but that involves movement

rising signs when drunk
  • Aries: loud af, super fun, changes the music and dances by themselves, sometimes a bit of a dick (in the BEST WAY POSSIBLE), makes everyone dance with them, the one usually to come up with an idea to ride down a hill on some cardboard they found (SO FUN), probs will steal a sign
  • Taurus: probs drunk eating or hanging out in the kitchen, always on the look out for food or a snuggle, really well dressed and presented, super touchy and affectionate (often they're not super affectionate), SUPER giggly lmao, almost a mom-friend but if you're not a CLOSE friend they rly will not give a fuck, will very likely take off their clothes bc they feel so restricted
  • Gemini: giggly as hell, absolute SHIT talker, could probably win a debate with their confidence when drunk, tends to like run away, ditzy and off the planet entirely, somehow manages to talk with everyone at the party, doesn't really remember their names, accidentally flirty but only bc they are on their own level
  • Cancer: Super mom-friend if you're a close pal, will not give a fuck if you're not close, really loves food, tends to be super fun and captivating, really social and flirty, doesn't take it anywhere though so when it gets more than flirty they kinda just... leave that situation, can get offended rly quickly but also as quickly is laughing in the centre of the room
  • Leo: the organiser, lights up the party when they walk in, everyone is playing drinking games around them, always dressed on-POINT, laughs really loud, NEVER empty handed, always chatting to a group of people really animatedly, will find/swap clothes with someone by the end of the night, first one to get everyone to do shots for the night, forward rolls away from a bad convo, life of the party
  • Virgo: tries to look after everyone at first, makes sure they're comfortable, really sweet and caring, then gets absolutely smashed, talks shit and gets super direct, tells people they're wrong and corrects them in a hilarious way, doesn't shut up when they get started, makes sure everyone is super drunk and having fun, will be the one to hold back hair even if they just threw up
  • Libra: will touch EVERYTHING, super flirty and huggy, friends with everyone in a charming way, has control of the music ALWAYS and will complain when it's shit, somehow has everyone's details by the end of the night, HILARIOUS, talks really fast when they get excited, makes people chug their drinks and starts a chant off, usually ends up hooking up with someone at the end of a night
  • Scorpio: magnetic as hell, super dark and sarcastic at the beginning, cynical and observes, then decides who the fun people are at a party and gets LOOSE AS HELL, seductive and a smooth talker, will definitely bring someone home with them, gets someone's number, dances on the tables, sings/raps a song surprisingly perfectly, charming and witty, super funny
  • Sagittarius: omg life of the party with leo rising, does literally their own thing 100% of the time, gets on their own buzz entirely, makes a brand new friend group and runs off with them during the night, might just run off in general, makes a speech early in the night, makes the FUNNIEST jokes, can talk about politics and also absolutely nothing within the same conversation, always with a drink
  • Capricorn: witty and observant at first, then comes out of their shell and a completely different side to them emerges, will leave mid convo if it's boring, is sarcastic and loud, starts running around and somehow gets the energy of 5 billion condensed suns, gets really confident, speaks and laughs loudly
  • Aquarius: SOCIAL AS HELL, big arms and wild movements, always dresses so uniquely and cool, deeply involved in all drinking games, always ends up scoring more alcohol somehow (it's often given to them), takes a heap of selfies but immediately deletes them if they look slightly bad, will not ever stop talking
  • Pisces: absolutely wildly silly, laughing super hard on one side, and then mid-conversation sprints into another bc they like what they're talking about more, sometimes has a break where they suddenly get sad or mad, but then immediately reverts back to their cloud 9 state, gets a shitload of energy, meets everyone in the party and almost immediately forgets their name, always gets super drunk, passes out, wakes up and keeps going

not to be a backwards-thinking assimilationist not-radical gay but as someone who has been out for over a decade and faced a lot of backlash for it i would actually really like to be normal. i would really like to be treated normally by society. i’m proud of my identity and i will never apologize for that, but fuck man. there was a post that went around once that really resonated with me – “being gay is a radical act of defiance that none of us signed up for”.

i don’t exist as a lesbian to “challenge societal norms” and i wasn’t outed against my will when i was young just to grow up and be expected to fulfill a role in some “queer” movement that involves fucking, making kinks seem revolutionary or what the fuck ever

i deserve to want to feel normal and i don’t understand why it’s shocking to anyone that after girls like me grow up ashamed of our own thoughts, abused, and constantly knowing that every straight girl around us is more valuable and loved and sane than we are just to be told it’s “not radical” to want to be treated with respect and normalcy by a society that rejected us

The reason why people think anarchists only want to break shit and hurt people is because all anarchist movements outside of insurrectionary tactics have been sterilized of mentions of anarchism, or are completely ignored. Some of these include:

  • Anarchists had a huge part in the labor movement and continue to fight for workers rights to this day. 
  • Anarchists have been heavily involved in anti-war movements. 
  • Anarchists have been heavily involved in movements against racism. 
  • Anarchists have been heavily involved in the fight for the liberation of women and LGBT people. 
  • Anarchists do a fuckload of community service in associations like Food Not Bombs, where we use perfectly good produce and other food that would otherwise be wasted by supermarkets to make meals and feed the community for free. 
  • Anarchists put on music and film festivals.
  • Anarchists run animal shelters and take part in animal liberation movements.
  • Anarchists run healthcare, daycare, and other workers collectives. 
  • Anarchists have legal support and fundraising organizations which reach out to people who have been incarcerated by the state, providing means of contact and for people to write letters to prisoners. 

But y’all don’t hear about that, because maybe people would actually agree with us if they knew what we were actually about.

Funny how that is. 

“Rosa Parks didn’t stand up because she was tired/her feet hurt” is one of the most outrageous lies we tell children in the guise of history and it is so harmful. It takes this brave, courageous and intentional act of civil disobedience and makes it passive and unwitting. Rosa Parks knew she would be arrested that day and she made a choice to do so. She was already heavily involved in the Civil Rights movement when it happened. She saw the opportunity and took it because she knew she could turn it into a moment that would change history. She wanted to change the law and she got arrested so she could do so. It was not an accident and telling Black children otherwise teaches them that history just happened to them instead of telling them about a woman who put her life on the line to change an unjust law. It sanitizes her, turning her into a little old lady (she was 42) who was just tired after a long day of work makes her more palatable to white people and that is a disservice to her memory and her movement.

