Jungkook: “Oh! You waited for us all this time?”

Originally posted by yourpinkpill

Jimin: “We’re so happy to hear that, Anonie! And to be back to read our followers precious words.”

Originally posted by excusechim

Jungkook: “We’re still sorry y’all had to wait for us a whole year.”

Originally posted by yourpinkpill

Jimin: “But we’re not going anywhere, ok?”

Originally posted by jikookshandshake

- Jikook.

Like the woody collective could be the main piece of a pretty ok episode of ghost in the shell about someone who’s killing a ton of people seemingly randomly on the internet to a serial killer ai collective that only kills reactionaries

As stress-inducing as last night’s episode was, it reminded me how absolutely fun it is to experience something like that live with a bunch of people on the internet. Strangers on Twitter and Tumblr that I’ve never talked to before, all collectively losing their minds together. I love the internet!

Oh my god. Tumblr has marked a whole bunch of my recent posts as NSFW and it’s all totally clean photography that happens to involve LGBTQ people or relationships. Very angry right now, as that is disgusting AND it’s some of my best work.

Like some of these posts aren’t even TAGGED as LGBTQ. But the people in them, doing totally harmless things, happen to be queer. So Tumblr @staff is stereotyping now? Just making their own assumptions? Why the absolute hell are you marking someone’s identity as NSFW so only a small portion of users will see it? You’re censoring our normal everyday lives now? I am so angry right now. One of the most important things I do as a queer photographer is represent marginalized people in my work and the Internet is the only way to promote my art because I don’t have the funds for gallery shows or advertising. The irony here is just unbelievable.

Ok everyone listen up now

And I mean Now. I’ve been going through Tumblr ask blogs seeing what I should expect. Most anons I see look very nice. But not all. I’ve seen my with my own eyes what some people try to do. STOP. With the hate. With the unwanted comments. Stuff that you have to say with an anon accnt just to insult people. Not what the internet should be for. People might not make what you like. But you shouldn’t hate on it. Dont wish that people would just die because lets be honest if you have to use an Anon to say it. THEN DONT SAY IT AT ALL. Or rather. SAY IT TO OUR FACE.

anonymous asked:

dont u love it when you have otherkin blogs come in and say "Ur Wasting Ur Time!!!! why waste ur Time Making a Hate BlooOOOOOG??" meanwhile they're sitting with blogs dedicated to otherkin and screaming at people across the internet and you kind of sit their like... ;)


- Boi

anonymous asked:

... I suggest you change the picture on your blog. because you made it very clear that you are hostile and unwelcoming towards white users. why bother showing whites holding black hands?? I get the impression on this blog that isn't the idea you have in your mind here. you want to split all people into their corners of the internet. Idk how you feel, but I prefer 'all together' instead over 'splitted groups everywhere'. Anyone joining here clearly splits themselves further from others, js

I don’t really care what you prefer anon. That and light skin does not equal whiteness which is why I chose the picture I did for my blog. Poc can be whitepassing as well and those who are white passing are welcome here of course. I’m sure everyone reading this will wonder what hostility towards white people you could possibly be talking about as well. I’m not sure why another exclusive rpc blog is a problem as soon as it doesn’t include white people. There are many blogs that cater to specifically to users who want to learn languages, users who write a specific genre, users that are autistic, users that are LGBTQ, users with disabilities, and of course those blogs weren’t created for people outside of those communities and it is understandable. So why does a blog for people of color bother you so much? What makes it more hostile than the others? Where is the problem in people of different races touching each others hands on a blog for poc positivity? 


anonymous asked:

i used to be a popular fandom blog before deactivating in december and i remember being so paranoid about expressing my opinions/discourse because i was afraid people were going to lash out at me or some shit. it sucked. i would always go on tumblr feeling like shit and logout feeling shittier. after getting into the arts of discoursing, you really just stop caring. it's pretty crazy how much i've changed lol. now i won't hesitate to speak my mind. we're all people on the internet in the end.


