a very recent history

anonymous asked:

Is this net neutrality issue very similar to the one that happened in 2015 or are there different factors being threatened?

The current net neutrality debate is an extension of the same net neutrality debate we’ve been having for years. The very short recent history of net neutrality looks something like this: In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (a government agency that has the authority to regulate communications, such as radio and telephone networks) passed rules preventing Internet service providers from discriminating against or blocking websites that refused to pay for access to end users. In 2014, in response to a lawsuit Verizon filed challenging these rules, a federal court held that the rules weren’t valid because FCC didn’t show that it had the authority to enact rules limiting what ISPs can do to particular Internet traffic. In 2015, after over a year of debate about what the FCC should do next, the FCC enacted even stronger rules than those it passed in 2010, relying on a different source of authority to overcome the legal problem with its 2010 rules. In 2016, a federal court upheld these new net neutrality rules. Today, under new leadership, the FCC wants to undo the rules it put in place in 2015 and basically get rid of net neutrality rules altogether, allowing ISPs to charge websites to communicate with ISP customers and block access to websites that don’t pay. So, in 2015, we were arguing about whether the FCC should put in place weak rules or strong rules (it ended up choosing strong rules), and today, we are arguing about whether the FCC should get rid of those strong rules and instead have basically no rules at all.

It’s the same policy issue, but the positions are reversed — instead of trying to enact rules that protect consumers, the FCC is trying to take those rules down. The rhetoric has changed a lot though: in 2015 most of the big ISPs argued that they should have the right to throttle traffic and charge for fast lanes, but this time around they’re all saying they believe in core net neutrality principles, just not how the FCC has implemented them under Title II.

Comcast and others have even suggested that what we really need is a new net neutrality law passed in Congress, which is very well-intentioned and completely naive because our current Congress can’t pass a bag of M&Ms, let alone a sweeping piece of internet regulation.

This change in tone is probably because most consumers really distrust their ISPs, and net neutrality rules are really popular. So the ISPs are all trying to thread the needle of saying they want to abide by the rules without actually having rules — FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has proposed that every ISP simply promise to uphold net neutrality principles in their terms of service agreements, for example.

It all strikes me as exceedingly silly, like something stoned college freshman would talk about late at night: how can we have laws without really having laws, man? It’s funny, but it’s not any way to make policy around something as important to our lives and economy as internet access.

What is going on today at the FCC is directly related to what happened in 2015. After nearly a year of public comment (with nearly 4 million comments filed) and deliberation, the FCC in 2015 adopted the strongest-ever net neutrality rules grounded in the strongest legal authority (Title II of the Communications Act of 1934). These rules prohibit Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from discriminating against or favoring any content, service or applications. A federal court in Washington, DC upheld these rules specifically because they were grounded in the strongest legal authority

The Trump FCC has started a proceeding to repeal the 2015 rules and reverse the determination that placed ISPs under Title II. Nobody is asking for these changes other than the ISPs themselves – Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Charter. In fact, a poll released yesterday showed that nearly 80% of Americans support the 2015 rules.

What is being threatened by the FCC’s current actions are the rules that the public fought so hard to obtain in 2015 – rules that are both popular and effective and under which ISPs continue to make huge profits and investments.

The issue is the same in that the underlying protections that all of us advocated for (that are now law) are under threat of being removed.

In 2015, the FCC set out to resolve two major issues. The first issue was what should network neutrality rules look like and what activities by ISPs will they cover. The second issue was what is the legal status of broadband companies since they have changed dramatically from the 90s when the Communications Act was originally passed (this is commonly referred to the Title I vs. Title II of the Communications Act issue). Title I of the Communications Act was originally designed for a time when your ISP was also your edge service provider (for those of us old enough to remember, think AOL/Prodigy times). Title II of the Communications Act applies to services that solely transit information (also referred to as common carriers), which back in the day was really just telephone service before broadband became what it is today. The final decision by the FCC was to declare broadband as Title II common carriers and to institute network neutrality rules for them based on their legal status.

Today, the new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has made it clear he does not think broadband service is a common carrier service. As a result, his plan opens the door to allow ISPs to block websites, throttle services, and outright discriminate between services all in the name of “innovation.” This time, the threat is coming from a federal agency whose original job is to protect the public interest and it is being done in concert with companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, who stand to gain the most from being freed of any obligation to treat Internet traffic neutrally.

A little legal background may be in order here. ISPs keep trying to argue that they should be seen as a “website” rather than what they really are, a telecommunications service. They want that because then they won’t have to abide by net neutrality rules since the federal courts have ruled that net neutrality only applies to telecommunications services. No one thinks ISPs are websites, yet even the current FCC is trying to argue that ISPs are websites so that they can help ISPs slash net neutrality rules.