Tips on Writing Characters Without Faces

so yeah, we all know that facial expressions can tell us a lot about how a character is feeling, but what if that isn’t an option? how can you make someone emote if they don’t really have standard facial features? the answer; body language.

let’s consider how emotions are conveyed on a stage production vs movie with Sweeney Todd. First, the stage play:

Note how Todd’s entire upper body goes into his gestures, how he’s single-mindedly focused on his dreams and ideals; how his hands GRAB for each imaginary ‘man’ with these sharp, aggressive, destructive movements and how that contrasts with Mrs. Lovett’s body language; how her hands linger in the air and gravitate towards Todd even after he’s pulled away, and the slow turn she gives him. It does an excellent, though exaggerated, way of conveying their relationship (her focus is on him and making him happy, his focus is entirely on revenge)

Contrast this to the movie:

Originally posted by curiousitykilledthekat

Same lines in the song, much more subtle. Lovett’s eyes still track towards Todds, which reminds us she’s still more focused on the outside, but all of the emotion is in their faces. Were this not a close-up shot in a movie it’d be very, very hard to read their expressions.

While I do recommend you watch a few stage plays (in person near the back row if you can) to actually study body language for yourself or try out charades with your face covered with friends/watch how cosplayers or mascots emote, here’s a few shorthands to get you started (US-centric so expressions may vary on your region):

Head:

  • perfectly still - fear, intense attention, feeling under scrutiny
  • tilted up - recollection, intimidation (looking down nose at threat, aiming to appear taller)
  • tilted down - intense thought, shame (avoiding eye contact), depression/sad feelings
  • turned away - not giving person full attention, avoiding subject/conflict without being combative
  • cocker-spaniel (sideways) tilt - confusion, curiosity, amusement

Hands

  • at the forehead - fatigue (wiping away sweat), illness (checking self for fever, feeling a headache), realization/memory (a ‘well duh’ tap)
  • at the eyes - fatigue or headache (shielding eyes from light), distress (blocking out a painful view, concealing tears)
  • at the nose - disgust (a pinch at the nostrils,) irritation (rubbing at sore spot on nose from glasses wear)
  • at the mouth - nausea, surprise, repressing an emotion/stopping self from saying something
  • at the chin - contemplation, tiredness (face resting in hand)
  • rubbing back of neck - a need to relax tension, embarrassment, slight unease/desire to distract self
  • at the chest - surprise, self-protection (reaction to a wounding statement, sometimes used sarcastically), strong emotions (clutching at heart, could be good-strong or bad-strong), need for security (touching necklace/adjusting clothing to conceal more)
  • at the stomach - pain (clutching, pressing), satisfaction after a meal, protectiveness towards fetus when applicable
  • at the hip(s) - confidence, intimidation, nervousness (if grabbing for weapon)
  • at groin - concealment/unease (usually male-coded as protection of genitals), politeness (hands folded in lap)
  • on thighs - exhaustion (bent over, hands on legs supporting tired upper body)
  • formed into fists - holding back an intense emotion, preparing to fight
  • toying with something - restlessness (bored, nervous energy, craving something they can’t touch) or deliberate disrespect of property (playing with personal objects someone holds dear as an intimidation tactic)

Arms

  • at sides, relaxed - default posture
  • at sides, tense - unease, restraint (soldier at attention, person holding still to avoid being attacked), fear
  • crossed at chest - disapproval, displaying authority, unease (hugging oneself)
  • crossed at stomach - pain, intense laughter (caused by sore stomach muscles from laughing)
  • up, fingers laced behind head - confidence, relaxation
  • one arm on back of furniture - confidence, invitation for someone join them
  • general rule - the further arms are away from body, the more confident/dominant a person means to appear; exposed torso indicates that they don’t see anyone around as a threat to them

Legs

  • square with shoulders - professional, restraint, protective stance
  • wide stance, one foot a little back but planted - defensive stance, expecting to receive blows (knees may be unlocked - seen in swordplay and fencing)
  • weight on one leg - relaxed, tired, may also be leaning on something or pair with one ankle tucked behind the other
  • uneven stance - could indicate old injury
  • foot tapping/bouncing - boredom, nervous energy

Whole Body:

  • stiff and still - fear, unease, standing to attention
  • limp or pliant - relaxed, tired, pleased
  • shoulders back/head up - alert, focused, aggressive
  • shoulders forward, hunched - tired, ashamed
  • leaning towards person - interest, intimidation (looming over them), aggression (usually paired with tense arms or hands in fists,)
  • leaning away from person - relaxation, confidence, disgust (recoiling)
  • smooth/fluid movements - joy, confidence, experience
  • stiff motions - fear (reactive, fight or flight), pain (reluctance to move), anger (either fighting to keep control of emotions or lashing out), cold (conservation of heat by keeping limbs near body)
  • cracking joints/stretching - preparing for a fight, often reading as confidence in abilities
  • general rule - close contact/proximity can read as intimidation (paired with tense body - an invasion of personal space) or affection (paired with relaxaed body language, gentle movement) or passion/attraction while distance can read unease/distaste/fear/dislike.

with those in mind, let’s read this scene from Red vs Blue (a personal fav of mine for body language) featuring agent texas from season 8.

Originally posted by cryingmanlytears

So first of all, very relaxed upper body; limp arms held away from the body, which slowly come back to rest on her hips as she looks at what she’s done. Watch how her lean shifts at the end as her center of gravity shifts, and how she has to move her right leg to restabilize herself when she’s finished pushing it. This reads, in order from the start of the loop; detachment (the least amount of her body is involved in the action as possible), relaxation (smooth movements, the deliberation of those little steps backwards) and confidence (hands on hips.) We can tell a ton about this character just in this gif alone, based on her body language.

in summary! this list isn’t exhaustive, but hopefully it gives you some ideas for ways of making characters emote in fics when you can’t see their faces.

