from not an american point of view

No justice for Philado Castile and his family after a Minisota jury found Officer Jeronimo Yanez not guilty of second degree manslaughter. Castile was legally armed when he was pulled over last July for resembling a suspect and for having a faulty tail light. After informing the officer that he was armed, and dispite having his girlfriend and baby daughter in the car, the officer shot and killed Castile as his girlfriend streamed live on Facebook. 7 shots were fired into the vehicle, 5 striking Philado, a beloved school cafeteria worker. This injustice cannot continue. Too many legally armed or unarmed men of colour are being killed by police. I understand the pressures of firearm related situations, I’ve been in several, but we cannot excuse the murder of innocent men. Remember this man, he was not some gang thug acting aggressively towards police, he was a beloved member of the community known for high giving students, he was a father of a baby girl, he was an American citizen exercising his Constitutional right. But he was shot down like his life meant nothing. My heart is heavy with the news of this acquittal, it breaks for his girlfriend, who acted so bravely as this unfolded, and his daughter. Tonight, there will be protests to voice the frustration of the people, while we all hope it will remain peaceful, try to understand what has happened here today from their point of view. This post is not anti-police, it is pro-accountability.

My city put up pride flags

I just wanted to show all of you the flags that Dayton put up for pride month:

[[image: downtown Dayton Ohio. The city put up the rainbow flag, the trans* pride flag, the pansexual pride flag, the bisexual pride flag, and the asexual pride flag along with some American Flags]]

I was so excited. Apparently whoever was tasked with finding pride flags to fly did some research. Here’s a picture of the flags from a different view point:

[[image: downtown Dayton Ohio- another view of the pride flags.]]

I’m not sure what the white one with the two rings and the rainbows in it is. Does anybody know?

Can I just say I have a lot of opinions about JJ, especially from a Westerner’s point of view? Specifically, the way he’s treated by the other skaters in YOI? JJ is loud, boisterous, and toots his own horn at every chance. Does this make him a bad guy? No way. In fact, all it does is paint a picture of how the rest of the world views people from America. Now, I’m from the US, so I can’t really speak for Canada, but I have quite a few Canadian friends and we are all, by definition, “North Americans”. I notice that our cultures aren’t really that different- specifically our social culture. Most Western young men act A LOT like JJ does- making jokes at other peoples’ expenses, trying to one-up everyone around them, be it verbally or otherwise, being really competitive and thriving in a competitive atmosphere, and generally just being very loud and obnoxious. 

Keep reading

Why some people see Donald Trump as a hero, not a bully:

So, let’s start from this point: Donald Trump is not a hero. He’s a bully.

Heroes, after all, defend the weak and marginalized against the strong and the vicious. Bullies pick on the weak and the marginalized to the benefit of the strong and the comfortable. Much like his racism, Trump’s bullying is textbook.

None of which changes for a second the fact that lots of Americans seem to think of Trump as a hero anyway. And since at least part of my job is to think about things that don’t make sense, here’s my take on why the “Hero Trump” people think the way they do.

The Hero Trump people have engaged in what can be called “privilege inversion.” Basically, they have convinced themselves that liberals and minorities have created a world in which it is substantively worse to be a white person, especially a male white person, than to be “Other.” From their point of view, political correctness and its associated practices – trigger warnings, language policing, etc. – have made victims of those who are otherwise assumed to be privileged. Thus, white people, especially men and especially Christians, are actually the abused minority group in America, victims of the PC police and a culture that regularly mocks their values and their goals.

Please don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying this has happened. I am NOT saying white male Christians are martyrs or that the PC police run the world. I AM saying that a whole lot of Trump’s supporters think this way. Hence his being an asshole makes him a hero: as Barry Goldwater once put it (in a very different context), “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! … moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

In the Trumpette worldview, the erosion of privilege makes one a martyr. Trump is King Canute (look it up!) heroically standing against the tide, and his supporters seem to believe that – unlike Canute – Trump can hold back the waves.

