example of human being to be followed


At that time, the year 2227, the Institute had made great strides in synth production. But it was never enough. Scientific curiosity and the goal of perfection drove them ever onward. What they wanted was… the perfect machine. So they followed the best example thus far - the human being. Walking, talking, fully articulate… Capable of anything.

anonymous asked:

Hello! I love your Shapeshifter AU soooo much! But I have one question that was too long in my thoughts: is courting a thing in the Shapeshifter AU ? An der when yes who courts who and how ? Like in an animal way to bring food and stuff, or also in a more human way when they shift?

Hello! We are really happy to know that you like our AU ;w; <3 <3
Shapeshifters behave mostly like humans, except for some animal instinct that they get from their feral form. For example: They hunt in animal form but then they cook their food in human form.
When it come to courting they flirt like any other human being, but they can always bring a bucket of chicken instead of a bouquet xD
They don’t follow any particular rule when it comes to courtship, it’s just a matter of who gather enough courage to make the first move :)
But they do carry some specific behaviours linked to the specie of their animal form! Those with canine form, for example, are more playful in their approach and will probably end up howling a serenade. Feline shapeshifters are more prone to bring gifts and bears are the one of the bucket of chicken ahah

Now Betas need some extra few lines of explanation in regard.
When a beta is in heat and in love it will probably become the most romantic being you’ll ever see towards the person they’re interested in (Alpha become hyperprotective instead, and omega hypersensitive).
So we can kind of say that betas are the king of courtship ahah
[Here] you can find more info about how beta act with their mate

Here have an exaple of a McCree in heat, courting the McShit out of Hanzo.
He’s alpha with beta traits and a wolf, so he’ll pester Hanzo with serenades (wolf thing)… like, a lot of serenades (because he have beta traits and he’s in heat) and if that work he’ll also go for the neck bite (alpha thing). Hanzo is far from letting this happen, tho x°D

This “Discourse” boggles my mind

How in the world is it a controversial statement, in the slightest, to say that we should make people feel welcome in this great game of ours? Ladies mention that they feel uncomfortable or have unpleasant experiences and people call this “political”? They say they’ve never seen it, so clearly it isn’t happening.

Spoiler alert friends, if someone’s having a bad time, they aren’t going to walk up and explicitly tell you. They leave and then they don’t come back. I can think of numerous friends who have reported exactly that.

It’s very simple: treat your fellow Magic players, your fellow human beings, with decency, with respect, with compassion. Or I will follow my Mawmaw’s example and smack you upside the head, ça va?

Pop culture is so weird and has spiraled so out of control with its influence on our expectations about life, especially to younger generations that spent any formative years watching any kind of TV or movie.

I didn’t really think about it until Cracked did their podcast about weird romcom movie tropes, but as children, we’re knowledge and experience sponges, desperately learning what we need to learn to be a socially acceptable human being.
The problem is that there is no representation for normal or healthy life situations, that’s boring. Movies depict problems, they recycle tropes and follow similar stories. Your brain is like “This is how things must be, most of the experiences that I’ve seen overwhelmingly agree on this ridiculous trope.”

For example, romance movies. They’re written by men, as a form of fantasy or escapism from their everyday lives (leaving their tired marriages for whirlwind romances, or just whirlwind romances), and they write in things that they do, but no girl really wants, like harassing women or acting possessively towards them before they’re even dating.
Which leads to younger girls seeing these kinds of films everywhere, and thinking that this is how it’s supposed to be, it’s desirable.

And it applies to every other genre. Girls see science fiction/action/superhero movies and get the message that boys are scientists, explorers, heroes, main characters, and girls are sidekicks, eye candy, or the prize for the lead man at the end of the movie.

Anyway, Tldr; movies and TV are escapism and that leads to weird and harmful tropes becoming normal in people’s minds. It’s strange, but we hate our own shitty lives, we don’t want more exposure to everyone else’s.


That’s the number of followers I have????? HOly frick???? I LOVE ALL OF YOU (well okay @ porn bots why but? u do u)

Sooooooo time to celebrate actually it was time to celebrate like two months ago when I hit 1K or when I hit 1.1K or 1.2K but wHATEVER IT’S FINE, but since I’m an inept human being y’all need to help me out and vote for what you want the celebration to be!


-follow forever



-fancasts/that sort of thing

-other little blog games

-etc etc?