Rising Signs When Drunk

Aries: loud af, super fun, changes the music and dances by themselves, sometimes a bit of a dick (in the BEST WAY POSSIBLE), makes everyone dance with them, the one usually to come up with an idea to ride down a hill on some cardboard they found (SO FUN), probs will steal a sign

Taurus: probs drunk eating or hanging out in the kitchen, always on the look out for food or a snuggle, really well dressed and presented, super touchy and affectionate (often they’re not super affectionate), SUPER giggly lmao, almost a mom-friend but if you’re not a CLOSE friend they rly will not give a fuck, will very likely take off their clothes bc they feel so restricted

Gemini: giggly as hell, absolute SHIT talker, could probably win a debate with their confidence when drunk, tends to like run away, ditzy and off the planet entirely, somehow manages to talk with everyone at the party, doesn’t really remember their names, accidentally flirty but only bc they are on their own level

Cancer: Super mom-friend if you’re a close pal, will not give a fuck if you’re not close, really loves food, tends to be super fun and captivating, really social and flirty, doesn’t take it anywhere though so when it gets more than flirty they kinda just… leave that situation, can get offended rly quickly but also as quickly is laughing in the centre of the room

Keep reading

Queens of Mewni & Their Cheek Symbol

So, I just thought to make the list of the cheek symbols of the Queens of Mewni for my next analysis (the significance of these cheek symbols). The first column were the image of the queens, second is their cheek symbols, third is symbolism’s meaning I got from the internet, and fourth is what traits I think you needed to get that symbol in the SVTFOE universe (in short, what the symbol signifies). 

SVTFOE Card Suite Symbolism speculation:

Heart - people with this symbol are very lovable and has a distinguishing “charm” that naturally attracts people and come to her side. They prioritize their relationship with others compared to anything else and usually let their heart dictates their action (emotional). They are often found as center of the group

Spade - people with this symbol wields strong and fearsome power, even more powerful than normal and typical queens.

Diamond - people with this symbol have the tendency to take the center of command and shoulder the burden and responsibility by their selves. They dress in jewelry and finery, conducting their selves as befitting of nobility.

Club - people with this symbol have the “common” mindset. They appreciate the values that works for the greater whole of society and hates anything that could destroy the social order they are comfortable and grew up in already.

Color symbolism speculation:

Shades of purple - elegance, nobility, regal

Yellow - bright, lively

Pink - lovely, feminine, 

White - harmony, power, everything (as it is combination of all colors of light. That’s why Moon said you must give everything if you want to “dip down”)


Keep reading

My opinion on the “James vs Snape” issue.

I love the HP fandom, but I just hate how in this fandom Snape gets more love than he deserves, meanwhile James Potter gets more hate than he will ever deserve. I can’t believe that it’s 2017 and people still believe Snape was a hero and James was a terrible person.

James Potter was a jerk when he was a teen and yes, he bullied Snape. But he was 15, and “a lot of people are idiots at the age of fifteen”. Tell me that you weren’t an idiot sometimes at that age, I dare you.

If he was such a bad person, then why was he totally okay with Remus being a werewolf? He loved his friends like nobody else, and it’s canon. He became an unregistered animagi so that his werewolf friend wouldn’t have to suffer through the full moon alone.

Do you realize that when James Potter used Levicorpus on Snape, he had already been planning on becoming a death eater and had been trying to out Remus as a Werewolf? This is actual canon from DH.

You have to remember that even if James was an idiot, Snape was no saint either. Remus even said that Snape “never lost an opportunity to curse James”. In fact, it’s mentioned by anyone who talks about the marauders and Snape that the animosity and hexing between them was mutual, so don’t tell me that only James hexed Snape.  We don’t actually know how one-sided Snape’s bullying was. But if what Remus said it’s true, then it was mutual. Even if Snape’s worst memory is true as told,  this happened after he was openly associating with pureblood supremacists, dismissing the use of dark magic as ‘a joke’. 

You need to remember that James despised Dark Magic, and he couldn’t even just say the word “mudblood”. He was the complete opposite to a pureblood supremacist.

He grew up and became Head Boy. He matured, and did it enough for Lily to fall in love with him.

After school (possibly even in his final year), James grew up, and became part of the Order of the Phoenix as soon as he left Hogwarts. He realized what a douche he was to people and changed for the better. He joined the Order because there were innocent people dying for no reason, and he knew he could fight and help. He joined because he loved Lily and he wanted to make sure there was a future for them, a future where they could live happily ever after. And then he died trying to protect his family. He faced Lord Volvemort wandless, unarmed, so his wife and their baby could escape. James Potter was many things but he was not an idiot. He knew that facing Voldemort at that point would be the last thing he did, but did it anyway. He decided that Lily’s life, and Harry’s, was more important than his own. 

You have to rememeber that literally everybody from Hagrid to Lord Voldemort thought James Potter was a good and brave man. 

On the other hand, Snape called the girl he was ”in love with” a mudblood infront of the entire school. He directly verbally abused her with a racial slur and became involved in a movement that wanted to kill her and eradicate her kind. He chose to shatter their friendship because his ego was hurt that a girl was helping him, even though she probably was the only person who was nice to him. 

His treatment of Petunia was terrible. He’s been bullying people since before he even went to Hogwarts. Since he was little, he thought muggle-borns and muggles were inferior. 

He created a spell that could kill his enemies when he was at Hogwarts. And after that, he finally joined a terrorist organization that wanted to kill people like the woman he was supposed to be in love with. He probably killed and tortured people. He was a loyal Death Eater for multiple years.   

Snape may have loved Lily, but his love for her was selfish, seen in the fact that he was willing to let her husband and her infant child die. Actually, I don’t think he loved her. He was obsessed with her. Or at least, he loved the idea of her that was on his mind, not the real Lily Evans. If he had really loved her, he would have tried to save her family, knowing that she would suffer if they died. But he was willing to let a baby and an innocent man die if it meant he could save Lily. If it meant he could have her. 

And when Lily died to protect her child, he realized that he made the wrong decision and “changed”. He became a spy, and I know it was hard. I understand that. I acknowledge Snape’s efforts as a spy and his contributions to the war. In the end, he turned out to be a brave man who tried to rectify his mistakes. But that doesn’t really change how a terrible person he was.