In 2015, the last FCC under a different chairman did the right thing after we helped send 4 million comments to the FCC saying that we want the most legally defensible way to protect net neutrality. They then changed the way they classify broadband Internet from an “information service” (like a website or a television channel==obviously false) to a “telecommunications service” (like landline telephone==obviously true). To take away net neutrality, ISPs are back arguing that they are more like websites than telephone systems, and the new FCC Chairman is so closely tied to the industry that he thinks their argument makes sense. That’s how corrupt this whole debate has gotten in D.C.

So, yes, this is similar to what was at stake in 2015. ISPs like Comcast are still trying to get powers to throttle the Internet so they can charge special fees. We are now defending the only legally defensible rules guaranteeing net neutrality, which millions of Internet users fought for and won in 2015.

bpdontcare  asked:

Is it true that white tigers are not naturally occurring, and instead a product of massive inbreeding and abuse?

Sort of yes and sort of no. I’ve actually been working on a really big piece about all the myths surrounding white tigers, because there’s a lot of misinformation out there, but since it’s taking me forever to actually publish it I’ll give you a quick rundown here (gosh it’s such a hardship, not like this is one of my favorite recent things to study or anything lol). 

White tigers did absolutely occur naturally for a very long time in at least one specific area of India and possibly a much larger area of Asia - there are lots of references to pale cats in old texts. They were common enough that it seems reasonable to assume that the white coloration isn’t super detrimental to camouflage and hunting success. It is a color morph that requires a double-recessive gene to express, which means it’s not common and that when it shows up frequently it’s likely the result of inbreeding (even in a natural setting, this can occur when environmental boundaries or other factors lead to reduced numbers of available mates). Unfortunately, it was also a big thing for rulers in India to go hunt the white cats as a status symbol, so a lot of them were killed - and because they weren’t around to mate and be guaranteed to pass the gene on, white cats became less and less common. Mohan, the really famous founder cat brought into captivity, was one of the last ones ever seen in the wild. 

Most of the white cats in captivity now do have a lot of inbreeding in their history, because there wasn’t a lot of awareness of how detrimental line-breeding can be and it was the fastest way to produce more white cats (you can get them in one generation, instead of the 2-3 required each time you outcrossed to a cat that isn’t a carrier for it at all). Mohan’s cubs were super inbred for about four generations, at which point they had to stop breeding them to each other and outcross because the cats were actually losing fertility and cub mortality was really high. (Those are both signs of inbreeding depression - you either can’t get pregnant or the babies all die). The same thing happened with a lot of the other founder lines - and there were more founder animals than just Mohan, white showed up in supposedly unrelated captive tigers at least twice - and eventually the different lineages were crossed with each other.

As far as I can tell, most white tigers alive today are not recently inbred very badly. They do have a lot of history of inbreeding upline, which comes with it’s own genetic baggage, but they’re not directly inbred. I can’t speak to direct numbers on that yet, but I really hope to; I’ve been tracing pedigrees and running coefficient of inbreeding calculations on all the different generations and lineages but I’m having a really hard time getting accurate pedigree data on animals born after 1996. (That’s not surprising, people who breed tigers in the modern era outside of AZA - so anyone breeding white cats - are super super not interested in talking to outsiders about the choices they’re making). What I can say is that the worst of the inbreeding was actually in the 60s and 70s and that by the time my data runs out around the mid-90s there was a whole lot more outcrossing going on. That means they were reducing the potential an animal to be homozygous at a given gene by descent (and therefore reducing the likelihood of accumulating detrimental recessive mutations) but not necessarily reducing genetic issues accumulated from ancestral inbreeding. 

A lot of the messaging around white tigers is very misleading and not based in scientific fact - it’s been warped from both the zoo side and the sanctuary side in accordance with whatever message they’re pushing. I’ve spent like the last year working on parsing out what’s true and finding sources for the stuff that’s unclear. They’re not super healthy animals, especially the ones with more recent inbreeding issues, but Kenny the “down syndrome” tiger (not actually down’s syndrome and that messaging has lead to all sorts of awful ablist messaging) is not the norm. The most frequent thing I know occurs in white tigers in terms of “deformity” is abnormal skull morphology compared to non-white tigers. There may be other health issues - it’s very likely - but I can’t actually trace them back to being definitely related to the specific ancestral inbreeding, or the double recessive gene. It’s a big of a vague area because a lot of the tigers that white cats were outcrossed with originally had potential for inbreeding and other health issues at the time - this was before we really knew much about that, or put welfare and potential for genetic issues ahead of profit - and so there’s a lot of questions about if the current white tigers tend to have health issues because they’re being bred from genetically unhealthy lines in general or if they’re more at risk because of the specific inbreeding for the white color in their history. The older white cats, especially like 4th generation from the founder cats - those were animals that were much more obviously unhealthy specifically because of the direct line-breeding. 

If it’s a topic folk are interested in, I can see about pushing the white tiger myths article to the front of my to-do list. 

anonymous asked:

Lesbianism isnt real, you look back in history and up until very recently there havent been any lesbians but theres plenty of recordings of gay men all through time. Stop pretending to like girls and find yourself a decent boyfriend, you'll be much happier. Statistics show lesbian relationships end up abusive more often than straight or gay relatiomships. Lesbians are also more likely to be overweight/obese and have their relationship experience bed death.