Cerro Tololo Trails : Early one moonlit evening car lights left a wandering trail along the road to the Chilean Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory. Setting stars left the wandering trails in the sky. The serene view toward the mountainous horizon was captured in a telephoto timelapse image and video taken from nearby Cerro Pachon, home to Gemini South. Afforded by the mountaintop vantage point, the clear, long sight-line passes through layers of atmosphere. The changing atmospheric refraction shifts and distorts the otherwise steady apparent paths of the stars as they set. That effect also causes the distorted appearance of Sun and Moon as they rise or set near a distant horizon. via NASA


I spent my youth growing up in America. So for a few years, I had this American accent. When I went back to England, I came back pretty much this American, long blonde-haired kind of surfer kid, who couldn’t surf very well, and had this American accent which I sort of I guess have had in my back pocket from an actor’s point of view ever since.


The gods from episode 1-4
“Religions are, by definition, metaphors, after all: God is a dream, a hope, a woman, an ironist, a father, a city, a house of many rooms, a watchmaker who left his prize chronometer in the desert, someone who loves you—even, perhaps, against all evidence, a celestial being whose only interest is to make sure your football team, army, business, or marriage thrives, prospers, and triumphs over all opposition. Religions are places to stand and look and act, vantage points from which to view the world. So none of this is happening. Such things could not occur. Never a word of it is literally true.” 

“Let’s look at this thing from another point of view, which you will at first think highly depressing. Let’s suppose we can’t do anything to change ourselves. Suppose we’re stuck with it. Now that is the worst thing an American audience can hear: ‘There’s no way of improving yourself!’ Because every kind of culture in this country is dedicated to self improvement! So here’s the situation: the whole idea of self improvement is a will-o’-the-wisp and a hoax. That’s not what it’s about. Let’s begin where we are. What happens if you know beyond any shadow of doubt that there is nothing you can do to be better? Well, it’s kind of a relief, isn’t it? Seeing that there isn’t really anything we can do to improve ourselves or to improve the world, if we realise that that is so, it gives us a breather in the course of which we may simply watch what is going on—watch what happens. Nobody ever does this, you know. It sounds terribly simple. It sounds so simple that it almost looks as if it isn’t worth doing. But have you ever just watched what’s happening and watched what you are doing by way of reaction to it? Just watch it happen. And don’t be in a hurry to think you know what is happening!”

Alan Watts

Why is Otayuri getting so much hate: a possible explanation

Don’t get fooled by my title, also reminder that explanation =/= justification.

I always try to analyze phenomena and their possible causes, that’s the scientist in me I guess. So I started thinking about ant///is and I was like: but why. I just said in a recent post that Otayuri is obviously not the first relationship portrayed in the history of anime with such a (small) age gap, and I found some posts that talk about how some age gaps in older (and even recent) anime are just outrageous (even when one of the parts is a minor), and yet those don’t seem to be getting any hate or discourse.

But why?

• The sheer number of fans.

The first probably obvious reason is that Yuri on Ice has a lot more fans than other similar fandoms, and it gained them within a very short time span. It’s getting more and more fans every day, so it’s a mathematical rule that in a huge fandom there will be all sorts of people (it’s like a huge sample group), and some of these are an///is. The bigger the fandom, the more the a///is. 

• The particular moment in history in which YOI came out.

It’s no secret that there’s discourse everywhere now, especially on certain types of social media. A lot of discourse is good discourse, but we also need to realize that not all discourse is good discourse. I think this discourse wave has played a huge role in the way an///is have suddenly decided to become active in hating on people over idiotic reasons. It’s like a marketing thing: they saw a discourse niche that was unoccupied and decided to take it over. Regardless of whether your discourse is right or wrong, writing about it is one easy way to increase your follower count, and who ain’t a slut for that

• The fact that many YOI fans aren’t used to anime and manga content.

This goes together with my next point, but I thought I’d still make it two separate ones. A lot of people who became hardcore YOI fans don’t usually watch anime or read manga (myself included). This without my next point wouldn’t give much info on its own, but keep this in mind because I really think that the majority of an///is fall under this (and the next) category of people.

• The fact that many YOI fans are from the US and aren’t used to content not made in the US.

Listen, I know I’m making a huge assumption here, but I think it’s one that is generally accepted within the fandom: most (if not all) an///is are from the US. It seems obvious to me because the US is one of the few places where (though not even in every state, I think) the age of consent is 18, and all their interactions with us non-an///is seem very US-centric, especially in the way they generally aren’t willing to acknowledge the fact that different countries have different laws and/or traditions and generally a different mindset. 