He abused his students, he bullied them. He targeted Neville, knowing he already had self-esteem issues, knowing what happened to his parents.  He threatened to poison his pet. He consciously targeted someone he perceived as weak, to the point where he became Neville’s worst fear at age 13. A fucking teacher was his biggest fear, not the people that tortured his parents into madness. Don’t you see how fucked up is that?!

Snape body shamed and insulted Hermione, who was an intelligent and hardworking student (just like Lily). He made her cry. 

Yes, he tried to protect Harry, and saved his life more than once. But he also verbally abused him, a neglected, abused, orphan who had done nothing wrong but look like his dead father. A father that he didn’t even know, by the way. Snape mocked and insulted him at every turn. Snape did everything that he could to make Harry’s life miserable because it was his way to have his revenge against James. This is not a 15 years old boy bullying another, it’s a fucking 30 years old man abusing a kid because he couldn’t let it go his hate about a dead person.

He tried to have an innocent man killed because of what happened when they were 16. Yes, Sirius was an idiot for that, I’m not denying it, but he didn’t coerce Snape into doing anything. He just gave him information. It means that Snape, on his own, decided it would be a great idea to sneak into the Shrieking Shack just to prove that Remus was a werewolf. 

He caused Remus to lose his job after spending years suffering in poverty. He deliberately made Remus’ students to write an essay on how to spot and kill a werewolf, to emotionally attack and possibly out him as a werewolf. He later did out him to the entire wizarding world, just because he was angry because Sirius didn’t die.

After seeing the abuse Dursley’s inflicted on Harry, he thought it was funny and felt no sympathy. Harry was fifteen. The same age that Snape was when he was (supposedly) “bullied”. He didn’t care about the abuse, he didn’t see himself in Harry. He thought  it was funny. Fucking funny. 

Usually, people at 15 are jerks and bully each other. But teachers aren’t supossed to abuse kids. 

James Potter was a jackass, but he didn’t join the equivalent of a magical nazi organization when he left Hogwarts. He didn’t experiment with dark magic and he died protecting his family. He grew out of it. He was a good person in the end.

Snape only betrayed Voldemort because he was chasing after Lily. He only left the death eaters because he wanted to protect Lily, if Neville was the chosen one, he would remain in his position as a Death Eater.

So sorry if I prefer James over Snape all the way.

What do listening to music, hitting a baseball and solving a complex math problem have in common? They all activate less gray matter than drinking wine.

According to Yale neuroscientist Gordon Shepherd, the flavor of wine “engages more of our brain than any other human behavior.” The apparently simple act of sipping Merlot involves a complex interplay of air and liquid controlled by coordinated movements of the the tongue, jaw, diaphragm and throat. Inside the mouth, molecules in wine stimulate thousands of taste and odor receptors, sending a flavor signal to the brain that triggers massive cognitive computation involving pattern recognition, memory, value judgment, emotion and of course, pleasure.

Whereas most wine writers tend to focus on the various elements that go into the wine itself — the grape, the oak, terroir, the winemaker — Shepherd’s subject is the drinker. He explores biomechanics, physiology and neuroscience to describe a journey that begins as wine passes the lips and ends with a lingering “finish” that can last for minutes.

The Taste Of Wine Isn’t All In Your Head, But Your Brain Sure Helps

Illustration: Alex Reynolds/NPR

klutz-o-matic  asked:

Hey um... Im in high school ATM moment and I'm doing a project that involves me making an animation that will involve a fight scene, full body animation and other sorts of movement, but then again I'm scared it will turn out horribly because it's my first time animating on a computer... Got any advice...?

First off: Animating a full body fight scene and you’re only in high school! RAD!

Second: When doing any animation, having strong key poses is very important. Spend as much time as you can getting your poses to feel as good as you can. Luckly, you can find tons of reference for different types of fighting on the internet. Just do image searches for the type of stuff you’re looking for, sometimes theres ones where the movement is broken down into a series of photographs. 

Third: The other thing you can do is obsessively watch your favorite fight scenes from movies over and over and over, frame by frame, in slow motion, and then copy parts of them and choreograph them with your friends in the park. Just a suggestion. Not like i did this a lot when i was in high school or anything.

i’m not against any type of veg*nism. as a matter of fact, i think that those who can do it are good for doing so as long as they are well read and can maintain their health. i do, however, have a huge problem with how exclusionist the veg*n movement is, and the fact that its main tactics involve either shocking people, mass use of misinformation, or saying “you have no say in animal welfare because you support animal cruelty.” that alone ostracises people, but it also forces people to admit this or that about themselves to not seem horrible when pressed to answer why they aren’t veg*n (“why aren’t you veg*n? why do you support animal cruelty?” “because i cannot afford or manage it in my current situation/my medication doesn’t let me take on the title/i’m AVAP but don’t consider myself worth the label”)

the veg*n movement steeps in the idea that it is something much more than just a personal diet preference, but that’s wrong. there are too few people (because of the strong exclusionism rampant in all veg*n walks of life) to make an impact and, ultimately, even if 30% of the western world abstained from all animal products, little about the industry will change because demand would still be high enough for it to go on. this is why i will always encourage selective omnivory. just like teaching safe sex is more effective than teaching abstinence, thoughtful purchasing of ethically-sourced animal products is something exponentially more people are willing (and able!) to do.

if you really want to make a change, make it so that more people can join your efforts.

Differences between ‘‘por’‘ and ‘‘para’‘


Differences between ‘’por’’ and ‘’para’’ , these prepositions are one of the most difficult things to get right for a foreigner, the truth it’s my pals, that they are indeed hard to distinguish. But don’t feel bad about it, if you ask a native speaker what’s the difference between those two, they won’t even know what to answer, so in this post I’ll give it a shot.

Roughly translated, the two correspond to the English ‘’for’’ and that is what mainly causes confusions.

The most common and important difference is that ‘’por’’ is used to explain the cause or reason of something and ‘’para’’ is generally used to explain an aim, objective or purpose:

POR


‘’Vine a Argentina por mi familia’’ – I came to Argentina because of my family.

’Las inundaciones crecen por la falta de arboles’’ – The floods become frequent because of the lack of trees.