I found some errors in your message but no worries, I fixed it! :)

Lesbianism is nt real, you look back in history and  up until very recently there havent been any lesbians but  there’s plenty of recordings of gay men AND WOMEN all through time. Stop pretending to Like girls! and find yourself a decent GIRLfriend! you’ll be much happier. Statistics show lesbian relationships ARE THE FUCKING BEST  end up abusive more often than straight or gay relatiomships. Lesbians COME IN ALL SHAPES AND SIZES AND are also SO DAMN BEAUTIFUL IN ALL THESE SHAPES AND SIZES. more likely to be overweight/obese and have their relationship experience bed death. AND LESBIAN SEX IS BETTER THAN STRAIGHT SEX!!!

One of my favorite things about Tessa and Scott is that even though they are one of the best ice dancers in recent history, they always work hard and do their very best to improve and be better. 

This is their SD lift, the left photo is from HPC, the right is from the gala at Worlds, and while it was great from the start - just look how much they improved during the season. Really admirable.

(📷: left from Tessa’s Instagram, right by the lovely @danielleearlphotography)

3

Abandoned motel in Needles, CA, off historic Route 66. I randomly drove by it on my last trip down that road.

There’s this thing in urbex photography, where the prized locations are beautiful(old Victorians), interesting(mental hospitals and army bases), or well preserved(rare). I find myself drawn most to the utterly mundane - places that tell a very recent history of failure and abandonment. They aren’t hidden or hard to get to, just too insignificant to bother with.

Next year, I’m driving as much of historic Route 66 as I still can, and I’m looking forward to finding more of these boring, sad, places. 

anonymous asked:

Hi sorry to bother you but at this point do you think Alec's greatest fault is that he doesn't trust his instincts?

i feel like “greatest flaw” is kind of subjective, and also dependent on the situation that he’s in, if that makes sense?

but, regardless, i don’t know if i would say his lack of trust in his instincts is his biggest flaw, but something slightly different, which is better described as an adherence to authority even despite his instincts or better judgment - and by authority, i don’t necessarily mean just, like, the inquisitor or maryse, but rather being generally “lawful” to a fault - even if there’s nobody explicitly giving the orders, even if it comes from his own self and the standards he perceives himself to have to fulfill as he learned growing up in the society he did.

you can see him start to develop out of this in terms of his personal life/relationships/family etc. in season 2, which wasn’t at all the case in s1, leading to the whole wedding storyline for him (as he adhered to the idea of family honour above personal fulfillment even though there was a part of him that knew it wasn’t the right thing to do). so it’s not necessarily any strict authority, but rather an internal code that he has forced himself to follow.

and not only that, but also the more typical sense of the word “authority” which in alec’s case would largely be the clave. like in s1, alec followed the letter of the law without a lot of external pressure such as in 1x09-1x11, genuinely thinking that that was what was best for him and his family and really the shadow world in general – even if it maybe didn’t feel quite right to him on a moral level. but i don’t think it came out of a lack of trust in his own instincts, but more so the high value that he places on values of obedience and adherence to authority, sometimes over his own personal feelings and - at times - moral judgments. like even if he feels that something is morally wrong, e.g. torturing meliorn, he’s more likely than other characters to look to following the rules as the ‘greater good’ that justifies it. but, as we saw with things like his confrontation with aldertree, he seems to be growing out of it. but even so, alec is not (or at least not yet) a “fuck the system” kind of guy - he largely tends to work within the system, like even when he confronted aldertree, he did it when he knew there was a way to officially delegitimize him, rather than the jace/clary style of “fuck you fuck the system im gonna do what i want”. whether that last part is a flaw of alec’s or not is probably pretty subjective though, and depends on the situation. i guess he has a trust and respect for the status quo and letter of the law that in many situations - considering the clave’s moral corruption - might pose a problem.  

THAT BEING SAID, in 2x12, though, i feel like people are putting too much of the onus on alec’s inherent flaws (dont get me wrong there are many), and less on the extremely complex and confusing situation at hand. i don’t really think it was a case of “if alec had followed his gut instead of listening to jace/imogen he could have saved magnus sooner” but it was just a really hard situation, and i’m not sure if he would have, regardless of what jace said to him. regardless of outside influence, alec is more logical and cautious than instinctive or impulsive  - like, in early season 1 before they really knew her, he’s the only person who entertained the fact that clary aka valentine’s daughter could be a spy for valentine (i mean, she wasn’t, but it made sense as a theory, rather than just instinctively trusting her as the others did). that also being said, though, jace isn’t wrong when he says that valentine is a master manipulator, and to alec, the uprising and its associated massacres are very very recent history. valentine has been the shadow world’s symbol for utter moral and social reprehensibility for alec likely throughout his entire life, and that coupled with the fact that he has seen firsthand how easily and cruelly valentine has twisted jace’s mind - his parabatai - and i think that contributes to a caution that would be reasonable in that extremely difficult situation. people don’t get that dramatic irony allows us to perceive what the characters can’t, which means it’s all well and good for us to say that he should have known, but you have to look at it from alec’s point of view. but i digress. 

