can we just address a few things


Truly sorry.

3 Easy Steps to be a better Trans Ally

We all want to be the best allies we possibly can be–but sometimes this means addressing hard truths and making accommodations appropriately. 

Whether you’re a member of the trans community or just a supporter, here are a few things to take into account with your activism/involvement with the community as a whole in order to create the safest and most inclusive space. 

1.) Recognize and address racism in the transgender/LGBTQ+ community
Racism is very much alive and the LGBTQ+ community is not an exception. Although a members of the trans/LGBTQ+ community are minorities themselves, white members often disregard/dismiss racism.

Standing with the trans community means standing with people who have to experience transphobia/transmisogyny as well as racism. Being aware, outspoken, and invested in trans/queer POC(people of color)’s lives is necessary to create an environment that is safe for all. 

2.) Understand the difference between transphobia and transmisogyny. 
While all members of the trans community experience transphobia, trans women/feminine people experience a form of misogyny that can be and often is much more violent than transphobia. Trans women are often not heard, pushed to the back, or forces to desperately defend the oppression that they face. 

A few things to understand about trans feminine people: AMAB people are not “socialized as male.” They are, instead, socialized as trans women and because of that are placed in a very scary place where they have to reject all forms of femininity otherwise they may potentially face physical violence. Trans women have just as much of a right to feminist spaces as any other woman. Trans women are not more represented than trans men or other trans demographics. 

3.) When creating trans safe spaces, remember these two demographics! 
Whether you’re starting a trans project, creating a blog, or writing/reading trans stories–paying special attention to TPOC(Trans People of Color) as well as trans women will create more welcoming and intersectional spaces. 

As members of such a marginalized demographic, it is in the best interest of our community and our humanity to pay attention to these narratives and to validate them with more than understanding. Acknowledging the struggles of those around us, opening up our spaces to people with these experiences, and being willing to work harder to support TPOC and trans women are things that anyone, anywhere can do. 

Thank you for reading and keeping your mind open. Feel free to add to this list. 


I would like to address a few of the statements made by eridan-grundy. I came across their post on the evolution tag. I just screen captured the parts I was concerned about. The rest was religious stuff that I have no interest in addressing. I am however very concerned with the misinformation concerning evolution and a few other things.

1) First: NO ONE said there was “nothingness” before the big bang, they said that was the creation (or rather, expansion) of matter/energy as we know. Quantum fields and other dimensional plans could easily have existed before then.

Second: We have never had “nothingness” to study. We don’t know if something can come from nothing or not because we have never studied “nothing” to see what it’s property is. It is actually very possible that something can arise from nothing!

Third: Mathematically you can actually get something from nothing. For example, you can turn 0 into 1+(-1). If the amount of positive and negative energy is the same, then the net balance is 0. Likewise, if you have the same amount of matter and antimatter the net product is 0, or nothing.

In string theory, we have a multiverse of universes. Think of our universe as the surface of a soap bubble, which is expanding. We live on the skin of this bubble. But string theory predicts that there should be other bubbles out there, which can collide with other bubbles or even sprout or bud baby bubbles, as in a bubble bath.

But how can an entire universe come out of nothing? This apparently violates the conservation of matter and energy. But there is a simple answer.

Matter, of course, has positive energy. But gravity has negative energy. (For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar system had negative energy.)

If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing.

This gives us a startling picture of the big bang, that our universe was born perhaps from the collision of two universes (the big splat theory), or sprouted from a parent universe, or simply popped into existence out of nothing. So universes are being created all the time.

2) The standard geological model of deposition and uplift explains exactly how marine fossils ended up at the top of many mountain ranges. This is a scientific fact.

There is not one shred of evidence in the geological record to support the claim of a single, worldwide flood. Geological formations such as mountain ranges and the Grand Canyon require millions of years to form, and the fossil record extends over several billion years. The time required for continents to have drifted into their present positions is immense. These things cannot be accounted for by a single flood lasting a few days or years.

Now let’s address the “It’s just a theory” statement.
- This is a favorite and often used ploy by creationists, and relies upon the fact that in everyday usage, English words are loaded with a multiplicity of meanings. This is NOT the case in science, where terms used are precisely defined. The precise definition apposite here is the definition of theory. In science, a theory is an integrated explanation for a class of real world observational phenomena of interest, that has been subjected to direct empirical test with respect to its correspondence with observational reality, and which has been found, via such testing, to be in accord with observational reality. It is precisely because scientific theories have been subject to direct empirical test, and have passed said empirical test, that they ARE theories, and consequently enjoy a high status in the world of scientific discourse. Or as I like to call them FACTS.