‘’No salieron de su casa por el temor que le tienen a los ladrones’’ – They didn’t leave their house because of their fear towards bandits.


PARA

’Compré este regalo para ti’’ – I bought this present for you.

‘’Cerraron la ventana para que no entre viento’’ – They closed the window so the wind couldn’t in.

‘’Traje esta heladerita para guardar las cervezas ‘’ – I brought this fridge to save the beers here.

Do you see now? The main difference is quite clear I think, meanwhile, in each three sentences of the beginning, ‘’por’’ is used to explain the REASON of the events (the reason I visited Argentina is my family, the reason floods are growing in number is the lack of trees, the reason they don’t go out of their house is the fear towards thieves), and ‘’para’’ is used to explain the OBJECTIVE of your action (I bought this present with the aim of giving it to you, they closed the window with the aim of not allowing wind to keep coming in, I brought this little fridge with the aim of keeping beers cool).

You can’t obviously mix cause with aim, because you’ll get a semantic and interpretative mess:

*Las inundaciones crecen para la falta de arboles – Notice how important it is to consider the subject with ‘’para’’. You see, sintactically speaking, ‘’para’’ in this function introduces an INDIRECT OBJECT, this can be represented as ‘’x did y for z’’, so there is someone who does something PARA someone, in these situations the indirect object.

Now let’s see the other functions, separate, starting with por:

Amount of time:

You can use ‘’por’’ to express the amount of seconds, minutes, hours, days and other time units which took you to do the action (or will take, or usually takes you):

-‘’Voy como estudiante de intercambio a Alemania por tres años’’ – I’m going to Germany as an exchange student for three years.

-‘’Trabajé en Rumania por tres años’’ – I worked in Romania for three years.

-‘’Vengo aquí todos los veranos por vacaciones’’ – I came here every summer for vacations. (This one has the two values: the reason of coming and the period of time, your vacations)

Locative:

As locative, you may use ‘’por’’ to talk about a place or an object and you are not 100% sure about their location, the doubt it’s inside the semantics of this function:

-‘’No encuentro mis lentes, estaban por aquí’’ (I can’t find my glasses, they were around here)

-‘’Creo que la casa estaba por este barrio’’ (I think that the house was around this neighborhood)

-‘’Sandrá está caminando por la arbolada’’ (Sandra is walking through the woods)

-‘’El hospital queda por Mitre’’ (The hospital is around Mitre st.)

As you see, in each example ‘’por’’ express location, in the first example, we are searching our glasses (in our room, idk) and we know that they are there, but we don’t know where specifically, they are just somewhere in our room. In the second example, we know the house is in that neighborhood, but where precisely? In the corner of the street? Or in the middle of it? We don’t know…

In the third example we know that Sandra is doing that: walk, and we know she’s walking through the woods, she told us that before leaving, but in which part of the woods? Deep in the woods? Right at the edge? Through the road? We don’t have telepathic powers, so we don’t know precisely. The same happens with the last example, which is more frequent in the argentinian variety of Spanish, we know there is x hospital by the Mitre street, that’s the important thing, I don’t need to tell you if the hospital lies next to a market or to a gay club, it’s just there in Mitre street.

Exchange:

-‘’Te cambio este reloj por tu perro’’ (I’ll trade with you this watch for your dog)

-‘’Cambió a sus amigas por su novio’’ (She changed her friends for his boyfriend)

Not too much to say about this function, is mostly used in trading contexts, as the first example depicts. The ‘’por’’ always is placed between the things that are getting traded (x por x).

Media:

-‘’Viajaré a Alemania por avión, no por barco’’ (I’ll travel to Germany by plane, not by ship)

-‘’Mándame los resultados por Facebook’’ (Send me the results via facebook)

‘’Por’’ is also used to express the media, via or way you travel or do some actions.

Price:

-‘’Vendo un kilo de naranjas por 30 pesos’’ (I’m selling a kilo of oranges at 30 bucks)

“Vendo este auto por 2000 euros’’ (I’m selling this car at 2000 euros)

Actually, in matters of prices and selling, the preposition used to introduce the price may be either ‘’por’’, or it can also be ‘’a’’ (Te vendo este auto a 2000 euros).

Distribution:

-‘’Una vez por turno, puedes robar una carta’’ (Once per turn, you can draw a card)

-‘’La pizza cuesta 50 pesos por persona’’ (The pizza costs 50 bucks a person)

-‘’Es un caramelo por niño’’ (It is a candy for each kid)

‘’Por’’ introduces in these cases the measure of distribution, in the second example you are stating that 50 pesos shall be paid by each person eating it.

Passive voice:

According to Wikipedia, the voice ‘’(…)describes the relationship between the action (or state) that the verb expresses and the participants identified by its arguments (subject, object, etc.). When the subject is the agent or doer of the action, the verb is in the active voice. When the subject is the patient, target or undergoer of the action, the verb is said to be in the passive voice.’’

According to that paragraph, if we have a sentence like ‘’La policía persiguió a Pepe’’ (The police chased Pepe), we will find out it is in the active voice, since we clearly see an agent, a doer of the action, which is the police.

The passive voice of this verb would modify it’s relationship with the parts of the sentence, thus, the object (Pepe) would become the subject… but not as an agent. You see, this is the particular thing with the voice change, the passive voice, at least in Spanish and English, doesn’t only imply a syntactical change, but also semantical: The subject isn’t an agent anymore, but a PACIENT. This is, the subject, instead of doing the action, will be AFECTED by it:

-‘’Pepe (subject) fue perseguido por la policía’’ (Agentive complement)

-Pepe was chased by the police.

‘’Por’’, in the passive voice, introduces a compliment, known as ‘’Agentive compliment’’ or ‘’Complemento agente’’, which, as the name points out, introduces the doer of the action.

Soon to do an action.

This is not too important, because it’s informal and it can also be replaced by ‘’a punto de’’. It must be always used combined with the auxiliary ‘’estar’’.

-‘’Estoy por limpiar la mesa / Estoy a punto de limpiar la mesa’’ (I’m about to clean the table)    

-‘’La anaconda está por matarme / La anaconda está a punto de matarme’’ (The anaconda is about to kill me)

Para – Objective.