My Thoughts on Lilith, and rebuttal to @littledoomwitch

Through my extensive research on Lilith it’s been very difficult to find solid sources regarding her history. It’s only recently I’ve come across the Lilith discourse on tumblr, particularly that of @littledoomwitch. Although I respect what they have to say on the little-discussed niche topic of Lilith, there are certain points I fundamentally disagree with them about. Prior to finding their blog, what little I found regarding Lilith worship was always pro-Lilith in that they viewed her as a feminist demon open for anyone to worship. As I try to be as aware as possible of not accidentally appropriating a closed culture or religion in my witchcraft, i was very surprised yet interested in hearing the viewpoints voiced by tumblr user littledoomwitch which (in more or less terms) view Lilith as an entity that is inappropriate to worship, especially from gentiles. After going through about 10 pages of the #lilithdefensesquad tag, I think I got the general gist and have a couple takes. However I am very open-minded and am still actively engaging in Lilith research, so please feel free to engage or correct me on any of this.

- Firstly, I’d like to clarify how I view Lilith. I strongly disagree with the Dianic Wiccan nonsense that Lilith is synonymous with the mother-goddess, or that she is anyway associated with love, fertility, motherhood, positivity, healing, etc. Wiccans who conflate Lilith with the “Mother” or goddesses from the Greek/Roman pantheon fundamentally misconstrue what little we do know about Lilith, and I believe are very disrespectful. If you are going to worship Lilith, do not try to paint her as some sweet Benevolent Mother-figure. Take her for who she is, and do not simply discount the beliefs of an ancient religion.

- Lilith, to me, is a powerful goddess (I use ‘goddess’ loosely - you could say demon, or otherworldly creature - that’s pretty much just semantics) who represents wild, repressed, destructive feminine energy. I do not believe she is “evil”, because I do not believe in the good/evil binary. She is chaotic, amoral, vengeful, assertive, beautiful, powerful, angry, promiscuous, and defiant. She is associated with infertility and miscarriage, as well as succubi, or demons who would steal men’s semen in the middle of the night and cause premature ejaculation.

I do not worship Lilith on a daily basis. I don’t feel comfortable praying to her or talking to her like I would other more approachable entities. Still, I do make offerings to her, in exchange for keeping me from getting pregnant. I also call on her in cursework and she is a very powerful and destructive force to deal with. I call on her in times where I need her destructive anger and strength backing me. But I am always aware of the price she exacts.

- As for her history, I don’t really buy that she doesn’t show up in other religions apart from ancient Judaism. 600 bc where she’s first mentioned in Judaism she is also briefly described in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the jury is out about which drew from the other. Mythological figures THAT far back tend to appear in altered forms cross-culturally. So does it really matter whether or not Lilith came exclusively from the Sumerian 'lilitu’ or Jewish rabbinical literature? Probably it was a combination of both, due to the intermingling of different cultures from war, trade, conquest, etc. We don’t have definitive sources because now we’re getting further and further into BC years where there are fewer and fewer written sources. Personally, I’d like to think that Lilith is an archetype that has been passed down orally since almost the beginning of civilization, existing in one demonic form or another. This isn’t to discount her role in Jewish mythology, but you really can’t make the claim that she is closed to worship by modern gentile practitioners of witchcraft, given that a) Lilith was never worshipped by Jews in the first place, and b) she wasn’t a figure exclusively known to the Jews, as the Epic of Gilgamesh also mentions her c) she’s also mentioned in Isaiah later on. You make the claim that gentiles aren’t allowed to worship a Jewish demoness because she’s been historically feared by the Jews in ancient times; but ask any Jew (or anyone, for that matter) who Lilith is today and I’d say 9 out of 10 do not know who she is. Furthermore, I really don’t think this argument stands when you look at all the other biblical villains who are being worshipped in neo-wicca, the most obvious being SATAN himself. Is worshipping Satan/Samael/Lucifer culturally appropriative or antisemitic, as you claim worshipping Lilith is? I’d be skeptical if you said it was, given that so many of us within neo-paganism worship Satan.

- I completely disagree with your point that Lilith cannot be worshipped by Gentiles. Yes, Judaism is a PARTIALLY closed religion. It is not completely closed given the fact that gentiles have been allowed to ritually convert to judaism. Similar to how Christianity is not closed but you still need to go through a ritual baptism in order to be a full-fledged member.  This differentiates them from closed religions like most native american, indigenous, and african tribal religions where outsiders are completely banned. In those cases it would be inappropriate for outsiders to worship Native American deities for example and claim their mythology as their own. But Judaism, along with Christianity and Islam, are NOT closed religions. We should respect other cultures’ beliefs and mythologies, but the Abrahamic religions are not closed from outsider worship of deities/demons/what have you.