My goal is not to attack the US mentality here, but, again, I feel like what I’m saying is pretty much accepted even by many of my US friends. And what I’m describing is certainly what an///is act like, so I’m just going to keep explaining why I think this is the main issue (and why I think my assumption is generally right).

We’ve seen before how the US (generally speaking) are scared of importing recreational content from other countries and they’d much rather buy the rights to said foreign content and remake it with their own rules to make it more appealing to a US audience (sometimes even inexplicably and with ridiculous and disastrous results). Recent cases of this have been the US buying the rights to the Norwegian teen TV-show Skam and the popular anime Death Note getting remade into a Netflix movie. The US are screaming at the rest of the world: we only want the idea of your content, but we’d rather make it our own than show yours for what it is, never mind that your show reflects what your country is about and how your the customs of your country reflect on your personal (pop) culture. We don’t want your content EXACTLY because it reflects something that might differ from our views, and our viewers won’t like it. 

And I guess they never will if you actually don’t show them what the rest of the world looks like.

I went a little bit on a tangent there, but my point is: US audience isn’t used to consuming content that isn’t made in the US. I’m not even talking about language here: TV shows aren’t dubbed or subbed, the US literally remakes them and remakes the content to fit the US views and mentality.

That means that the average US citizen will very likely find anything that is untouched by americanization weird if not completely out of their moral values. Couple this fact with the previous one: many YOI fans aren’t used to any kind of content that isn’t perfected and polished specifically for their tastes. 

It’s amazing and it speaks for the quality of YOI that many of them could still get used to a different form of art (anime) and enjoy it and even become hardcore fans (and are now probably getting interested in other anime and manga etc), but out of these amazing people, a (thankfully smaller) group of them still couldn’t wrap their minds around the fact that fans from all over the world, with their own set of morals, ship something that in their minds is controversial (just because of a man-made law that not even every US state follows). They don’t care about what the law in Japan, Russia or Kazakhstan is and they’ve made this loud and clear. 

Bottom line: 

The key to this (like for many other issues) is just one:


There’s little we as a fandom can do in this case, especially we people not living in the US since we always seem to be dismissed. They send us anon hate and if we reply saying that Otayuri is legal in our own country we never hear back from them. There’s not much we can do if they aren’t willing to listen to us. 

But all I tried to do here is offer possible reasons why this phenomenon even exists, and maybe by reading this someone will have a brilliant idea on how to fix this. I don’t offer solutions, but understanding why and how something happens is always the key for the next step, whatever the next step might be. 

it’s very telling to me that, in all the news and commentary i’ve read about the Chicago D*ke March’s expulsion of Jewish marchers, the most nuanced and considerate opinions i’ve heard have primarily come from Jews. Jews have been doing the soul-searching, Jews have been debating each other about the true meaning of the event, Jews have been asking each other about what Zionism means and how it interferes with others, and depressingly, Jews have been asking each other how to exist in public spaces wearing Jewish symbols without infringing on anyone else’s feelings. actually, to be fair, i’ve only seen a single Palestinian comment on the event so far, but their statement was complex and nuanced. meanwhile, many other American goyim, non-Muslim and non-Jewish, are promoting an extremely black-and-white view, where you’re either anti-everything-about-Israel or you’re a “””Zionist””” monster. but that’s not how countries work!

many Jews have complicated feelings about Israel, and condemn the violence toward innocent Palestinians while still supporting the general existence of a Jewish nation. some of these Jews call themselves Zionists, some do not. but all the goyim i’ve seen speaking about Israel in light of this event assume that to be Zionist is to support the Israeli government in all its actions. i wish everyone would stop using the language of “pro-Israel/Zionist” and “pro-Palestine/antiZionist” to refer to the debate–there should be no such thing as “pro-Israel” in the same way there is no such thing as “pro-France” or “pro-Nigeria” or “pro-Brazil”. using the term “pro-Israel” paints the poisonously false picture that if you are glad that a Jewish state exists at ALL, you automatically agree with the government. for every other nation around the world, people generally accept that you can disagree with the actions of the nation’s government without wanting that nation to be disintegrated. 

we’ve been talking a lot about how kicking Jews out of the march for carrying a flag with a Jewish star on it is antisemitic, but it’s eclipsed an even more fundamental conversation about how, alone of all the nations, people are not supposed to have a nuanced view of Israel’s actions separate from its existence. 

my point is twofold: if i were a Protestant, you would not ask me if i’m “pro-Germany” or “pro-England”. i am an American Jew. don’t ask me if i’m “pro-Israel” or “Zionist”. 1) it’s antisemitic to single out Jews for that kind of question, and 2) “pro-Israel” is a “gotcha” that doesn’t mean a goddamn thing. have more respect for the ability of Jews to hold nuanced, complex opinions. it’s basically our entire culture. believe me, if you want internal debate and soul-searching, the Jews have got you covered.