Now we’ll describe ‘’Para’’ and its functions, the most important use of ‘’para’’ has to do with the objective of an action, not the reason that causes the action, but rather, the reason you are aiming to reach with your action, basically, your goal. This first function may be easily translated to English as ‘’in order to’’, in German and Dutch, ‘’um (…) zu’’ and ‘’om (…) te’’ respectively.

-‘’Voy a ir a Suecia para estudiar sueco’’ (I’m going to Sweden in order to study Swedish)

-‘’Ryckhard usaba su espada para matar dragones’’ (Ryckhard used his sword to kill dragons)

-‘’Compré torta para comer esta tarde’’ (I bought cake in order to eat it this evening)

There is a function that is pretty similar to these one, it differs because it involves movement, I call it ‘’destiny’’ because there is a receiver of a thing you are transporting:

’Llevo esta caja de bombones para mi novia’’ (I’m taking this chocolate box to my girlfriend’s)

’Esta nota es para el correo’’ (This note is for the mail)

‘’Traigo este regalo para Nico’’ (I bring this gift for Nico)

See how the each sentence has a verb that implies movement? (To take, to bring) Except for the second one, in which the verb is hidden. These sentence describe a movement towards someone who is a receiver (an indirect object), represented in the sentence by ‘’para (…)’’ that will get that x thing (the direct object) that you are carrying.

End of a term.

‘’Para’’ has a temporal function too, it is used to establish a limit or end to a given period of time, we are obviously talking about a term established for an essay, a document, a homework, or some task that we are asked to do… or we ask someone else to do. For example, your teacher gives you some homework, and it has to be done for tomorrow (para mañana)

-‘’Necesito que hagan esta tarea para mañana (I need you to do this homework for tomorrow)

-‘’Quiero que me traigas el informe para mañana’’ (I want you to bring me the report for tomorrow)

 

Direction.

In this case, ‘’para’’ express the direction towards x place your going to, it would be like the Dutch ‘’naartoe’’. Also, expressing direction using ‘’para’’ is pretty informal, in more formal contexts, ‘’a’’ is used.

-‘’En quince minutos, salgo para tu casa’’ (In fifteen minutes, I’m going to your house)

-‘’Me voy para Alemania’’ (I’m going to Germany)

Opinion.

In this case, ‘’para’’ introduces someone who has an opinion, most of the times, this clause stays away from the rest of the sentence, you’ll see many times at the beginning of the sentence, but it also may be placed in other positions, ALWAYS, between comas (not at the beginning, obviously)

-‘’Para Pepe, el partido de Argentina estaba arreglado ‘’(Acording to Pepe, Argentina’s match was fixed)

-‘’Para mí, estás hablando pura mierda’’ (To me, you are just speaking pure bullcrap)

-‘’Los bordes eran, para María, muy filosos’’ (The edges were, acording to Maria, to Sharp)

You see how the two first sentences have that ‘’para’’ clause at the beginning and in the third one, in the middle of the sentence, totally isolated from the rest of the sentence in each example.


Temporal para.

The temporal function of para is to point out an exact moment in time, it can be used to refer either past or future events, but almost never to refer to present events.

-‘’Para navidad, fuimos de mi abuelo’’ (On Christmas, we visited my grandpa)

-‘’Se crearán 900 [novecientas] escuelas para el año que viene’’ (900 schools will be created for the next year)

-‘’Mis amigos vienen para mi cumpleaños’’ (My friends are coming for my birthday)

Okay people, I think these are the most important ones, there may be a couple not so relevant that are missing, but I may talk about them in other post, the most important ones are here… I hope it helped because I noticed there are many people that struggle with these two prepositions that clearly are sons of a huge and naughty bitch.

‘ntill the next post, greetings qts! Hasta la próximaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

4

I was going through my photo’s from nyc and found these from the Museum of Art and Design. They had a section on the counter-culture movement in the 70′s that involved a lot of handmade, sustainable and reused fashion. 

Some of it was really gorgeous! But some looks like the fashion equivalent of an LSD trip. 

(sorry for the dark photos - idk what it is about nyc but all the museums were really dark) 

4

[warning for old-school trans terminology and rhetoric, transmisogyny, slurs, and mentions of violence and rape]

this is the article roycevomit discovered; i managed to track it down in the local university library and use their scanner.  bear with me, the text is a little long, but it’s also very interesting and at times a little too close to home.  obviously i don’t agree with everything it says, but i think it’s an important part of our history.

Beyond Two-Genderism
Notes of a Radical Transsexual
by Margo
published in The Second Wave Vol 2.4 (1972)

Over the past few years, both the feminist and gay movements have been challenging some basic assumptions about human sexual identity and expression.  There is a growing group of people who refuse to see women as inferior to men, and who also refuse to see love between people of the same sex as inferior or less “moral” than love between people of different sexes.  More and more questions are being asked about sex roles and relationships, ranging from why there is not equal pay for equal work to why a fulfilling sexual experience cannot involve less or more than two people.  In brief, the feminist movement has challenged male chauvinism, and the gay movement has challenged heterosexual chauvinism.  Of course, these are not separate issues.  As one who views herself as a feminist bisexual woman, I think and feel them to be very intimately related indeed.

Two-Genderism: Unfinished Business

However, if I am to find a life as a full human being, I must challenge yet a third aspect of sexism which has not yet been challenged, at least not on a large scale.  I call this aspect two-genderism, a rather clumsy term upon which I hope someone will improve.

Two-genderism can be summed up in the following assumptions: (1) human beings are divided into two distinct and mutually exclusive biological pigeonholes, male and female, (2) human beings are divided into two distinct and mutually exclusive psychological and social pigeonholes, men and women; (3) biological sex, subjective identity, and social assignment always coincide, and (4) none of these facts can change as a person grows and develops.

Perhaps these assumptions become clearer when we see exactly who gets hurt by them.  While it is true that everyone is affected to some extent, and that without these assumptions it would be much harder to maintain or justify a sexist society, still there are two overlapping groups that are particularly damaged by two-genderism.  First, there are intersexuals, people who combine some elements of both sexes in their bodies.  Secondly, there are transsexuals, people who develop gender identities which are preponderantly opposite to the ones which society demands.