- Regardless about whether you personally think the First Wife story is true or not based on the validity of the Ben Sira text, you yourself have admitted that many rabbinical scholars were influenced by this text and it had a profound effect on how Jews viewed Lilith for centuries. Lilith has been taught even in Hebrew school as being Adam’s first wife, to quote yourself. So why are you so pissed that jews AND gentile witches are believing the same thing? Also consider that the first wife tale may not have begun with the ben sira text, since most myths tend to be past down orally for centuries before it is eventually written down. I doubt the author of ben sira made it up out of nowhere - everything originates from somewhere. I really don’t think it’s that far of a stretch, and given that it’s one of the only sources we have on lilith and Jews have been believing and teaching their children that Lilith was Adam’s first wife for centuries, you really don’t have room to shit on believers of the first wife story. You can be skeptical of the text itself and the intentions of the anonymous author, as we should be of ALL ancient documents, but you shouldn’t discount it simply because there’s no other sources backing it up yet to be uncovered. While I personally do believe the alphabet of sirach was a satirical text, I don’t necessarily believe the lilith story was pulled out of thin air. It was also written in 2 parts; the first part being older and largely thought of as the most satirical, and the second part written by a different author containing the lilith story.

- You claim that people shouldn’t worship lilith because that would imply jewish religion is misogynistic because adam tried to dominate her and god took his side and she left…. But really, come on now, MOST if not all major world religions particularly the abrahamic ones are inherently misogynistic. To claim that not even SOME ancient jewish texts / practices do not contain misogynistic elements would kinda be purposefully ignoring a lot of problems with organized religion in general which tends to be inherently misogynistic?? I don’t think it’s a stretch to claim that organized religion in GENERAL is misogynistic and I’m mainly talking about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is just a fact and it’s not antisemitism but rather being critical of misogyny present in organized religion.

- I think I’m done but one last thought- I’ve heard time and time again that Lilith is viewed as either trans or intersex in some circles but I can’t find any sources. If anyone knows anything about it and can point me in the right direction that would be lovely.

- Again, feel free to dispute any of this, I’m here to learn more.

anonymous asked:

hey ledi, do you have any cool lord of the rings lore facts?? i've always wanted to get into the lore but i've never actually been able to, but it all seems super cool and interesting

like 50% of my body weight is lotr lore, heres some cool facts:

- dwarves were never really meant to exist. the guy responsible of creating mountains, rocks and gems wanted something that would love his creations so he made bunch of short people obsessed with rocks. when the eru (p much the god) found out, he at first ordered this guy to kill them, but allowed them to live after realizing that dwarves were sentient beings

- sauron is in fact not the ultimate evil dark lord. morgoth is. morgoth just got physically booted out of the existence to think what he has done after he captured massive amount of the world and enslaved and corrupted massive amounts of people (like entire middle earth and then some). sauron just took over and started playing with what little was left behind because he was morgoth’s second in command (considering his failure rate, he was probably in that position for being good at sucking dick)

- once sauron sort of “died” when he was laughing so hard evil laughter at his evil plan that he somehow failed to notice that the entire island he was on was sinking into sea

- gandalf, sauron and balrogs are all members of same species

- sauron has been around before the creation of the world and he has not made a single evil plan on his own that did not end up backfiring horribly

- smaug is in fact quite small and sad for a dragon

- theres pretty much no information on where the hell hobbits actually came from because others didnt really pay attention to them and hobbits didnt really care about preserving their history until very recently. they might be odd subspecies of humans but imo thats horseshit

- notable amount of wars and inane massacares in history is pissed off elves fighting each other and occasionally other things too

- sauron used to be good. he was working as blacksmith apprentice for the guy who made dwarves

- first dragon was pretty much a oversized wingless lizard that constabtly kept burping up toxic gasses. wings were added in later models because if i remember correctly, this one guy kinda just walked under it and stabbed it in belly

The Ottoman slave trade, which was part of an increasingly globalized trafficking network of the early modern period, brought millions of people from the surrounding regions of Europe, Asia, and Africa to the Ottoman Empire. While abolition and emancipation movements occurred in various forms throughout the last century of the empire’s history, slavery remained in practice until its very end. In recent decades, the ignored history of the Ottoman slave trade has received more attention, but there has been considerably less discussion of how enslaved people brought to the empire contributed to its socioeconomic and cultural transformation and where the descendants of such people can be found today.

Made with SoundCloud

If you consider yourself a communist, you have to address the history that comes with that title. You have to be able to distance yourself from the violent authoritarianism, genocidal dictatorships and propaganda that the vast majority of the world associates with the word communism. You can’t tell normal people “those are tankies, I’m not a tankie” and expect anyone to take you seriously. You have to be able to defend your position and sometimes that means explaining a lot of shit you’ve probably explained a thousand times to people. 