- Boi

Ghibli Movies according to the Internet (SPOILERS)

When Marnie was there: When Anna was Accidentally Gay for her Grandma

My Neighbour Totoro: 1st ever Ghibli Movie

Spirited Away: 2nd 1st ever Ghibli Movie

Princess Mononoke: Scary Deer Jesus

Pom Poko: Balls

The Cat Returns: Everyone’s Unexpected Furry Awakening

From Up On Poppy Hill: You May be My Brother But I’d Totally Do You

Ponyo: The Little Mermaid But With Kindergartners

Grave of the Fireflies: Greatest Movie Ever Made That You’ll Never Watch Again

Only Yesterday: Greatest Ghibli Movie Ever Made That Barely Anyone Has Ever Watched (j/k: Best Ending Ever)

Whisper of the Heart: I Wish My Teenage Life Was This Idyllic

Kiki’s Delivery Service: Too Many Bloomer Shots

Laputa: Castle in the Sky: Falling From Terrifying Heights: The Movie

Howl’s Moving Castle: The One With The Hot Bishounen

Tale of the Princess Kaguya: Fucking Moon People

anonymous asked:

do you know any good readings on the effects of colonialism on modern concepts of gender? i've seen you talk a lot about this and i'm interested to read more into it

Heterosexualism and the Colonial / Modern Gender System, María Lugones 

Colonial Dependence and Sexual Difference: Reading for Gender in the Writings of Simón Bolívar (1783-1830), Catherine Davies

(you can download those last two articles here if you don’t have access to jstor)

The Coloniality of Gender, Maria Lugones

Romancing the Transgender Native, Evan B. Towle and Lynn M. Morgan

Scientific Racism and the Emergence of the Homosexual Body, Siobhan Somerville

Asexuality as a white supremacist dream (and additional commentary)

The Empire of Sexuality, Joseph Massa

Women and Men, Cloth and Colonization: The Transformation of Production-Distribution Relations among the Baule (Ivory Coast) (Femmes et hommes, pagnes et colonisation: la transformation des relations de production et de distribution chez les Baule de Côte d'Ivoire), Mona Etienne

“Some Could Suckle over Their Shoulder”: Male Travelers, Female Bodies, and the Gendering of Racial Ideology, 1500-1770, Jennifer L. Morgan

White Sexual Imperialism: A Theory of Asian Feminist Jurisprudence, Sunny Woan

The veil or a brother’s life: French manipulations of Muslim women’s images during the Algerian War, 1954–62, Elizabeth Perego

Rethinking Sex-Positivity, Rebecca John

Women of Color Seen As Always Sexually AvailableJaclyn Friedman 

anonymous asked:

what is your opinion on polyamory?

I support people doing whatever (whomever?) they want however I don’t think that polyamory is inherently revolutionary / anti-patriarchy / incapable of creating abusive situations or whatever discourse the weirdos on here are cooking up these days. it has its own pecularities / upsides & downsides for different people just as monogamy does.

& “monogamy culture” definitely isn’t a thing lmfao, to the extent that such an expectation exists it’s contained w/in heteropatriarchy & not a separate force. I’m wary of people who use that kind of rhetoric in order to deflect criticism in cases when (& this certainly isn’t all of them) people, esp. women, are manipulated into situations that they’re not comfortable w/ and so this basically becomes the trendy new way to have harems

There’s no such thing as the Dark Ages, but OK

As a very serious adult, with a respectable career and life, and a healthy ability to let petty shit slide, I spent much too much time last week arguing with strangers on the internet who believe in the myth of the Dark Ages.

The arguments in question focused on a massively inaccurate meme, which some observers of the group pointed out was originally supposed to be about knowledge loss after the burning of the Library of Alexandria, but which some very cool EDGE LORD had changed to be about ‘The Christian Dark Ages’. Please feast your eyes on it in all it’s massive wrongness:

This is, pretty obviously, a bunch of honkey bullshit and also massively incorrect, as many important scholars have noted. As a result, I spent hours of my life – which I will never get back -  pointing out repeatedly that the ‘graph’ in question has nothing to do with reality, and arguing with non-experts about the medieval period.

For the most part – these people were well-meaning. Many pointed out that this was a very Euro-centric world view, and that Asia, Africa, and the Arab world were all making huge advancements in scientific and medical theory at this time. That is absolutely true. White people have never been the entire world. The Chinese had a massively advanced scientific culture by this time, for example, and had been holding it down with hermetically sealed research laboratories since the third century BCE. The Arab world, meanwhile was compiling treatises on eye surgery. Scientific advancement was something that was happening in this period. Europe is not the centre of the world.

Having said that, while it is important to acknowledge that the-rest-of-the-world was making huge strides in scientific advancement during this time, and that Europe and white people are not the entire world, nor responsible for all of human advancement, there was no such thing as the Dark Ages in Europe either.

