Common Knowledge

5

(Hadn’t seen this specific design detail written on yet, so)

Top image is by Antonio Lopez for Missoni, 1983.

Araki’s heavily influenced by and often directly references Lopez, so much so that the the triangle pattern on Missoni knits featured in an ad campaign Lopez did for the designer found its way onto Caesar’s headband, Jotaro’s signature double belts, and other elements throughout Araki’s drawings.

Basically, they’re all wearing Missoni.

is it really not common knowledge outside asia that the rising sun flag is japanese fascist and imperialist imagery, analogous to the n/azi flag? the failures of the US education system shock me yet again

You are one of the few people left on earth after a disease has nearly wiped out humanity, it is common knowledge that the only way to combat it is nearly constant alcohol consumption.

THEORY BC I CAN’T STOP THINKING ABOUT THIS

Ok so with these last episodes, to be specific, ‘The Trial’, most of us if not all have come to the conclusion or at least suspicion that Yellow Diamond shattered Pink Diamond and her behavior was obviously giving it away:

BUT

There’s something that still doesn’t really fit here…

“I was there. I saw it with my own eye. I watched the leader of the Crystal Gems – Rose Quartz – shatter Pink Diamond!”

Now, it’s not that wise to trust a gem’s perception and vision, when she only has one eye and a ‘gem eye’.

And hear me out here, because this is a bit nuts, what if she can see well but her eye-gem-vision allows her to see everything with a red filter?

And… what two colors look pink like Rose Quartz when mixed?

Red and White

We know gems can shapeshift into almost anything so how about a Diamond shapeshifting into a smaller gem?

What about the common knowledge that only a Diamond can shatter another  Diamond?

So what if not Yellow Diamond but White Diamond?

But that brings a lot more questions…

Why would YD try to cover WD? And why did WD even shatter PD to begin with?

But until more proof, like a Zircon, I rest my case.


Bonus:

I’m still not sure what this mural means but I see Rose holding a diamond and another gem in front of her with her arm lifted. In the past I saw people saying this was YD but looking at her desing and WD mural, I can almost confirm that’s indeed WD.

Honestly that’s all I have until here.

I really NEED to see White Diamond and find out more about her.

rayven-so-gay  asked:

mama.... pleas.... i am dy in.... i need...... coran

….. i need u to understand that both of these requests came in like…. one right after the other…… and if that anon wasn’t just you again, i’m legit flabbergasted at the timing of that lmfao

look,,, we all know lance is coran’s favorite, buttttttt,,,,

i have a headcanon that coran and keith talk just as much as coran and lance. and that keith/lance both confide in coran about their crushes on each other and he meddles way too much but it’s perfect because he’s an amazing space uncle (and the only reason keith made sure to shower the day lance confessed to him tbh)

8

When boys and girls live in the same home, awkward situations can arise. Sometimes, I’ve heard, even brothers and sisters develop certain affections. And when those affections become common knowledge, well, that is an awkward situation indeed, especially in a prominent family. But prominent families often forget a simple truth, I’ve found. And which truth is that?

Dogs are not communal property.

Hi friends. I’m currently on a rage because my best friend & I are service dog handlers and people have zero respect for us as handlers.

If we are in public:

  • staring is rude
  • petting is rude
  • distracting my dog is rude
  • taking photos are rude
  • “OH MY GOD DOG” is rude
  • do not let your dog meet mine
    • mine is life-saving medical equipment, yours just peed on your foot

……Have you really never seen a dog before?

If we are in dorms/halls and not working our dogs:

  • yelling at our dogs is rude
  • pushing our dogs is rude
  • smacking or negatively interacting with our dogs without explicit consent from the handler is unacceptable

In training service dogs are not perfect especially when young and not working. Dogs are not robots and they are not yours. My service dog is mine and no one but me has the right to interact with, punish, or do anything with my dog without my explicit permission. This should be common knowledge even for pet dogs- you wouldn’t punish a strangers child.

A dog in training will not learn if 10 people are yelling at them for what the handler wanted to be a recall training session. A dog needs constant and consistent rules and I don’t care if you had a dog as a kid, a service dog is an entirely different ballgame and you don’t know about it until you are a disabled service dog handler.

My dog is the only reason I can go out in public most days and no one has the right to ruin that for me. A single distraction/bad interaction for my service dog can ruin our whole day. One bad interaction with my dog set us back months in training. It could even wash my dog out of work- wasting thousands of dollars and hours of work.