But, if you want that word attached to your name, you can’t just cut off all the baggage that comes with it. You WILL have to prove your innocence to people whose families have suffered under the rule of people who have called themselves the same name. You WILL have to prove to those people that you are not the same as the imperialist dickheads supporting monsters like Bashar Assad and Kim-Jong Un. If you can’t accept that the title has a violent history attached to it that you will have to distance yourself from, stop using the fucking word. 

The word has a history beyond written theory and your worldview. It includes all the terrible things that people have done in the name of communism in very, very recent history. 

C: I’ve always been attracted to darker black women.  It may be because my first crush happened to be an older girl with dark skin who was known for getting into fights but was always nice to me. Or it may be because my dad had a big picture of my dark grandmother in our living room. Regardless, I truly believe dark skin women have always been held in high regard throughout history until very recently (look at Greek myths, ancient Arab scholars, and even the Bible). I believe its natural to love it and everyone has to learn to hate it. I don’t think my attraction is as rare as were told to believe.  

in regards to that ask, i find it amusing as all fuck that me being caucasian implies i can’t be slurred. caucasian or not, i’m still a jew, and my caucasian heritage is romani and armenian so if you were using it as a synonym for white, maybe make sure you’re not dismissing the racist experiences of someone with three very recent genocides in their immediate family history.

bitch.

angusarchibald  asked:

First of all I was making a joke. Secondly your historical facts are inaccurate Christians haven't done half the damage we have been accused of and pagans have done much more than you give them credit for.

First of all, making jokes about someone’s faith is rude af. Second of all, I have a degree in history, so I damn well know my facts. Evidence for any Celtic Pagan activities generally comes from the Romans, so is hugely one-sided and we have no idea if it’s even accurate. There are thousands of sources showing the torture, execution and hideous treatment of all kinds of people, including Pagans, by Christians throughout history, and up to very recently. Moreover, Christianity has had an awful effect on Western society, which we are still trying to recover from. However, it’s not kind of judge someone purely on what their ancestors or people of the same faith did, so I’m not going to do that, and nor should you.  

At the risk of fandom policing, I’m still peeved that in season one Turn depicted a baby boy wearing breeches. 18th century boys wore dresses until around ages four to seven. It wasn’t just about the potty training (no mother is going to put breeches on a boy who can’t control his bowel movements) but it was also about a “rite of manhood,” ritually signaling one of the first ways boys were moving beyond childhood. But, even tho the frocks were different for boys and girls, little boys wore dresses until very recently in Western history. 

But Turn was probably like, “eh how will the people know the baby’s a boy unless we put him in breeches?”

Dad, Stop (Stark/Avengers x reader)

Hello! I would like to request an imagine where Tony Stark is your dad and all of the Avengers have a crush on you and he gets angry at them for hitting on you. By the way, your imagines are amazing!

41. “That’s not going away any time soon.”- Tony

“Hey, JARVIS, I’m ridiculously late.  Could you find me an alternate route to the tower please?”  You had been hung up in traffic for over an hour, now officially so late to meet your father’s team that you were just waiting for him to land in a suit on the hood of your car.  The man had a tendency to be just slightly overprotective.  Who were you kidding?  The man was almost suffocating.

“A new route has been input into the system, miss.”

“Thanks, J,” you mumbled, working your way towards the next turn.  “So, just so I know, has he said anything about me?  You know, has he told the team anything specific?”

“Is there something of particular concern, Miss Stark?”

“You know where I’m going with this, JARVIS.  Do they know?”

A short pause followed as he searched his database, each passing second raising your anxiety that he might find something.  “I cannot find any conversation in regards to your history with HYDRA, miss.”

Keep reading

My 2013 in Reading

I remembered to track 118 of the books I read in 2013 and I had thoughts about all of them. I love reading. 

My top ten books:

Tampa by Alissa Nutting
Ghana Must Go by Taiye Selasi
The Book of My Lives by Aleksandar Hemon
Unmastered: A Book on Desire by Katherine Angel
The Isle of Youth by Laura van den Berg
Alone With Other People by Gabby Bess
Meaty by Samantha Irby
The Men We Reaped by Jesmyn Ward
Long Division by Kiese Laymon
Milk & Filth by Carmen Gimenez Smith

Ranking is so arbitrary so I am not ranking these books. I am simply saying these are the books, published in 2013, that have stayed with me most vividly. They are the books that made me gasp and cringe and laugh and nod wildly with recognition and stay up way too late because I could not put the damn book down. 

As I read Tampa, I felt like I was beholding something brilliant. I do consider Alissa a dear friend so, full disclosure, but that does not bear on my response to the book. It was just so bold and well written. The book made me want to genuflect. In truth, I did genuflect, but on my bed, because the floor in my apartment is really hard.