So get talking, and again, ILYSM <3 (also gonna taga few of you <3)

@clarkeisinlovewithbellamy @bellamyisinlovewithclarke @the-ships-to-rule-them-all @beastlygirl @sassamyblake @starsbellarke @muffinblake @thewholeworldofhumor @ etc etc it’s kinda late and i have literally no idea which of my faves follow me whoops so <333333 bye


At that time, the year 2227, the Institute had made great strides in synth production. But it was never enough. Scientific curiosity, and the goal of perfection, drove them ever onward. What they wanted was… the perfect machine. So they followed the best example thus far - the human being. Walking, talking, fully articulate… Capable of anything.

emily and i just looked at other reblogs from that post i just reblogged to correct. holy shit it is an orobourus of people being obnoxiously pleased about being as wrong as you can possibly get about the human evolutionary tree. best example was ‘well you know neanderthals have BIGGER BRAINS than humans which totally means something’ (i didn’t know phrenology was coming back) followed up by ‘but of course the biggest brains were had by cro magnons a human/neanderthal hybrid species!!’ (this is so dumb it isn’t even wrong, cro magnon just refers to certain assemblages of early modern humans in the european paleolithic. early modern humans interbred with neanderthals, but cro magnons are not a species or a hybrid, they’re not even really a coherent group of H. sapiens sapiens, it’s a term so old fashioned it is itself archaeology)


I know that it’s hard to contain yourselves when you see a cute, well behaved dog in a vest, working. But it’s SO IMPORTANT that service dogs are not distracted from their tasks. Yes, they are trained to ignore others but they’re not perfectly programmed robots. SO…when you see a service animal, and are overcome with the urge to outwardly emit your thoughts on how cute he or she is, do it how this lady just did to me:
Me and Hiro are walking one way, woman is walking past us, sees Hiro, has desire to comment, she LOOKS AT ME, and says, “that’s quite the handsome companion you have there” in a completely normal voice, and continues walking.

She was a human who loves seeing service dogs and had the urge to speak her thoughts out loud. She did so in an appropriate manner without disregarding my existence and being respectful to me and Hiro.

Original Post, @runningfromomelas : “Trans people with neogenders, fluid genders, and multiple genders are JUST AS VALID as binary trans people. “

Reblog, @transmed-enjolras: quoted in entirety below

(I recommend that you block and no-platform @transmed-enjolras)

“Those people are valid human beings with valid experiences; that doesn’t make them trans.”

This statement is correct. The validity of your gender does not dictate whether you identify as transgender. For example, cis women and cis men are valid, but they are not transgender. Some nonbinary people, whose genders are all valid, choose not to identify as trans for personal reasons. The intent of your statement, however, which is to discredit the trans experiences of nonbinary people, is wildly incorrect.

The following statement will come again frequently in this response:  being transgender means that you do not fully identify with the sex you were assigned at birth. Does everyone who fits that definition identify as trans? No, and they don’t have to.

“I don’t understand why some people are concerned by whether or not they’re recognized as “trans enough” (though that terminology in and of itself is not correct– you’re trans or you aren’t, there is no magical “enough” amount). Well, aside from wanting to invade a community to which they do not belong.”

I agree with the statement that there is no “magical “enough” amount” to qualify as transgender. If you fit the definition (not fully identifying with the sex you were assigned at birth), you are a Certified Trans  and fully welcome in my trans community. Where I vehemently disagree with you is the notion that nonbinary people with ‘ridiculous genders’ are not transgender and are invading the trans community. The “invasion” rhetoric is taken straight out of the TERF handbook, as well as pretty much every other harmful and bigoted ideology. But this has been hashed out time and time again in the ace discourse. Here are some applicable posts about the dangers of exclusionary rhetoric if you’re interested: [one] [two]

“Fluid genders are, if I recall correctly, biologically impossible. Gender is based on the brain’s map of external sex characteristics. Said map doesn’t sporadically change, especially not on a daily basis as so many self-identified genderfluid people claim.

Same goes for multiple genders. One brain map = one gender.

I won’t even get started on neogenders. “My gender is so out of reach, but it’s also so bold. It’s like a star. I must be stargender. I’m trans, now.” Neogender identities are inherently mocking, not to mention a completely useless label that means nothing to anyone but the claimer of said identity. They are inconvenient and should not expect to be treated as valid, rational genders. One cannot transition to, say, a star.”

