuters.com
Anonymous asked:

najia could I ask for some religious advice? it's not too theological, just an internal dilemma I've been having, as I know you're not particularly religious but we're both muslims and I figure you'd come to a better conclusion about this than me lol. no worries if you'd rather not xx.

you can feel free to ask! I’m not sure I will be too helpful though as I am actively an atheist (just keep Muslim holidays for cultural reasons), so anything like “how do you reconcile x with belief in y god” is not something I’ll have experience with.

Anonymous asked:

I have a question: if you’re not vegan, why aren’t you vegan? All your posts about pointless animal cruelty only work if you’re a non-cheating vegan.

i invite on general grounds everyone to impute to me whatever habits and vices (let alone ethnicities, genders, ages, mental illnesses, bodily conditions, life histories, class positions, or sexual orientations) render my moral grandstanding hypocritical

Avatar

what’s all the hullabaloo about “oceangate”?

saw a take about how conflating all incarcerated people with "rapists and murderers" isn't reflective of the reality of how many criminal convictions are of poor people stealing things they need to live, addicts without access to treatment, homeless people just existing, and so on, which is all true and important to point out, and i know the op already knows this so i'm not putting it in their notes, but: in addition, if you believe "legally convicted with murder" automatically equals "sadistic serial killer" you have far too much faith in the justice system and also need to stop watching cop shows probably

Anonymous asked:

hello, i kno close reading aint the only way to analyse a text but im trying to find other ways of doin it but google is just givin me how to do close readings in your classroom things. idk im not a booksguy really tho id like to learn how to books better. do u have any like basic resources for ways to read a text an figure out whats goin on in it that isnt doing a close reading? thanks

Close readings are mostly associated with new criticism. This school of criticism, like every other, arose in a particular time and place and can be analysed as having arisen for a particular reason. Also like every school of criticism, it has its adherents and its detractors. But considering the "work" as its own whole, self-contained aesthetic object in the way that NC does is not the only way to read.

Some other approaches, off the top of my head, & the schools of criticism they're roughly associated with:

  • How does the work make you feel? What are your reactions to it? What emotions and associations does it conjure up? What is your spatial or temporal experience like reading the work (like, how does the work appear to you as something that unfolds over time, as you read it? When and how are you reading it)? How do your expectations about a certain work affect how you read? [Reader-response]
  • What is the economic and ideological history of the genre, form, and aesthetics of the work in question? What ideological function does the work seem to serve? Does it serve to convince its readers of anything, and if so, what political implications does its viewpoint have? What ideas of oppression, history, and the forms that resistance can take does the work present or seem to advocate for? What does it make visible or invisible, what does it make seem possible or impossible? [Marxist literary criticism / Marxist aesthetics]
  • When, where, and by whom was the work published? What else do we know about the author's opinions on aesthetics, politics, &c., and how do we know it? How are those opinions reflected by, or in tension with, what you see in the work? Were there any problems getting the work published, and, if so, do they have to do with the author's class or gender or politics, &c.? Where and how was the author living (richly or poorly, working as a maid in another household or employing servants or a wife to free up time for intellectual pursuits) while writing?
  • And, doubling down on when the work was published—what were the popular or dominant discourses about science, biology, human cognition, political economy, race, gender, war, &c. &c. when and where the author wrote and published? How does the work seem to mobilise, use, subvert, echo, further, or contest those discourses? How would the work's first readers have read it in light of the popular discourses they were familiar with? [contextualism; new historicism]
  • What materials was the book originally published in? Where did those materials come from? Was it cheaply or expensively made? How much was it sold for? Who would have been able to afford it? What does the form of the book (any illustrations? what's the typeface and size? margin size? hardcover or paperback?) imply about who is meant to read the work, and how they're meant to read it? What effect did the state of print technology at the time of the book's publishing have on its final form (e.g., it used to be impossible to have text and an image on the same page in a mass-produced book)? Where do the objects described in the book presumably come from, and by whose labour would they have been produced and transported? What does this say about the material lives of the characters? [Material culture studies]
  • What are the early notices and reviews of the book like, and where do they appear? Who wrote them and where did they publish them? Is the book mentioned in diaries and letters from around the time of its publication? How did the responses to the book change over time? How did audiences in different places, or of different demographics in other ways, respond to the book? What went into making the book accessible to new audiences over time? What extra-textual stuff (“paratext”: book covers, advertisements, interviews, reviews) influence how people read the work? [Reception history; translation studies; maybe fandom studies]
  • Who edited the work? How much control did the publishing house, and the publishing house's readers, have over the final format of the text? Who decided what the punctuation would be like, and where the chapter breaks would go? Who decided on the spelling (was it published at a time when spelling was standardized? Did the author's manuscript contain any idiosyncratic spellings? Did the publishing house have a house style)? Are there any ideological connotations to "correcting" this author's spelling? Was the author's manuscript typed or handwritten? Were there any problems reading their handwriting? How many versions of the manuscript were there, and how did the publishing house chuse which to work from? [Editorial theory]

These associations between methods of reading and schools of criticism are mostly just to give you terms to look up to read more. Scholars don't all necessarily belong firmly to a given school, and people often mix and match various modes of reading to be able to argue what they want to argue.