When I began Ghana Must Go, I wasn’t sure where the book was going. This is certainly not a perfect book but Selasi gains confidence with each page and when she hits her stride, the book becomes magnificent. I found myself sobbing as I read this book and when I finished, I held it to my chest and rocked because I finally understood where the book was going. I was intensely moved by how Selasi got me there.

I first learned of Aleksandar Hemon when I read an essay about the death of his baby daughter in The New Yorker. When I got an ARC of The Book of My Lives,  I dove into it eagerly and found it to be one of the most intelligent books I’ve ever read. It’s also a book that offers a fresh perspective on the complexities of difference and immigration and grief and joy. And goddamn. The writing in this book is so fucking crisp. At times I wanted to punch Hemon for being so good. I did not, of course. I’m a book lover, not a fighter.

Unmastered by Katherine Angel is a beautiful, beautiful book both in word and as a physical object. An intense but controlled eroticism runs throughout the book and I particularly appreciated the fragmentary nature of the prose and the sense of a writer grappling with big questions rather eloquently.

Laura van den Berg is an exceptional short story writer. I loved her first collection with the super long title I am too lazy to type out here and I loved The Isle of Youth. Every story was satisfying and well written. My favorite story, which is one I teach, originally appeared in Ploughshares. In “I Looked For You, I Called Your Name,” a couple’s honeymoon begins with an emergency landing, “a hard, screeching wallop that knocked us around in our seats,” and doesn’t really get better from there.  The couple seems desperately ill suited and the narrator is infuriating in the most compelling way. Love love love.

The other five of my top ten, I’ve written about elsewhere and such but suffice it to say, they each offer something necessary to the art of letters and to the act of living.

Books Just Outside My Top Ten

The Interestings by Meg Wolitzer
Searching for Zion by Emily Raboteau
Where Did You Go, Bernadette by Maria Semple
Don’t Kiss Me by Lindsay Hunter
The Name of the Nearest River by Alex Taylor
Brit Lit by D. Gilson
Whipped by Richey Laurentiis
Sea Creatures by Susanna Daniel 

If You Only Read Three Books of Poetry Read These

The Self Unstable by Elisa Gabbert
She Has a Name by Kamilah Aisha Moon
When My Brother was an Aztec by Natalie Diaz

A Book I Loved So Much I Get Teary and Turned On Just Thinking About It

Meeting the Master by Elissa Wald came out quite some time ago but I love this book to the ends of the earth and back. It is smart and sexy and captures the complexities of submission perfectly. I particularly appreciated the focus on the mental and emotional, more than the physical nuances of submission. I recall entire scenes from this book on nearly a daily basis. I can’t stop re-reading it. There is this story about a woman seeing a therapist and it’s all a mind game and then there is a revelation at the end that made me gasp and then feel such kinship with the narrator. Elissa Wald is a masterful (no pun intended) writer and if I were to create a literary canon, this book would be part of it. I LOVED THIS BOOK SO MUCH. Okay. Had to get that out.

Books Written Just for a Girl Like Me

Nine and Half Weeks by Elizabeth McNeil
Damage by Josephine Hart

A Book That Burned Slow But When It Got Hot In My Mind, Goddamn, Goddamn (get it? hahaha)

Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozie Adiche

A Book I Read Because I Saw the Movie Preview and Had to Know What Was Going On and Then It Was Terrible.

Safe Haven by Nicholas Sparks

Books That Confounded Me but Still Left Me Struck

Mr. Fox by Helen Oyeyemi
An Extraordinary Theory of Objects by Stephanie LaCava 

A Book that Disturbed Me to the Depths of My Soul and Also Began Weirdly

Daddy Love by Joyce Carol Oates

A Book That Made Me Think And Want to Be a Better Writer/Thinker 

No Man’s Land by Eula Biss

Books I Truly Did Not Care For And Was Kind of Angry At

Tenth of December by George Saunders
The Love Song of Jonny Valentine by Teddy Wayne
Flimsy Little Plastic Miracles by Ron Currie Jr
Vampires in the Lemon Grove by Karen Russell
American Dervish by Ayad Akhtar
Inferno by Dan Brown (honestly, symbology? SIR!)

A Book I Was Super Ambivalent (and a little HMMM) About Though I Do Respect the Craft & Research and Time the Writer Put Into the Work and Also I Profiled The Writer

The Son by Philipp Meyer

A Memoir That Made Me Cry and Also Feel A Bit Irritated and then Guilty for Being Irritated

A House in the Sky by Amanda Lindhout and Sara Corbett

Books I Reviewed or Otherwise Covered (and mostly enjoyed) and I Am Too Lazy to Link