Dogs are not communal property and fuck you if you feel that you petting a dog is more important than me being able to function like a regular human being. You aren’t entitled to anything from me or my dog.

its funny, the more you get to know other lesbians & their stories you realize how little you actually knew before about lesbians inner lives. the self-doubt, fear, loneliness, etc. we completely lack a common knowledge of what a lesbian existence feels like beyond the basic “attracted to women” part. i’m still surprised when i talk to someone and we share experiences and feelings like that, because i thought i was alone in my experiences for so long

anonymous asked:

honestly, my favourite tony trope is him surviving so much bullshit that everyone starts to believe that he's actually immortal. Villains start just giving up on actually killing him, and either incapacitate him or make sure he's unavailable when they start the fight. Some of the more egotistical ones go out of their way to try. There's many conspiracy theories about him, and how it's possible that he's survived. One of his favourite pastimes is reading the more outlandish ones. (Tree)

Listen. It’s common knowledge among the villains of the world. If you’re anywhere close to being a professional Badguy, then you’ve heard the stories. You know the rumours.


Tony Stark Does Not Die. So for God’s sake, do not be stupid enough to try.


Some of the newbies, they ask. They wonder why no-one tries to shoot a fatal hit, why they never even bother to go for Iron Man. 

The older, more weary villains just roll their eyes and mutter “don’t wanna waste my firepower. Save your shots for the ones that will actually stay dead, kid,”

“That asshole crawled out of a cave with a hole in his chest and still managed to kick everyone’s ass,” someone pipes up moodily from the corner.

There’s a sudden bang as a hand slaps on the counter, and the newbie turns to see another grim-looking villain.“I once shot straight through him. Laser right through the stomach. You know what that piece of shit did?” The guy gestures to his lack of foot. “He Goddamn turned around and shot my leg off! and then he just sort of looked down and shrugged at his own fatal wound. He told me I had it worse, and that he was ‘sorry’. Who even does that?”

“I crushed him,” says another, “he just buried out the other way and then caught me a day later. It took me years to get out of prison.”

“I planted a virus in his suit while he was thousands of miles above sea, and not only did he defend it, but he traced my source and sent it back. Thousands and thousands of dollar’s worth of tech, gone,” someone shouts miserably from across the room. “He didn’t even have a fucking keyboard! Every line of code was verbal! He spoke and memorised those lines faster than I could type them, and I goddamn invented the thing!”

A bottle of… something, flies across the room. Obviously everyone is very bitter about this.

The newbie, because they’re always like this at the start; over-confident and stiflingly cocky, puffs their chest and looks them all in the eye. “you just haven’t been thinking about it hard enough. I’ll kill him. Just watch.”


Everyone descends into hysterical laughter. Someone is crying. No one in the room is Okay. 


“Whatever you say, whatever you think or plan, he’s one step ahead. Don’t, for your sake, please. Take Thor. Or Cap. Or maybe the Widow, if you’re feeling brave? But just… don’t waste your time with him. Try and keep him away, instead. That’s all we can ask for,” says someone next to her, obviously taking pity.

“He might be smart, but he’ll have no idea what’s coming when I step on the scene!” Newbie growls. “Listen-”




A few miles across, Tony Stark listens to the whole conversation via a bug he planted in the known Villain Hiding-Spot, and smiles smugly.

“Damn straight,” he mutters, before calling in the rest of the Avengers to gloat.

False implicatures and plausible deniability

In our episode on the linguistics of propaganda, we talked a lot about how false implicatures can bend the truth just enough to sneak misconceptions into people’s heads, without them even necessarily realizing it. These are sentences where we imply something that isn’t true, without coming out and saying it overtly. But while we’ve touched on the topic of indirect speech before, we haven’t spent much time talking about why we do it. That is, why don’t we always just say what we mean, instead of risking a garbled message?

To get at an answer, let’s consider a few different uses we’ve got for indirect speech, and then see if we can figure out what they’ve got in common. Imagine, first, that you were out on a date, and as the evening winds down, you want things to move in a more romantic direction. Would you come right out and say it? Well, some of us might. But chances are that many would take a much more gentle approach — say, by asking if the other party wanted to come over to their place for coffee, or maybe to Netflix and chill.

Or let’s say you were driving a bit too fast, got pulled over, and were pretty sure you were about to get a ticket for a few hundred dollars that you really can’t afford. But let’s say you happened to have $50 on hand, and you’re feeling just brave enough to give a bit of bribery a go (NB: The Ling Space does not condone bribery). Would you move right to “I’ll give you money if you let me go”? Probably not, if you have any intention of staying out of jail. You’d likely try to be at least a little sly about it — maybe wondering aloud if the problem can’t be “taken care of here.”

Or picture the old cliché of a mobster extorting protection money from some local business, under penalty of violence. Since explicit threats are often illegal, but the enforcer still needs to get their message across, euphemistic speech ends up a vital part of their criminal enterprise. Phrases like “It’d be a shame if something happened to this fine establishment” replace outright intimidation, though the message remains the same.

In each of these cases, the speaker is affording themselves plausible deniability. Trying to move a new relationship (or even an old one) in a different direction can be potentially awkward, especially if the other party isn’t as interested as you. But if you play your cards close enough to the chest, and things go awry, you can always deny you were talking about anything more than coffee, or a night spent binge-watching the latest season of House of Cards.