Now comes the part where you proceed to completely contradict the very first sentence of your response by denying the existence and validity of fluid genders and multiple genders (“biologically impossible”), and neogenders (“inherently mocking”, “useless”, “inconvenient”, “should not expect to be treated as valid”). So, you’re very obviously exorsexist and align with TERFs in key points in their ideology, which is why this post is not meant for you, but for others who may want to know in detail why you are so wrong.

Your response reveals that you have fundamentally false understandings of gender and what it means to be trans. Once again: to be transgender is to not fully identify with the sex you were assigned at birth. That’s it. Being transgender does not require any intent or action to transition. Would you say that trans people who are closeted and cannot transition for fear of their safety are not transgender? Many trans people are never able to have surgeries, are they cis? The correct and obvious answer is: no, these people are valid transgender people. Therefore, transition is not required to be transgender, and one of your objections to neogenders falls apart.

Furthermore, you believe that “Gender is based on the brain’s map of external sex characteristics”. With some quick googling, I understand that to mean “Gender identity is dependent on the person’s anatomy and how they think and feel about their anatomy.” I’m not going to go too far into taking apart that statement, since I’m unsure of what you’re original statement actually meant, but I will repeat that to be transgender is to not fully identify with the sex you were assigned at birth. That’s it. It’s not a medical condition. Gender itself is a social construct, not a biological characteristic. As a complex and convoluted social construct, many neurodivergent people have perspectives on gender that differ widely from neurotypicals’ perceptions, which brings me to neogenders…

Neogenders exist because not everyone has a simple and binary experience of gender. People who have complex experiences related to gender often cling to whatever labels we can find that fit us. Sometimes, those labels are things like stargender. You claim that neogender labels “mean[] nothing to anyone but the claimer of said identity”, and are therefore “completely useless”, but you miss the purpose of these labels. Labels, especially ‘overly’ specific labels, are for the claimer to hold some concrete sense of identity. Labels like the ones you criticize as invalid and inconvenient* often used by people with personality disorders to ground themselves and give them a sense of identity, and that is the opposite of useless, and the opposite of mocking.

*All I’m going to say about that is: other people do not exist for your convenience.

You said that “neogender identities are inherently mocking”, yet I have already shown how neogenders have real and valuable purposes. Labels used to mock are not genuinely used for oneself. It is true that some enbyphobes have sarcastically made claims of being “helicopter gender” in order to make fun of nonbinary people. These taunts are being made at the expense of nonbinary people, not by nonbinary people.


“Cis people can be interesting, too. Cis people can express themselves how they please. Cis people can be rebellious. Cis people can be introspective.”

These are all true statements, but nonbinary people are not cis, and all nonbinary people are just as valid as binary trans people as transgender people.

A curious mind, Thomas Edison was always ready to do amateur experiments from a very young age. As a child he even had a laboratory housed in a spare train car when he worked on the railway, but after he caused a fire after dropping phosphorus on the floor, the conductor beat him about the ears so hard Edison would suffer hearing trouble for the rest of his life.

Unfortunately, his enthusiasm sometimes had a habit of hurting people other than himself, one prime example being that of Clarence Madison Dally.

Things started to go downhill when in 1895, Wilhelm Rontgen invented a means of producing X-rays, closely followed by creating the first medical X-rays a short time later. Rontgen refused to take out any patents on his experiments due to how significant they were to the world of medicine and humanity at large…

Which wasn’t something Edison was concerned with, and he began his own experiments with the mysterious new radiation. To help him duplicate Rontgen’s experiments, Edison commissioned some glassblowers who were working on his incandescent lamp project, Clarence and his brother Charles, to develop Edison’s own x-ray focus tube.

Edison’s version of the device, which used calcium tungstate instead of Rontgen’s barium platinocyanide, which produced a clear image than the German inventor’s original device… While at the same time being a whole lot more dangerous, with Edison noting: “the x-ray had affected poisonously my assistant, Mr. Dally.

The following years were not fun for Clarence. By 1900, the radiation burns he’d received to his face and hands led to him having to have his left hand amputated followed by four of the finges on his right hand. This didn’t stop the spread of the cancer though, and despite Clarence having both arms amputated at the elbow and then shoulder, leading to his death in 1904.

Clarence Dally is believed to be the first American to die of radiation poisoning. As for Edison, he abandoned his research into x-rays in 1903, stating that his reason for doing so was: ”Don’t talk to me about X-rays, I am afraid of them.