U.S. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton smiles and takes questions from reporters at the District of Colombia federal courthouse on January 26, 1996.

Hillary was ordered to appear before the federal grand jury to testify about her role in the failed Whitewater land deal.

It was the first time in American history that the wife of a U.S. President testified before a grand jury.

Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary were ever prosecuted, after three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal. Yet another Republican manufactured fake Clinton “scandal.”

As usual, Hillary showed up with a smile on her face. Looking fabulous.

Hillary has never been afraid of confronting her critics head-on. Just as she destroyed Trump in all three debates, or the 11-hour Benghazi testimony, Hillary excels under pressure and makes her critics look foolish.

No one has ever been better prepared or as equipped to take on the Republicans than Hillary. She’s been doing it for years. Unfortunately, after so many fake “scandals,” Hillary’s image has been damaged. Which was the entire point of these fake scandals – even if Hillary isn’t guilty, we can still accuse her of corruption and plant seeds of doubt. But rather than viewing the Republicans as the corrupt ones, manufacturing fake Clinton scandals and wasting tax-payer money, many Americans drank the Clinton hate kool-aid (even progressives).

Though Hillary still won the popular vote by 3 million, Republicans weren’t the only ones afraid of a Hillary Presidency. Putin also knew of Hillary’s intelligence, ruthlessness, and effectiveness from her time as Secretary of State. Putin believed Hillary would be stronger and far more aggressive than Obama. So in the end, Russia and Republican FBI Director James Comey stole the election from the majority of Americans.

But we should all take the time to appreciate this moment in history. Hillary has never been afraid to put her critics in their place. Including the media.

Sadly, instead of recognizing how epic all of this is, many Americans decided to vilify a woman of such stature. How unfortunate that sexism is still so alive in our culture. But seriously – what other human has had such resilience in the face of such fierce opposition?

I wish there were more HD photos of Hillary in-front of those microphones. No one has the composure Hillary possesses. No one is as calm or as articulate under pressure as Hillary is. A truly brilliant woman. But it’s no surprise Middle America and young progressives just never got it.

starlightprincess17  asked:

Hi! I'm a Cultural Anthropology student transferring form a community college to a big University in the fall. I'm a little nervous about keeping up and was wondering if you have any book/ article recommendations to help me brush up on upper division concepts and prepare for the type of work done on the quarter system vs semester system. or just good reads in general. The school is UC San Diego if you need specifics. Thank you for your time.

I’ve only even been to semester schools, so I can’t really help you there. Below I’m reposting a list of readings I’ve suggested to others before (see FAQ), and surely people will comment here others: 

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture.” In The interpretation of cultures.

Geertz, Clifford. 1974. “‘From the native’s point of view’: On the nature of anthropological understanding.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 28 (1): 26-45.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. “Introduction.” In Argonauts of the Western Pacific.

Farmer, Paul. 1996. “On suffering and structural violence: A view from below.” Daedalus 125 (1): 261-283.

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2002. “Do Muslim women really need saving? Anthropological reflections on cultural relativism and its Others.” American Anthropologist 104 (3): 783-790.

Foucault, Michel. 1976. The history of sexuality.

Chomsky, Noam and Edward S. Herman. 1998. Manufacturing consent.

Chomsky, Noam. 2016. Who rules the world?

Mead, Margaret. 1928. Coming of age in Samoa.

Bohannan, Laura. 1961. “Shakespeare in the bush.” Natural History.

Said, Edward. 1978. “Introduction.” In Orientalism.

The Combahee River Collective. 1977. “A Black feminist statement.”

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1992. “Price formation and the anticipation of profits.” In Language and symbolic power.

Duggan, Lisa. 2003. “Introduction” and “Equality, Inc.” In The twilight of equality?

Harris, Marvin. 1976. “History and significance of the emic/etic distinction.” Annual Review of Anthropology 5: 329-350.

Benedict, Ruth. 1934. Patterns of culture.