Most transsexuals have perfectly “normal” female or male bodies, as the case may be.  Most intersexuals tend to adopt whatever sex they are reared to be, no matter how confusing from a two-sex viewpoint their biological condition is.  And there are some people who combine aspects of both these groups.  I am one of them.

A Personal Account

As I have learned from the feminist and gay movements, theory is not enough.  Now women are beginning to feel free to discuss their rapes without shame or euphemism, and gay people openly discuss the joys and terrors of coming out.  In the same way, I feel that an account of my past may give a better picture of what two-genderism means.

I am a genitally male person who has wanted to be female since about the age of four and a half.  I have some female breast development and gonads which produce virtually no sperm for a reason which has not yet been medically determined.  At present, I am taking female hormones and look forward to eventual sex reassignment surgery to make me as biologically female as possible.  At the same time, I must admit that 21 years of living as a male, however unrelished a role it has been, has made my sense of femaleness different than it is for someone born into that status.

Rather than write an autobiographical case history, I would like to relate moments which may give a better feeling of what my transsexuality has meant in my life.  My technique is borrowed directly from an article entitled “Barbaric Rituals,” which is in Sisterhood is Powerful.

Excerpts From A Diary

I am walking around in male clothing, and a child refers to me as a “funny-looking lady."  Teenagers ask me if I am a boy or a girl.  I am not sure if they are affirming my female identity or merely considering me as a hippy.  I think of many replies, respond with silence, and walk on.

In a crowd watching a building a building demolition (do I see the bring-down of a sixteen-story building as symbolic transsexuality?), being asked by some teenage boys if I use silicone, and being warned by a hardhat not to lift my sweatshirt lest I be "lewd and luscious."  Being told by one boy that I would probably be busted for "impersonating a chick” even though I am in male attire.

Being told by a feminist friend that I am masculine in being more idea-oriented than people-oriented, and wondering when people would ever give me a chance to be my real self to them.

Openly cross-dressing, wearing women’s clothing to a university campus, and being correctly associated with the gay movement but incorrectly identified as a male homosexual rather than as what I consider myself, a female bisexual.

Being called a faggot by some fraternity types at school.  The humor was that a faggot is the derogatory term for a male who enjoys sleeping with males, while I was and am in a situation where I can go to bed only with myself.

Finding some genuine beauty and humanness in my own subjectively female sexuality, in spite of all the confusion and ambivalence, but being unable to express a shadow of it to anyone else.

Talking to a friendly gay male who tells me, “I’m a very tolerant faggot, but I can’t understand you.  You’ve gone three steps beyond me and another two in reverse.”

Talking to a gay sister who can understand me as a “cross-gender Lesbian” but cannot understand why I find myself talking in a very different tone of voice, an affirmation of my emerging identity.

Being excluded from feminist groups because of my genitals and required male social role, and being excluded from male society because of almost everything else.

Talking with some genuinely kind organizers of a women’s center at my undergraduate school who has tried to comfort me by telling me that what with nonsexist child rearing I should have company in fifteen or twenty years.

After a demonstration against fraternity prostitution, going to a local newspaper and saying “Women’s liberation frees men too,” rather than, “I am what i feel, a woman who supports both her sisters and her brothers in ending dehumanization.”

Going to a campus meeting for a feminist organization where it is proposed to hold a women’s party, hearing that there can also be a men’s party, and realizing that I can fit into neither; going outside and having a good cry.

Having a radical male friend question whether my transsexuality is a personal distraction from “worthwhile” political work because “how many transsexuals are there, anyway?”

Leaving early from a radical literature distribution meeting and hearing that I had missed an excellent discussion of the unity of the personal and the political.  Later the same night being asked, at a party of the same people, not to discuss my intersexuality since I might be overheard.  Knowing that natural-born women could discuss birth control or abortion at this party without fear.

Telling myself that I am where a female was in 1950 or a gay person in 1960.  Then thinking about a woman or gay person raped, murdered, or driven to suicide, and feeling guilty fro playing the game of “more oppressed than thou.”

Reading about a woman’s project in Vietnam, and getting my priorities straight by hoping that the war will be over before I will be eligible to join.

Wondering if I will ever be able to pass as a female, and deciding that if not, I would rather live in a body and wear clothes that I can enjoy, even if it is on a desert island.

Reading feminist literature which claims that “men sure of their masculinity support equality” and gay literature which says that those who cross-identify or cross-dress are expressing masochism, are a small minority of the upright homophile world, and should not make you doubt that “you can be gay and normal too."  As a Lesbian who considers female transsexuals her sisters, experiencing the special pain of seeing these people apologized for and put down.

Arranging for hormone tests, and wondering what they can really prove.  Realizing that to learn I "really” have breasts, that I “really” am partly female, would make me feel much more legitimate.

Enjoying medieval music, which has scales in between major and minor.  Reflecting that even in classical music you are permitted to modulate, to change key.

Conclusion

This article is intended neither as a scholarly discussion of transsexual and intersexual states nor as a blueprint for ideal societies.  There are a number of articles now available on transsexuals and intersexuals, although many have a sexist bias.  As far as utopias are concerned, many anti-sexist people have shown a great interest in writing about androgynous societies yet small tolerance for actual androgynous people.  I can, however, make some suggestions to both the feminist and gay movements.

To The Feminist Movement:

1.  Do not assume that people who are confident about their sexual identities are for equality.  many people are either confident sexists or unsure people who question the old givens.  It is also an insult to all who do not fit the stereotype of a confident person of any sex.

2.  Understand that because of psychological and social pressures many transsexuals seek extreme versions of their desired sex roles.  Feminism can best reach these people by example and by understanding the uncertainty which sex identity shift can bring and which extreme role-playing can mark.

3.  In writing, recognize that there are intersexuals and transsexuals who may be trapped in a no-person’s-land and who need solidarity from anti-sexist people.  Literature which insists that there are only women and men is conspiring unconsciously with sexist forces to crush those in between.

4.  In exclusively female groups, redefine what it means to be female so that male transsexuals may have at least partial membership before surgery.  It is just at this transitional point, when the transsexual is beginning to live in her new identity, that communication with wher sisters may be important in shaping her life-style and in getting a wider perspective on what it means to be a woman.