Follow | Confess | Archive

[I love the fact that decades later we debate Janeway’s choice in “Tuvix” and Sisko’s choice in “For the Uniform” the way that we do. We don’t have examples like that from Kirk or Picard, and I find that boring. Being a Starship Captain doesn’t come with easy choices, and it shouldn’t come with a flawless record. Any being in that center chair would have to make tough choices that people would disagree with. Janeway and Sisko did and that makes them real, human, and three dimensional.]

I am trying to get people to come on one accord under the centralized belief that we all must understand that we are human beings ..With that being said when lives are lost unjustly we must stand in solidarity. If..we fail to stand together in the midst of casualties that are unjustified we cannot progress forward..I also tie in the argument of not being anti police but being pro accountability,” ~ Dariel Ali, seen on the subway.

Dariel Ali is an example to follow


Why can’t tumblr argue?

9 times out of ten the popular tumblr text posts I see, particularly those regarding social issues, rely on horrible argument tactics. Even if I agree  with the overall idea or stance of the post, the way in which it is presented is full of so many weaknesses and shortcomings that I find myself almost wanting to disagree just for the sake that I can.

    Tumblr cites US law as examples why something should be morally acceptable, such as when using bodily autonomy in arguments for abortion.  Bodily autonomy is indeed a very good point in that argument, however you shouldn’t be using examples of bodily autonomy in US law as your only support. To better use a moral argument you could follow this procedure (just a general guideline, hardly concrete rules)

  1.  Introduce the moral idea “A human has a right to bodily autonomy”
  2. Explain/support it “Human beings are practically defined by their free will, by their ability and prerogative to make their own decisions regarding themselves.”
  3.  Show how it applies in this specific situation and give your main argument “This situation is no different[…]”
  4. (Optional) Give examples (Just don’t use this as your only support) “US law recognizes bodily autonomy in other situation such as blood transfusions and organ donations”
  5. (Optional but recommended) Ignoring weaknesses does not strengthen your argument. Identify any weaknesses that your argument may have and provide a response to them.  Most likely if you can see a weakness someone against you will as well, so it is best to strike preemptively.”Those who disagree with me may point out […] They do have a point, however […]”

    Another thing that tumblr often does is use allegory/metaphor as a primary argument tactic.  For those who are not aware, allegory is the use of a similar situation to the one being argued for or against and applying its ideas and responses. On the surface it provides a simple way for others to see the situation in a different light and can be useful for simple situations, however for more complex situations it is generally agreed to be one of the weakest moral argument tactics.  This is because to argue against allegory all one must do is point out the differences between the actual situation and the proposed similar situation.  For example (continuing with bodily autonomy/abortion argument) if someone arguing against abortion were to say: 

“You shouldn’t get an abortion just because you think pregnancy is a burden, if your elderly parent was on life support would you pull the plug just because they are ‘draining resources’?”

 All you have to do to argue against this would be to point out that 1) There is a big difference between a parent and an unformed fetus. 2) A fetus’s residence is not a hospital but a woman’s body..

Or contrarily if someone arguing for the right of abortion were to say:

“You can’t take an organ from a dead or dying person to save a life you shouldn’t be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to protect its life.”

Although I agree with the end of that statement, to argue against this, one would point out: 1) Depending upon your definition of life (which there is no true concrete definition of as of now) it would not be refraining to save a life but instead prematurely ending one. 2) What If someone disagreed with the idea that you cannot take an organ from the dead to save a life?  It’s hardly without debate itself, and with this allegory you have linked that and abortion.  This means that you’ve allowed another route of attack so to speak.  Now to argue against your statement about abortion one doesn’t even have to mention abortion, but instead focus on this other debate.

    Another pitfall to avoid when arguing moral issues is confusing your own ethical opinion with moral law. Because of the complex issue that abortion is, there really is not a correct opinion.  A person may believe that abortion is morally wrong because of what they believe life to be (That it starts early in the womb).They have the right to make this decision for themselves because all humans have the right of autonomy.  What they do not have the right to do is make that decision for anyone else (making abortion inaccessible for anyone that believes it to be morally acceptable). On the other side, one who believes abortion to be morally acceptable can not say that someone who is morally opposed to it (and is not restricting it) is evil or ignorant.  There is no right answer for everyone because it is a very complex issue.