These are in no particular order. Just the order I remembered them.

Any article you can look at that’s from a major anthro journal like American Anthropologist or American Ethnologist or things like that is also good. A lot of the ones I want to recommend are actually from queer theory, not anthropology. I tried limiting it to that field specifically. Actually I lied some are queer theory good luck figuring out which.

Anything by any of these authors is also worthy.

You may be able to find a lot of these as PDFs online but you didn’t hear it from me.

Edit: you can also find films or short videos featuring a lot of these people, especially Chomsky @starlightprincess17

On the Perfect Being the Enemy of the Good ...

So yesterday I posted this photo, which generated a lot of heat. Some more practically-minded people were supportive. Other, more ideologically-minded people, thought it represented a sell out of all that was good and right and pure in favor if imperfection, failure and doom.

To which I say: get over it. Life is imperfect. People are imperfect. Sometimes all you get is the less worse outcome. Which, however shitty it is, is still better than the worse outcome. 

My ideological critics are going to start another screed here, about the selling out of the progressive vision, and how Bernie could have won, etc. But they’re wrong, and for a simple reason:


See, the demand that your candidate be ideologically perfect from your point of view is, in fact, absurd. I mean, you and five friends couldn’t possibly agree on the toppings on a damn shared pizza, but you and 65,000,000 other Americans (roughly the number of votes you need to win the Presidency, appropriately distributed per the Electoral College’s requirements) can agree, 100%, on political ideology? It’s just madness.

Abraham Lincoln once advocated the return of slaves to Africa and the rejection of interracial marriage. He then signed the Emancipation Proclamation and pushed the 13th Amendment. Lyndon Johnson spent his entire career espousing the standard racialist line of Southern Democrats of the era and then signed almost all the great civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Barack Obama ran for the Presidency opposing gay marriage but then advocated it. 

The perfect is the enemy of the good. And good, in politics, is hard enough to make happen.

anonymous asked:

hi, so i've been following overinvested and your recap posts on american gods, and generally really appreciate and like your opinions. howev, i /think/ the rising tension in ep6 with vulcan is probably really different for white pp bc watching it as a black american: the ep didn't work for me bc it was fight-or-flight from when they drove up, no rising tension whatsoever. basically, would you elucidate on your analysis of that part of the ep? I'd like to hear what you think, as a brit

People’s opinions are influenced by their own experiences, and I think American Gods inspires VERY different opinions because it’s an ~edgy show, it has a black protagonist and a diverse cast, and it deals with themes of race and immigration in America. (It’s also mostly written by white men, lol.)

In this ep, I found Shadow’s discomfort and Vulcan’s role to be the most effective/memorable aspects, along with the Jesus intro. The trifecta of Christianity, racism, and guns was a pretty in-your-face depiction of toxic American conservatism. Here’s what I wrote in my recap:

After several episodes of Shadow being freaked out by supernatural weirdness, this feels like a more meaningful threat than, say, getting stabbed by a magic tree.

He’s a black man in a small town in the South, populated by heavily-armed white people with an obvious distaste for outsiders. When Vulcan invites Shadow and Wednesday back to his house, he points out the noose in his garden—an intentionally disturbing gesture toward Shadow, who wants to get out of there as soon as possible.

There’s a realistically unsettling dynamic to their interactions, with Vulcan being subtly aggressive toward Shadow while excluding him from the conversation. Corbin Bernsen is perfectly cast as a bully who enjoys making people uncomfortable, hinting that Vulcan holds all the power in the room. Mr. Wednesday ignores Shadow’s discomfort (and the warning signs) out of a desire to rekindle his friendship with Vulcan.

Re: your question about my view as a white/british person, it’s often hard to gauge one’s own influences from an inside POV, if that makes sense? Hence why people publish so many racist & sexist reviews without realizing it! (I’ve probably done this at some point, although hopefully I’m not fucking up in this actual reply.) With American Gods, Shadow may inspire different responses depending on the viewer’s race/cultural background, not necessarily in a negative sense, but because white viewers might not understand the rarity & impact of seeing a black/biracial protagonist in a fantasy show. Kind of like how men watch Wonder Woman and enjoy it, whereas women watch Wonder Woman and burst into tears of relief. And AG’s creators experience similar biases/influences from the other end of the process. They want to make a show that directly tackles racism, but they may not have realized how the scenes in Vulcan’s town could obliterate the rest of the drama in that episode, because some viewers would find it distractingly tense from Shadow’s perspective.