3,5) This Fred Flintstone version of pre-history is one of the most preposterous and devious claims the fundamentalists make, and they have made it in books and films. The “man-tracks” seen by creationists stem from two sources. One is wishful imagination, whereby water-worn scour marks and eroded dinosaur tracks are perceived as human footprints. The other is deliberate fraud. Creationist hoaxers obscure the foot pads of the dinosaur tracks with sand and photograph what remains, the dinosaur’s toe impressions. When reversed, the tip of the dinosaur toe or claw becomes the heel of a “human” print. These prints are shown in poor-quality photographs in creationist literature and films. Because the stride length (7 feet) and foot length (3 feet) exceeded any possible human scale, the fundamentalists call these the giants mentioned in Genesis. In addition to the doctored tracks, there are other hoaxed prints circulating in this area of Texas. In fact, carved footprints were offered for sale to tourists in curio shops during the Great Depression. These caught the eye of the paleontologist Ronald T. Bird, who recognized them as fakes, but they eventually led him to the legitimate dinosaur footprints at Glen Rose. This area has since been extensively studied by paleontologists, and numerous species of reptiles and amphibians have been catalogued. No genuine human tracks exist there or anywhere else along with dinosaur prints.

The alleged bees’ nests from the Triassic period are actually carvings from wood boring beetles. You can view all the scientific peer reviewed documents at the link below.

Re-evaluation of alleged bees’ nests from the Upper Triassic of Arizona

Crowdsourced Linguistics: What linguistics terms do you still have trouble with?

The linguistics-explaining resources of the internet are still a work in progress, and I’ve recently heard from several people that for certain terms or ideas it may still be difficult or impossible to find good explanations at a beginner level online. It would be a huge task for me to try to explain them all myself, and I’m not even sure exactly which terms are the most needed. But fortunately, we don’t just have a static internet: we also have people, and people who know things about linguistics. 

So here’s the plan. 

Keep reading

Please Read!

This is a fan based project for Motionless In White.If there is enough feedback from you guys, we will be giving the book to the dudes on July 11th at the Scranton Warped Tour. If you are a fan and want to give the guys some artwork or letters, this is the place you need to be! Maybe you can’t make it to Warped Tour this summer or just can’t meet them in general but don’t worry, I got you covered. Some things you can submit include; written letters, typed letters, copy of artwork(in case it gets ruined or lost in mail unless u are a brave soul), or scanned email artwork) Art work must be standard paper size or smaller! I can’t accept canvases or anything larger unless it gets folded up! Sorry for any inconvenience.

We have a few ways to submit stuff to us!

1. Mail Address (Message us for it if it isn’t updated on here yet!)

2. Email (miwbookproject @ gmail (.) com)

3. Submit on here.

4. Use #MIWBOOKPROJECT on here or twitter! 

Everything is confidential and safe. I’m literally just a 17 year old girl who loves MIW, I’m not going to come creeping to your house or snooping through your letters.

Also, I have a few little disclaimers.

1. If you can’t mail a letter or artwork in, type it or scan it and send it to our email! We can print it out and put it in an envelope for you.

2. DO NOT use the mailing address or email address for stupid things like junk mail.


4. I know this isn’t my original idea to do for a band. I do not mean to steal anyone’s ideas or anything.

5. Want to help out with this project? All you have to do is be going to the Scranton Warped Tour date and message us!

Follow us on social media;

Instagram: @miwbookproject

Twitter: @miwbookproject

Facebook: MIW Book Project


What not to do when calling a call center

AKA: how to make a call center rep your worst enemy

9 times out of 10, we’re wearing headsets so if you talk very loudly, it’s gonna hurt our ears. Of we can’t hear you, we will tell you. Don’t assume.

If you’re ordering, don’t just start listing off what you want. This isn’t Burger King and there are a few things we need first, like your name and shipping address.

Seriously, it’s just rude and your mother taught you better. Interrupt us when were literally in the middle of a sentence and you automatically become the douchnozzle of the day.

I don’t care how mad you are, we are not going to let you talk to the head honcho about your trivial issue. That’s what we have customer care for. You don’t really expect to talk to Bill Gates when you Microsoft, do you?

PS: the line “Does (insert owner here) know how his company is being run?” is seriously overrated and we’ll hate you more for asking it.

We package the order, we give the shipping company the address to send it to, and we pay them to do so. From then out, it’s out of our hands. Their policies now. If they want to leave it on your doorstep, or won’t deliver it til someone signs for it, that’s their choice. We cant tell them what to do. So don’t get mad at us because you weren’t home to be there to greet the UPS driver.