    The final pitfall I’ll touch on in this already drawn out post is losing focus.  When making an argument DO NOT attack someone you are arguing against as a tactic to strengthen your own argument (an ad hominem argument).  All this does is it makes your argument seem weaker because you took the focus away from the real issue.  This is not too say that you shouldn’t point out hypocrisy but that you shouldn’t use that as a main argument tactic.

I rarely see a tumblr post that deals with moral issues that does not fall into at least one of the above pitfalls.  Despite this, they still have thousands of notes and comments, because normally tumblr is preaching to the choir. If you want to get a point across to anyone that doesn’t already agree with you, work on your presentation.

Buddhism; The Religion Without God

‘The great divide between Buddhism and the world’s other major religions is the idea of God, a creator deity. Buddhism is a nontheistic religion: it is the religion with no God. The Buddha was a human being who practiced and achieved enlightenment, and if we follow his example and practice as he did, we can wake up too. If a religion has no God, everything changes.

In Buddhist, the starting place is a very human problem: suffering. Some people have accused Buddhism of being negative and obsessed with suffering. Buddhists call it realism. Life has its obvious sufferings, such as illness, loss, and death, and beyond that, all lives, even the most pleasant and privileged, are marked by an underlying sense of fear and unease…

If working with such suffering is the challenge, then the bad news is that Buddhism doesn’t offer us an outside refuge or savior. It would be great if there were one - who wouldn’t want that? - but the truth, at least according to Buddhism, is that we’re on our own. The good news is that we can do it. We have the inherent resources - the intelligence, courage, wisdom, and love - to handle our problems.

Many schools of Buddhism call this our buddhanature. It is the opposite of original sin. You could call it original virtue. Our true nature is awake, open and compassionate, and the ignorance and neurosis that obscure it are only temporary.’

- Melvin McLeod, from the Introduction to The Best Buddhist Writing 2010.


   At that time, the year 2227, the Institute had made great strides in synth production. But it was never enough. Scientific curiosity and the goal of perfection drove them ever onward. What they wanted was… the perfect machine. So they followed the best example thus far - the human being. Walking, talking, fully articulate… Capable of anything.

Seriously  guys, this needs to stop.

It happened to Casy, now it happened to Shiky, and it has actually happened to me a few times before.

People really need to understand that there’s a person behind every single blog they follow. Now just because they don’t update as often as you wish they - or actually some of YOU - would, it doesn’t mean the end of the world. These people have to deal with tons of other stuff apart from updating their blog, for example, life, health, personal work, job etc. Or they just simply have no motivation to draw for their blogs. 

And now these douches come and insult artists, demanding updates. Seriously, this needs to stop. We are artists. We are human beings just like everyone else. We are not machines.

Open Borders

(@voximperatoris, @neoliberalism-nightly, @socialjusticemunchkin)

Most people agree that open borders is a desirable end state for humanity, as being able to maintain it is strong evidence of an absence of war and famine and reduced global inequality.

Most people also agree that throwing open the borders overnight would have catastrophic consequences, following which the borders would immediately be closed again.

(The best example of open borders we have in the world today is the EU, and even moderate refugee flows have been sufficient to destabilise this project).

However there are plenty of obvious compromises that could be made, such as increasing immigration quotas by 50% each year, greatly increasing migration while giving plenty of time for societies to adjust and absorb the flow. Or going for easy wins, like opening the border between the US and Canada.

That said, I still can’t help feeling that proponents of open borders are downplaying the changes involved, and the possible consequences.

I mean, @voximperatoris is referencing the Jim Crow south in what appears to be a positive example of a society with a racial underclass employed as servants with lynchings “on a very small scale in the grand scheme of things”. Like, I’m not trying to be snarky but that sounds like something someone might write if they were attempting to satirise the open borders position.

And @socialjusticemunchkin talking approvingly of the improved aesthetics of local inequality compared with global inequality; again, not everyone is going to share that particular aesthetic.

There are also questions of whether increased inequality within a particular society ends up causing more problems (for that society) than increased inequality globally; eg. North Sentinelese appear happier living their current lives than as servants in Silicon Valley, despite the latter being “less unequal”.

Many proponents of open borders have suggested introducing a dual track concept of citizenship, where immigrants would not gain access to the full range of social services available to current citizens. I think this also needs to be taken into account when considering what open borders would do to inequality.