My reaction to the show will inevitably be different from someone who experiences racism in America, but I also agree with your comment that this episode lacked a sense of rising tension. AG has a kind of meandering, disjointed structure with multiple storylines in each ep. That contributes to people having wildly different reactions to the show, because it’s easier to focus on individual characters and scenes. 

This is now slightly off-topic, but I think that phenomenon played out in an interesting way with Laura. I loved her rewritten role in the show, and found it refreshing to see her be so unpleasant and miserable compared to the “beautiful dead wife” cliche. She isn’t likeable, but she makes sense from an emotional perspective. At the same time, some viewers just hated her and thought she was a bitch for ruining Shadow’s life. And then there’s this more nuanced analysis from a thread with film critic Rebecca Theodore:

My reply got kind of outta hand, but basically: I think American Gods is an interesting but flawed show, and because it tells a wide range of stories, it invites a wide range of perspectives and critiques, including reactions that the showrunners may not have predicted or intended. (Also it would help if they hired a more diverse creative team for season 2, because almost every ep is written and directed by white men.)

For a more in-depth analysis of this ep from a black critic, I recommend Charles Pulliam-Moore’s commentary on Vulcan’s role in ep 6. My own recap is here, and the Overinvested podcast episode about American Gods (covering eps 1-4) is here.

Psychopathy vs Sociopathy

A recent post spurred my irritation about sociopaths and psychopaths and the general opinion of them in pop culture.  So, here is a bit of a rant.

Both psychopathy and sociopathy are personality disorders that impact a human being’s behavior.  Often, people confuse sociopathy and psychopathy because of the media’s general depiction of them and pop culture’s inability to properly label either.


In general, psychopaths are born and sociopaths are raised.  A psychopath tends to result from genetics and is passed down through families.  Sociopaths are the result of their environment, often in the form of abuse or severe pressure while as a child.

If an individual displays troubling behavior from the get go, they’re likely a psychopath.  If they develop that troubling behavior over years, they are likely a sociopath.  This can be hard to know because psychopaths can be the victims of violence and abuse (and since it is genetic, its possible one of their parents is a psychopath as well, increasing the chance for abuse) and psychopaths are extremely adept at hiding their behavior.


Empathy is another way to define both these conditions.

Sociopaths can feel empathy but it is highly muted.  I’ve heard it explained to me like people with severe autism, where connections take repeated and constant attempts before success.  I’ve also heard of it explained like a switch, where the sociopath can effectively ‘turn off/on’ their empathy, which given the cause of sociopathy, makes sense.  Since sociopathy is created from pressure, stress and abuse, the sociopath’s empathy is effectively dissociated as a coping mechanism.

Psychopaths, however, do not feel empathy.  Period.  They may be extremely adept at mimicking empathy.  They can understand the process and behavior.  But they don’t feel empathy.  

Connections are made based on the psychopath’s needs.  The psychopath views others as tools; to inflate their ego, as property, as means to an end, as intellectual stimulus.  Psychopaths don’t have friends on an emotional level, but rather those they respect based on other traits, such as their intelligence or skill.


Sociopaths tend to be erratic and their behavior is more impulse than direct choice.  Sociopaths may be habitual liars, may have rage issues or may steal with little thought beyond immediate gratification.  While sociopaths can plan, their impulse control tends to be hampered, meaning that their plans tend to fall apart after some time.  This leads to a lot of sociopaths losing their job and, combined with their impulses, leads to them turning to crime or substance abuse.

Psychopaths, in contrast, are not erratic.  They are calculating and meticulous.  Early identification of psychopathy, such as mutilating animals, is not done out of impulse control, but rather the psychopath’s inability to understand the inherent wrongness of their actions.

Psychopaths often hold jobs and their actions, such as lying, stealing or violence, tend to be extremely calculated and are done in a way to provide specific and targeted results for the psychopath.

Pop Culture

So, who is an actual sociopath or psychopath in pop culture?  I’ll give a few examples.

Traditionally, The Joker in comics/DCAU is a psychopath due to his lack of empathy, eye for detail and his use of Harley Quinn.  In modern media, like Suicide Squad and The Dark Knight, Joker is depicted as more of a sociopath, with more erratic behavior.