And since bribing an officer is against the law, but might get you out of paying a hefty fine if they happen not to be the most honest cop in the land, the indirect approach lets you test the waters without committing yourself one way or the other. If they catch your drift, everybody leaves happy; if they don’t, well, you can hardly be found guilty for someone else misunderstanding your otherwise unimpeachable character! (More generally, shifting from one relationship type to another, like from one rooted in dominance to one that’s more transactional, can lead to tension, which is why bribing the maitre d’ for a better table can seem just as nerve-wracking, even if it’s not a crime.)

As for that threat: it might be hard getting something so weaselly to stick in court. On the face of it, after all, it really would be a shame if something happened! And they can always claim they were just expressing genuine concern, as laughable as that might seem.

And, so, indirect speech — and by extension plausible deniability — has many uses, both amongst those in positions of power, and those with none. Though paradoxical on the face of it, it can provide avenues for authoritarians to obtain and maintain control,* while protecting the powerless when all other exits are blocked.**

It’s fair to ask, though, why bribes and threats and the like that are so thinly veiled should work at all. Doesn’t everybody know what ‘Netflix and chill’ means by now? And is the mob really fooling anyone with their supposed concern for the well-being of the community? The secret lies in a concept we’ve spent some time picking apart already: mutual knowledge, otherwise known as common ground.

Mutual knowledge refers to the knowledge that exists between two or more speakers — not simply what both of them know, but what each of them knows the other one knows (and what each of them knows the other one knows the other knows, and so on). So while the intent of asking a partner over for coffee might seem obvious to both parties involved, because the invitation was indirect, there’s enough mutual doubt should either one decide to back out. If the answer is “no thanks,” embarrassment is saved, and everyone can go along pretending nothing ever happened. The possibility that either speaker doesn’t understand what just took place is small, but when we start asking whether each of them knows whether the other knows what happened, or knows that they know that they know, uncertainties multiply unbounded.

What indirect speech really does, then, is keep things off the record. While the information implicated by someone might be clear as day to anyone within earshot, that information manages not to work its way into the common ground. And, so, unlike base assertions, which fall square into the vessel of mutual knowledge we carry between us in any given conversation, implicatures float around just out of our reach — visible to everyone, but ephemeral enough for us to pretend they don’t even exist, if and when we need to.

Hey. So. Anyone is free to answer this because it’s actually confusing me to no end. Fountain pens were invented in 1827 (according to Google) so why do so many people draw/write about Les Amis & co. (Bc they are pretty much the only ones explicitly introduced after 1827) in the canon era using ink and quell? Aesthetics? Because they just don’t know? I’m I uninformed on some fact? I don’t know.

chibifox2002  asked:

Hello Bendy! What's your favorite thing to do? (I've never asked a question on a ask blog before so sorry if this question is kinda boring)

B: i only like you for your alcohol
MM: so… you still like me.
B: Piss off.

(FUN FACT: Back in the good ol’ mafia days,  if a gang wanted control over a business they would ask for half or more of the entire profit, bleed the business dry, and burn the place down if/when they went bankrupt. If the business owner did not comply to begin with, they would go after the owners family and torture/kill them, and if THAT didn’t go through to the owner, they would be assassinated. Or “whacked” as they liked to put it lmao. But the thing that Moon Man and Bendy have goin on is sort of a special case.
-Mod Moon Man)

Inedia or breatharianism  is the belief that it is possible for a person to live without consuming food. Breatharians claim that food, and in some cases water, are not necessary for survival, and that humans can be sustained solely by prana, the vital life force in Hinduism. According to Ayurveda, sunlight is one of the main sources of prana, and some practitioners believe that it is possible for a person to survive on sunlight alone. The terms breatharianism or inedia may also refer to this philosophy when it is practiced as a lifestyle in place of the usual diet.

Breatharianism is considered a lethal pseudoscience by scientists and medical professionals, and several adherents of these practices have died from starvation and dehydration. Though it is common knowledge that biological entities require sustenance to survive, breatharianism continues. (Source)

tangled: the series has done something amazing in acknowledging rapunzel’s trauma and not shying away from the impact gothel’s abuse is still having on her. 

they’ve shown rapunzel having recurring nightmares about gothel coming back to attack her again, there are references to rapunzel being behind on common/pop knowledge due to her time in the tower, and when she had to return to the tower for the first time since she and eugene had escaped from it at the end of the movie, she didn’t just waltz on in.

she actually recoiled at the edge of the clearing, well before she even got near the tower. just the sight of it sent her back, and you could see the fear on her face. eugene offered his support and encouragement, and rapunzel pushed on and insisted on entering the tower - but it was never easy. she hesitated again at the entrance, and then looked on the verge of a panic attack before walking up the steps. she had to take deep breaths and talk herself into being able to do it - “it’s just a tower.”

i know that this isn’t the first kid’s show to acknowledge the long lasting impact of trauma but it still doesn’t happen enough and i was really, really pleased to see that the writers are including this growth and healing in rapunzel’s story rather than just ignoring it completely.