We do not need to be asked “Are you going to heaven or hell?” and we don’t need a ten minute preaching about Jesus or God. It’s especially annoying when we’re not even Christian. (And if I tell you so, do not try to fucking convert me) You have your religion and we have ours, let’s not bring it into business.

Not everyone shares your opinion and it’s the last thing we want to talk about at work.

It’s not our fault if we don’t have an answer for your asinine question, and there is absolutely no reason to call us stupid.

It might work the first 2 times, but then we’ll put a note in your account/name so everyone will know NOT to give in to your demands. And the line “But I always get…” will do you jack shit.

If we said it’s not free shipping, it’s fucking not free shipping.

11. ALSO…
There is no 5 or 10 percent discount just because you’re “a good customer” If you want a membership discount, go shop at Sam’s Club

It’s disgusting and I didn’t think I’d need to put it on this list until it actually happened. (I was gagging in disgust throughout the call and had to finally tell her to “stop chewing her food and talking at the same time”)

If you stay the call off by immediately saying “I’ve been a customer for years and know how things are done there” we already know you’re calling to complain about something. And no, you don’t “know how things are done here”, you’re not an employee.

Don’t call customer care to place an order, or call order dept to file a complaint or ask questions.

This sounds like a weird question – everyone knows that psychosis is often very disabling, and antipsychotic drugs are widely recognized for their effects in reducing psychosis in at least most people, and most often taking effect in just a few days. And when people become psychotic again, it’s often understood that it’s because they “weren’t taking their meds.”

But what if it’s trickier than that? What if “antipsychotic” drugs make things better in the short term, but make long term problems worse? How would we even know?

In a recent letter to the Psychiatric Times, psychiatrist Sandy Steingard outlined some of the ways we can know that there definitely is a problem with the long term use of antipsychotics. (Note that while she addressed a limited number of studies, that’s just because there actually are very few studies which look at really long term outcomes.)

She started her letter by writing about the Northwick Park study, where people were randomized to receive either antipsychotics or placebo over a 2 year period. While members of the group on placebo was more likely to relapse into psychosis, they were also more likely to be employed.

And in case you are thinking that it might be worthwhile to have drugs interfere with employability if the tradeoff is reduced relapse, consider that the Wunderink study found that while those taking less drugs were more likely to relapse in the first two years, they were actually less likely to relapse in following years, such that there was no advantage to taking more drugs in forestalling relapse overall.

Then Sandy described a study done by Gleeson and colleagues which attempted to see if helping people “adhere” better to taking medications as prescribed would help people have better outcomes. In the first year, better adherence to drugs seemed to be helping reduce relapse, but after 30 months, overall relapse rates were similar in both groups, while those doing better at taking their drugs were less likely to be working, in other words, they were more disabled.

Finally, Sandy described what is possibly the most damming evidence of all. This evidence comes from a 20 year outcome study done by Harrow and colleagues. It’s a naturalistic study, which means it just follows what people did, so some have argued that the much superior outcomes for those that those who came off drugs during the study period were achieved because these were the people who had recovered, rather than being because the drugs themselves impaired recovery.

But one way to sort out which is which is to look at one came first, the recovery or quitting the drugs. To do this, we can compare those who stayed on drugs over the 20 year period, with those who got off drugs within 2 years and then stayed off them. Here’s Sandy’s summary on that:

At 2 years, 74% of individuals in group 1 [those who stayed on drugs over the whole period] had psychotic symptoms, as did 60% of those in group 3 [the group that quit drugs by 2 years and stayed off]. Although these differences are not statistically significant, the lines diverge at year 4.5 and continue to diverge over the next 15 years. At 4.5 years, 86% of group 1 have psychotic symptoms compared with 21% of group 3. By year 20, the difference is 68% compared with 8%.

68% with psychotic symptoms when staying on drugs compared with 8% psychotic symptoms for those who quit drugs (that are called “antipsychotic”) – that’s about exactly the opposite of what the public has been led to expect! But it’s precisely what we might expect if these drugs impair recovery from psychosis rather than promote it.

So where does that leave us?

Some psychiatrists who are aware of these studies, such as Torrey and Pierre, attempt to defend the drugs by maintaining that while some people can do well by getting off the drugs, others “clearly” benefit from continuing to take them long term.

My question is, how exactly can anyone, psychiatrist or not, know that a medication is “clearly” offering a long term benefit to a particular individual, when we can’t compare the person’s actual history with what would have happened to them had they gotten off the medications?