Lord Voldemort is a psychopath, incapable of feeling love and empathy, who only views those around him as tools or obstacles.

Patrick Bateman from American Psycho is, correctly, identified as a psychopath. 

The Purple Man from Jessica Jones is a sociopath.  It is hinted that he became the way he is after his parents experimented on him.  In addition, his behavior tends to fall closer to the erratic and impulsive side.  While not to be trusted (especially if he was a psychopath) his admission that he has feelings for Jessica would also point to him being a sociopath.

Racter from Shadowrun: Hong Kong is a psychopath.  Right down to his admission that he views the player as a friend, not for any emotional reason, but for academic reasons.

anonymous asked:

Hello! I was wondering if you could recommend articles or books for someone who is not an anthropologist but would love to be one. It could be of any topic, but friendly towards someone who doesn't have an advance knowledge in this study field. Maybe you could recommend your favorite first articles/books that made you fall in love more with anthropology when you were just starting to study it. Thank you! P.s. I LOVE your blog; I have learned so much and it's really entertaining 😊

Thank you!! This is a tough question, and I hope others comment some other sources. 

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture.” In The interpretation of cultures. 

Geertz, Clifford. 1974. “‘From the native’s point of view’: On the nature of anthropological understanding.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 28 (1): 26-45. 

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. “Introduction.” In Argonauts of the Western Pacific. 

Farmer, Paul. 1996. “On suffering and structural violence: A view from below.” Daedalus 125 (1): 261-283. 

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2002. “Do Muslim women really need saving? Anthropological reflections on cultural relativism and its Others.” American Anthropologist 104 (3): 783-790. 

Foucault, Michel. 1976. The history of sexuality

Chomsky, Noam and Edward S. Herman. 1998. Manufacturing consent. 

Chomsky, Noam. 2016. Who rules the world? 

Mead, Margaret. 1928. Coming of age in Samoa. 

Bohannan, Laura. 1961. “Shakespeare in the bush.” Natural History. 

Said, Edward. 1978. “Introduction.” In Orientalism. 

The Combahee River Collective. 1977. “A Black feminist statement.” 

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1992. “Price formation and the anticipation of profits.” In Language and symbolic power. 

Duggan, Lisa. 2003. “Introduction” and “Equality, Inc.” In The twilight of equality? 

Harris, Marvin. 1976. “History and significance of the emic/etic distinction.” Annual Review of Anthropology 5: 329-350. 

Benedict, Ruth. 1934. Patterns of culture. 

These are in no particular order. Just the order I remembered them. 

Any article you can look at that’s from a major anthro journal like American Anthropologist or American Ethnologist or things like that is also good. A lot of the ones I want to recommend are actually from queer theory, not anthropology. I tried limiting it to that field specifically. Actually I lied some are queer theory good luck figuring out which. 

Anything by any of these authors is also worthy. 

You may be able to find a lot of these as PDFs online but you didn’t hear it from me. 

Edit: you can also find films or short videos featuring a lot of these people, especially Chomsky

So Sanctuary is a scifi show whose lead character is played by Amanda Tapping right after she left the Stargate franchise.  She was the executive producer and it was her baby.

She played Dr. Helen Magnus, a brilliant victorian female scientist whose along with her four buddies at Oxford decided to experiment on themselves by injecting themselves with vampire blood.  It made her extraordinarily long lived (she starts out the series 150ish years old and because of accidental time travel ends the series 270ish).  She is a crytozoologist of questionable scientific ethics and grey hat morality who runs a foundation that protects and studies creatures she calls ‘abnormal’ from the public and governments who might use or abuse them.  She is an extraordinarily violent woman with an english accent that is Tapping’s actual accent (people complain about it being fake but her mother is English it’s hers they’re just used to her speaking American/Canadian).  She wears a lot of leather jackets, lab coats and occasionally the naughty librarian look.

Oh and she’s canon pansexual.  Did I mention that?

The series is told from her point of view so she’s the hero but she could also easily be a supervillain.  A fact that @liberalmasochist and @shinewithalltheuntold are forever upset at me for having pointed out to them.

David Tennant x Reader - Hot Chocolate

Originally posted by holmesillusion

A/N: Hello! This is my first imagine to write on Tumblr. You have no idea how nervous I am right now! I was in a rut of writer’s block, but I finally got out of it because I’m in a very David mood tonight. I hope you enjoy it!