5.  Become involved in current gender research and treatment programs so that the feminist view may be represented.

To The Gay Movement:

1.  Do not put down transsexuals, intersexuals, or other unusual people (e.g., transvestites) for apologize or express condescending pity for them.

2.  Explain that gay people are those who wish to love a member of their own sex, while transsexuals wish to change sex.  This is the difference between sexual preference and gender identity, and it should be known in order to confront the confusion and needless conflict between transsexuals and gay people.

3.  Recognize that some female transsexuals will have male homosexual feelings and some male transsexuals will have female homosexual feelings.  Such people should be welcomed to their respective groups.

In general:

Although transsexuals and intersexuals can organize themselves, they cannot make progress without help since they are such a small minority.  Recognizing the problems of intermediate people would be a humane step for anti-sexist groups and a move toward a freer view of sex and gender for everyone.  It would help bring to an end the two-genderism which is being challenged in genetic research but not yet in social reality.

I should say something about my obligations as a transsexual to the larger movement.  First of all, I feel committed to such issues as child-care and abortion, even though I shall never be able to bear or father a child.  I shall always try to be sensitive to the ways in which I have profited by male status, however much I have lost emotionally: for school and job simply being male was an automatic bonus.  Of course, I will be renouncing this status, but I cannot renounce the very unjust benefits I have received and which are now unerasable history.  I shall join with the Lesbian movement, while as a bisexual female I shall try to have the strict dichotomy between gay and straight removed (as Kate Millett has tried to do).  My main feeling is that I want to love human beings; sex and gender should not be determining factors.  At the same time, I do not put down those who happen to prefer one sex or the other.  It is a question of taste, becoming a problem when one taste is almost forced and another is repressed.


when you say “feminism is about equality” men hear “that means i should have as much say-so and power in the feminist movement as women do”

and thats why i say feminists who constantly have to remind everyone that “we’re for equality!!!” are kindergarden feminists

kindergarden feminists are concerned with making sure men still like them and keeping men happy. you can be a feminist and still like men of course, going through life hating men (or anything really) isn’t healthy.

but you cannot solve anything by sugar-coating feminism just so men can feel comfortable with it

feminism is uncomfortable. feminism takes the rose colored glasses from mens eyes and throws it against the wall. feminism pops men’s bubble of security and comfort. feminism makes men take responsibility. feminism is a rude awakening.

do not sugar coat your feminism

feminism does not cater towards men

feminism is about dismantling the oppressive systems men have put in place and continue to uphold

men can get involved in the movement

but it is not. about. them.

Let's get this straight!

To the haters of my blog. To the people who are obsessively writing to me saying ‘Grunge is a music genre blah blah blah’

You don’t think I know that? I’m not stupid. I listen to a lot of grunge artists/bands on a daily. My style is Grunge. I know a lot about the genre.

HOWEVER what you people don’t seem to realise is there is an artistic movement of the genre Grunge. My career involves me being an artist therefore I have done my research okay? It is what I have had to do my whole life to create the pieces I have created.

My blog is an artistic Grunge blog. IT IS PART OF THE ART MOVEMENT! For those of you who don’t know, a lot of Grunge art is black and white, messy, and a lot of the quotes you see are taken from songs which were written by a lot of GRUNGE ARTISTS! So whatever I post on here has some form or background of Grunge.

So before YOU TELL ME I don’t know what Grunge is and where it originates from and my blog has nothing to do with it, DO YOUR RESEARCH FIRST! Don’t come bullshitting to me thinking I’m stupid and don’t know anything.

Shove that up your arse haters!

P:S - I want to thank the people on here who do support my page and enjoy my feed. It means a lot to me and I could not thank you enough.

I’m Mahdi right now

I can’t stop smiling…

anonymous asked:

What are messianic Jews and Black Hebrew Israelites and why are they considered "people who sometimes call themselves Jewish but really, really aren’t?" Sorry if this is a stupid question.

This is a bit of a thorny one, but not a stupid question. I’ll do my best to answer.

Messianic Jews, very broadly speaking, are Christians who appropriate the trappings of contemporary rabbinic Judaism in the process of worshipping Jesus. Sometimes, people who are actually ethnically Jewish are involved in these religious movements; this doesn’t make them not Jews, but it doesn’t mean they’re actually practicing Judaism, either.

Messianic Judaism is not considered Judaism by any normative sect of Judaism; rather, it is a branch of Christianity as described here. I also recommend reading this (long) post by a (non-Jew) who got involved with Messianic Judaism and later left.

Ultimately, though, Messianic Judaism is theologically incompatible with actual Judaism, and mostly manifests as non-Jews appropriating the practices of actual Jews. This is offensive to many Jews because Christians have historically been our oppressors, and Christianity has been an instrument of our oppression. For Christians, who spent millennia denigrating our traditions, to now turn around and steal them in service of a religion that was founded in opposition to Judaism, is very offensive.


The Black Hebrew Israelites are a diverse constellation of different groups, mostly African-Americans, who believe they are the descendants of the ancient Israelites. This often coincides with denial of actual Jews’ Jewishness, and calling themselves “the real Jews” or “the true Jews”, which is offensive, inaccurate, and hurtful to actual Jews. I know less about their religious practices, but they often involve Jesus, and so cannot be actual Judaism. They may therefore be seen as a type of Messianic Jew. 

The issue of race complicates this, especially in the North American context, where many ethnic Jews have access to whiteness, and white privilege. As a result, it can appear that our criticism is based in racism or anti-blackness - and unfortunately, sometimes it is, Jews being no more immune to prejudice than anyone else. (It should go without saying, but racism of any kind is unacceptable.) Further, there are Black Jews (both converts, and those whose families have always been Jewish) who take umbrage at being lumped in with Black Hebrew Israelites, even as they struggle to be accepted as the Jews they are in the (actual) Jewish community. 

(An addendum: I am not Black and so I’d like to defer further discussion of the Black Hebrew Israelites, and Black Jews, to actual Black Jews. So I invite further comment in general, and especially from any Black Jewish followers.)