It seems to me that the closest we can do is to compare groups of people who get off or who are assisted in getting off medications, with people who stay on medications, and see who does better. As outlined above, this kind of evidence strongly suggests, even though it doesn’t absolutely prove, that staying on medications is likely unhelpful compared to getting off.

Of course it remains possible that medications are of benefit to some people in the long run, it’s just that this is not at all clear, and the appearance of clarity can be achieved only by ignoring the facts. This kind of ignoring is unfortunately all too common, perhaps because it is very disquieting for mental health professionals to consider the possibility that in most or possibly even in all cases, long term antipsychotic drug use is more damaging than helpful.

People often think it is “proven” that a particular individual needs to stay on antipsychotic drugs when that individual makes a number of attempts to get off and each attempt results in a relapse. But this in fact is not such proof. I know one person who reported about 20 such attempts before she got off successfully, and while that number is a bit high, many others also have stories of a string of failures before success. If we quit being sure this was impossible, we might put more energy into helping people succeed in getting off drugs and having a better chance at recovery.

The state of mind we call psychosis is often scary and even destructive, and it makes sense to believe that when nothing else seems to work, it may be helpful to reach for the kinds of drugs we call “antipsychotic, at least for awhile. But if we take the long term studies seriously, I think we will work hard wherever possible to find ways of helping that don’t involve using these drugs, and when they are used, we will then work hard to support people in attempting to come off them safely.

Such efforts may not always succeed, but I believe both disability and long term psychosis could be reduced dramatically if we also very dramatically reduce use of the so-called “antipsychotics.”

In other words, yes it is sometimes risky to avoid using “antipsychotics” or to come off once on them, and sometimes and in certain situations starting to use or staying on them may be better than not, but we have to balance the risks of not using them with the risks of using or continuing to use them, and we are starting to see that those risks can be extremely high. It’s not just the risk of “side” effects, things like weight gain and diabetes and permanent movement disorders and/or akathisia, but it’s also a likely increase in the very things the drugs were meant to reduce, the disability and the psychosis.

Discussion about this issue needs to happen throughout our mental health system, so that people can start to make informed choices. Writing this column is one way I’m trying to get the dialogue going: what steps will you take? I’d love to see your ideas in the comment section …

Okay, I know everyone’s still stuck on the whole ‘Tumbleweed’ thing, but… can we just address the fact that Wander isn’t even from this current galaxy???

I mean, I know the WoY universe runs on cartoon logic and that traveling to different planets is the equivalent of traveling to a different state/city, and it only takes you a few hours to a few days to get to a new planet. BUT STILL! The fact that Wander’s apparently been traveling long enough to explore not just multiple planets, but multiple GALAXIES, is pretty amazing.

Stephen Amell Interview - Let's peel this onion shall we!?!

As many of you know I am trained in reading people non-verbal & body cues for negotiation and client relations. Not an expert but trained enough to be dangerous or do my job well.

Additionally, many of you also have read my rants about our recent instructor not letting me use the Flarrow Screeing for our class exercise. Discriminating against me because I don’t watch enough TV!!! Ha!

Now is my chance because this interview is just full of juice!

These are the few things I found interesting

1. He was as sincere as he can be in the beginning when addressing Team Arrow goodbye. He is actually actively trying to recall actual lines and scenes to back up said sincerity (point). As Oliver and SA (referring to the stories he was telling the team(EBR, DR, & CH) about he adventure shooting the fight seen).

2. The fight scene - Now we know he is proud of this scene. So, we can use this scene as the baseline. The baseline of how he’s interacting with her and his story telling. He makes the same gesture, he switches between maintaining eye contact and recalling (looking left and up) things that happened.

3. Black Canary question. I believe he might have seen some clips or snippets of episode because he was unsure when he said “I haven’t seen it” but had to rethink of what his answer will result.

Now when she asks him how awesome is she—

He changes the question to Katie Cassidy and his belief that she looks great in the costume. Because we know Katie Cassidy is gorgeous and could pass for a model so easy answer there. I think he does a quick recall of what he must have thought how he will be perceived with the arrow costume in the beginning of his journey or others might have since then. I think he’s uncertain of how she will be received.

He choses to evolve the Black Canary question to a Costume question. He uses it as an opportunity to give props to the Costume folks and matches her enthusiasm in her question. He also does a lot of recalling and self reflection of his answers. (Remember these cues)

Interviewer: How awesome is she(BC) going to be? * I know it awesome, awesome*

SA- Yes! You know what I think is awesome, aswesome is our costume department.