Title: Drink Your Hot Chocolate

Warnings: None!

Characters: David Tennant, You

Plot Summary: Escaping the blistering cold of winter, you find yourself safely inside a Starbucks, when a certain, very familiar Scotsman catches your eye.

The chill of the sharp winter wind scratched against your face, causing your eyes to squint in distress. The weather had reported a strong blizzard coming to your area just tomorrow, and you had to get to the store for supplies before they all ran out. However, the blistery weather had you regretting your decision.

Ah! You thought. Finally!

Luckily for you and the very skin on your face, a warm and toasty looking Starbucks appeared around the corner. Many of the passersby on the streets of London were walking into the delicious coffee establishment, and you couldn’t wait to get inside and order a nice warm drink. The line was favorable, and your throat was nearly screaming for relief from the chill.

“Hello,” a kind looking barista with black hair and a nose piercing said. “What can I get for you?”

“Can I get a grande peppermint hot chocolate?” I asked, simultaneously grabbing my wallet from my bag.

“Sure!” she exclaimed with an overly excited tone. “And your name?”

“Y/N,” you replied, giving her a small smile.

You paid for your drink and sat down in a secluded corner of the coffee shop, taking a look at your surroundings. The Starbucks was filled with the melody of talking people, baristas calling drinks that were finished, and the soft beat of forgotten pop tunes playing quietly from the speakers.

You’d been in this Starbucks millions of  times, and you noticed that there was a lot more whispering than usual. And the whispers seemed to be targeted in your direction. You quickly looked around yourself, making sure you didn’t have anything spilled on you, and spotted a hand very close to you.

Moving your eyes up from the tip of the fingers to the face - a man’s face - you pointed out a very distinct and familiar profile. A large hat and black sunglasses hid most of his face from view, and he sported a sweatshirt and black jeans that made him unrecognizable.

“Do I know you from somewhere?” I asked without thinking, causing the slightest jump from him at the sudden break of silence.

“I don’t think so, no,” he responded in an extremely forced American accent.

“I swear, I know you. You look so familiar, even with all the cover-up.”

As you studied him again, you understood. The sideburns ,the thin pointy nose, the gorgeous freckles peppered across his face. David Tennant.

“Holy shit…” you whispered. “D-Dav-”

You stopped yourself. You knew better than to draw attention to someone who clearly didn’t want it.

“I’m a huge fan,” you whispered. “Don’t worry, I won’t rat you out. It’s an honor to meet you.”

He sighed of what sounded like relief, swallowing hard and turning to you. “Thank God,” his rusty Scottish accent coming back. “You are a saint. I was so tired of that damn accent.”

You giggled, finally seeing through the sunglasses to his eyes. Those beautiful chocolate eyes. They drew you into a gaze that you simply couldn’t break out of. Not that you wanted to, anyway.

“We kind of got off on the wrong foot. I’m David,” he held out his hand.

Gently taking it into my own, I felt a shock of electricity shoot up my arm, sending a chill down my spine.


“What a lovely name, Y/N.”

The way your name perfectly rolled off his tongue sent another shockwave of excitement.

“Why, thank you, David.” you replied. “Might I ask a favor of you?”

“Of course.”

“Could you sign something for me?” you blushed.


Just then, the barista called both your and David’s name at the same time, and David stood up, grabbing both drinks and walking back over to you.

Taking a pen from his pocket, he held up your drink, signing it and handing it to me.

“It’s been a pleasure, dear Y/N, but I must be going. Need to get to set,” a disappointed gleam flashed through his eyes.

“Will I ever see you again?” You asked, blushing after realizing what you had said.

He giggled lowly. “Drink your hot chocolate, love.”

And with a wink to you, he left the shop, leaving you all by your lonesome.

You looked down at your cup, examining his signature, but you also caught something else.

Ello, love. You seem very lovely and very sweet and kind. I’d love to see you again xx. Call me sometime, if you’d like. :) -David Tennant


“The ‘80s gave me the freedom to just work. I was all about drawing and graphic and black and white and accepted who I was rather than trying to paint like somebody else.” From her studio in Brooklyn, Joyce Pensato discusses the influences behind her paintings and how the 1980s were a turning point for her career. Hear more from the artist whose work is on view in Fast Forward through May 14.