Red Moon by Ben Percy
Lean In by Sheryl Sandberg
The Virgins by Pamela Erens
When Women Were Birds by Terry Tempest Williams
The Studbook by Monica Drake
Rivers by Michael Farris Smith
The Residue Years by Mitchell S. Jackson
Dirty : Dirty an anthology edited by Debra Di Blasi featuring art by Mugi Takei
Who Asked You? by Terry McMillan
High Rise Stories edited by Audrey Petty
At Night We Walk in Circles by Daniel Alarcon
Pain, Parties, Work: Sylvia Plath In New York, 1953 by Elizabeth Winder
Furious Cool: Richard Pryor and the World That Made Him by David Henry and Joe Henry (This one I did not like at all at all)
Love is  Canoe by Ben Schrank
Fairytales for Lost Children by Diriye Osman
Throne of the Crescent Moon by Saladin Ahmed
Salsa Nocturna by Daniel José Older
The Syria Dilemma
The Bridge of Beyond by Simone Schwarz-Bart
White Girls by Hilton Als

Books I Read For This Awesome Piece I’ve Been Working On For Like a Fucking Year

Inferno by Eileen Myles
Leaving the Atocha Station by Ben Lerner (I also hated this one, just have to get that off my chest)
Light While There is Light by Keith Waldrop
Deliverance by James Dickey
The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath
Graceland by Chris Abani 

A Book I Appreciated on the Sentence and Conceptual Level That I Wanted More From

In The House Upon the Dirt Between the Lake and the Woods by Matt Bell

A Book I Read That I Am Still VERY VERY MAD ABOUT Because NO THE MAIN CHARACTER WOULD NOT DO THAT AT ALL NOT EVER

Revenge Wears Prada by Lauren Weisberger

Other Books I Enjoyed

You Are One of Them by Elliott Holt
All That Is by James Salter
And the Mountains Echoed by Khaled Hosseini
Sparta by Roxana Robinson
We Live in the Water by Jess Walter
Shining Girls by Lauren Beukes
Commercial Fiction by Dave Housley
Subtle Bodies by Norman Rush
Everything Begins and Ends at the Kentucky Club by Benjamin Alire SaenzSpeedboat by Renata Adler
The Revolution of Every Day by Cari Luna
The Kind of Girl by Kim Henderson
Breakfast at Tiffany’s by Truman Capote
Mother. Wife. Sister. Human. Warrior. Falcon. Yardstick. Turban. Cabbage. by Rob Delaney
How to Make Love to a Negro by Dany Laferriere
Bough Down by Karen Green
Figures For an Apocalypse by Edward Mullany
Best American Essays 2011 edited by Edwidge Danticat
The Hypothetical Girl by Elizabeth Cohen

Books I’m Still Not Sure About That Made Me Think (In a Good Way)

We the Animals by Justin Torres
What Purpose Did I Serve in Your Life by Marie Calloway
Taipei by Tao Lin
The Woman Upstairs by Claire Messud 

A Haunting, Excellent Book With a Breathtaking Ending

Fault Line by Christa Desir

The Fifty Shades of Grey Imitation I Truly Regret Reading That Makes FSOG Look Like a Literary Masterpiece

Anything He Wants by Sara Fawkes

A Book For Which My Response Is Not At All Surprising

The Dying Animal by Philip Roth

A Book That Is Whimsical and Strangely Affecting

Acorn by Yoko Ono

Meh

Brief Encounters with the Enemy: Fiction by Said Sayrafiezadeh
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green
The Silent Wife by ASA Harrison
Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson
Very Recent History by Choire Sicha
Still Missing by Chevy Stevens
I’d Know You Anywhere by Laura Lippman
Joyland by Stephen King
Soy Sauce for Beginners by Kirstin Chen (worth checking out, just wanted more from this) 

Very Good Poetry

Amores Gitano by Roberto Carlos Garcia
Man vs Sky by Corey Zeller

BLURBED

Saint Monkey by Jacinda Townsend
Goodnight Nobody by Ethel Rohan

A Book With an Awesome Bad Ass Woman Protagonist Who Was Left Out of the Movie For Reasons I Will Never Understand/BURN IT ALL DOWN

Homefront by Chuck Logan

Future Books

Karate Chop by Dorthe Nors (Must read short fiction)
Blood, Marriage, Wine & Glitter by S. Bear Bergman (Smart, warm and generous memoir)
Haiti Glass by Lenelle Moise (Lovely poetry, from a great Haitian writer)
Astonish Me by Maggie Shipstead (Book with a great idea, strong writing, disappointing denouement)
The Empathy Exams by Leslie Jamison (Brilliant, humbling essays, punch punch)
The Book of Unknown Americans by Cristina Henriquez (Exceptional, exceptional novel)
The Department of Speculation by Jenny Offill (Data embargo)
The Meat Racket by Christopher Leonard (Made me glad I’m already a vegetarian but for real don’t eat that chicken unless it’s free range)
Why Are You So Sad? by Jason Porter (Not for me)

 

 

anonymous asked:

Hi! Sorry if this is a dumb question but who exactly is Michelle? I'm v new to the fandom haha, thank you!! Xx

Haha hello, welcome! Michelle is Danielle. Danielle whom we had to endure for a year as Louis very obvious beard and was erased from his history recently