I am by no means suggesting he’s trying to diss Laurel or KC but he tries to stay in realms of certainty.

3. Laurel vs Felicity. Now, I think initially he thought she was going to ask an Olicity related question. And of course the expression he gave her needs no further break down . He was unsure of what he wanted to say one of the two times we see him trying to sort out what he feels about the question.

You know how we know he’s The Captain- Everything Felicity related in his statement he is looking dead at her. He’s maintaining eye contact to affirm his point. But when he’s talking about Laurel, his love for her in the past and what she means to him he has to recall it. Both answers are sincere in their origin but the conviction comes from two different places memory bank vs heart. Very telling, though it’s not news!

4. This is the second time SA does two things he has already done in this interview almost identically. He deflect by evolving the question and he resorts to uncertainty but with a different result.

Deflection. Instead of answering Raylicity he choses to address Brandon Routh, someone he has an appreciation for and states their interactions thus far, he recalls (left up) and reflects (left down). (Just like he deflected the BC question and how he evolved it to Costume question, same cues).

Uncertainty riddled earnestly, just like he was uncertain about BC but he eventually replaces it with his certainty of KC ability to pull of the consume. He’s once again uncertain (down, right) exactly the same but in this case he actually disagrees with his position in regards to Raylicity as he is stating it and his corner lip twitch is the tell-tell sign.

Disclaimer: This is for fun…but I suggest you go watch it again after you read this and you will realize how identical his responses are in regards to the way he responded to her questions and interacted with her. I also suggest to watch it once with audio and again with the audio muted. You will see!!

Now, Can I expand on this and submit it as review for Friday is the question?

anonymous asked:

Can you post spoilers please? !you tell me you go there and got nothing but IG pictures and a couple of quotes? Convention seems very unorganized if you dont even have anything to share other than the plate of dinner you had with the cast. Smh!!!!!!

Oh Nonnie, no need to get upset now! But let’s see if we can address a few of your comments and fill everyone in on what’s going on over here. 

Ok first. Just to be clear, conventions aren’t actually held to find out spoilers. They’re held to let fans interact, discuss, analyze, and celebrate their favorite shows. NATWP was invited to the convention to simply help run things. We weren’t there to actually conduct interviews. (Though we have passed on our information to quite a few of the cast and crew members. So we’re hoping to get some new interviews set up in the future for you guys to enjoy!!) So the number of spoilers released isn’t an accurate gage of how organized or unorganized Bitecon was.

But you are right that spoilers are often a byproduct of conventions, because you have a lot of interviews and panels and stuff info just sort of bubbles up and out. Our plan is to pull as much info as we can from the panels that came from the con. But you know, that does take a bit of time. We’re actually currently working on a LOT over here at the podcast. We’re going to be sharing EXACT quotes from the convention (to help clear up some of the misconceptions we’ve seen floating around), we have podcast interviews with some of the writers from Teen Wolf to edit and publish, and we’ll have Bitecon recap articles to share throughout the week as well!! 

Just be a little more patient with us though guys. We all had limited Internet at the hotel, and most of us JUST got home from traveling. Plus, you know… Jobs, personal responsibilities, hygiene… But I promise you, we’re working as fast as we can!! :D 

And as far as our totally separate Teen Wolf set visit - MTV set that up for us because we were all in town last week. We do have some exclusives to share from that. (GUYS. GUYS. WE GOT THE WHOLE STORY ON GINA HOLDEN. WE’RE GOING TO GET THE STUFF EDITED AND PUBLISHED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT YES, MY LIFE’S MISSION IS COMPLETE.) But we actually had to sign a nondisclosure agreement about anything related directly to season 4. Which means we LEGALLY can’t share any of the new stuff we found out. 

Jeff did say we could share that Kira’s lacrosse number is 15 though!! That was one I really wanted to find out and share with you guys. <3 

Basically, we love you guys and we’re going to share anything and everything we can. Just hang in a little longer for us. *hugs and more hugs*


So we managed to get pretty much all of my stuff over, the rest we’re going to cross our fingers for. Sadly we didnt have room for a few things, including my ex’s stuff, do theyll probably be pissed at me if that stuff is lost, but ive been trying to get them to grab it for over a year and honestly i kinda wanna just give them the address and tell them to pick it up (explaining that itll be gone any day now). The animals also got picked up today, but at least we were there and got to say goodbye to them. Either way, my shits out, and i hope ashley can get hers as well. Ill probably stop by tomorrow after my psych appointment to check in on things.