While everything about the idea of the Dark Ages is incorrect, lets start off with the way the term was meant to be used. The totally ignorant graph above, unsurprisingly, is completely fucking off. Hilariously, the idea of the ‘Dark Ages’ actually originated in the medieval period itself. Petrarch – the poet laureate of fourteenth-century Rome - was actually the originator of the idea that there was a period of stagnation that Europe was moving out of. Petrarch had a political axe to grind. He considered that any point at which Rome – where he lived and worked and had considerable sway – did not completely dominate the world was a BAD TIME. This is not an unbiased assessment of world history.

The actual phrase ‘Dark Ages’ itself derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, which Caesar Baronius – a cardinal and Church historian - came up with around 1602. He applied the term exclusively to the tenth and eleventh centuries.  However, and very significantly in his use of the term, Baronius was not decrying a state of scientific malaise, or a particularly turbulent political period – he’s talking about a lack of sources surviving from that time.  Indeed, Baronius sees the cut off point for the dark ages to be the Gregorian reforms of 1046, following which we see a massive increase in surviving documentation. Witness an actual useful chart:

When we move into a period where there are more texts to be considered, Baronius argues, Europe moved out of the period of darkness and into a ‘new age’.*

Now this is some real talk. As you can tell from that graph, during the Carolingian Renaissance of the ninth century, we see a flurry of Latin writers emerge, and a lot of text copying. This drops off again until what we term the Twelfth-Century Renaissance – home to this blog’s favourite philosopher/proto-Kanye –  Abelard. (Shout out to my boy.) However, when people use the term ‘Dark Ages’ now, they usually use it to talk about the entire millennium of the Medieval period, and they aren’t talking about source survival.  They aren’t thinking ‘dark’ as in ‘occluded’, they are thinking ‘dark’ as in pejorative.

We can thank the Enlightenment historiography for the expansion of the idea that the medieval period was a bad dark time. Kant and Voltaire in particular liked to see themselves as a part of an ‘Age of Reason’ as opposed to what they saw as the ‘Age of Faith’ of the medieval period. To their way of thinking, any time that the Church was in power was a time of regressive thinking. The Middle Ages, then, was a dark time because it was so dominated by religion. 

The first push back against the term dark ages began with the Romantics. After the, um, unpleasantness of the Reign of Terror, and the major cultural and environmental upheavals of the Industrial Revolution it became fashionable to look at the medieval period as a time of spiritual focus, and environmental purity. Obviously this is a super-biased way of looking at the period – just like it was biased for Enlightenment thinkers to take one look at the primacy of the Church and declare an entire millennium to be bad. I mean, really what the Romantics were doing was just casting shade on the Enlightenment historiography because they felt like it inevitably led to the guillotine. But what can you do?

By the twentieth century historians had moved on from the idea pretty much completely. If you take the time to actually, you know, study the medieval period, it becomes very apparent very quickly that there was a tremendous amount of intensive thought happening. This is the era of Thomas Aquinas – a bad ass philosopher who will think you under the fucking table. Of Hildegard of Bingen – who basically founded scientific natural history in the German speaking lands. Hell, like we talked about last week Rogerius and Giles of Corbeil were throwing it down for major medical advancement. There was a lot going on. On the real, without the contributions of medieval thinkers you would not get Galileo, Newton, or the Scientific Revolution. The medieval period was not a period of stagnation, it was a time of progress.

But it’s not just that the idea of a ‘Dark Ages’ makes no sense when you look at what incredible advancement was happening at the time, it also makes no sense because it implies that stuff was going really well under the Romans. We estimate that somewhere between thirty to forty percent of the population of Italian Rome were slaves. The Romans had total bans on human dissection, meaning that there was no real way for medicine to progress any further than it had by the time of collapse – a problem that medieval people didn’t have. I mean even if you just want to make it about religion - the Roman Empire was Christian at the time of its collapse and had its heads of state worshipped as LITERAL GODS during the pagan era. Somehow every edgy motherfucker with a fedora is totally cool with this and thinks it is super reasonable though. Because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The Romans were not a bunch of really awesome people living a life of idealised rationality any more than medieval people were all ignorant savages living in fear of God.

Is there a time that historians use the term ‘Dark Ages’? Yeah, we do use it to talk about source survival rates. It’s not a term we use as a value judgment, however. We just mean that we don’t have a lot of evidence to go off of. By the same token – if we somehow move on to another electronic format without converting the way things are stored now, we could be moving into a theoretical Digital Dark Age, where historians in the future won’t be able to study what we are writing now. (And that would be a tragedy, because legit, I would kill to be a historian working on Donald Trump’s tweets in the year 2717.)

We’re now moving away from using the term Dark Ages at all, however, because of the frequency with which it is misinterpreted. I mean, if every basic motherfucker out there who never bothered to read God’s Philosophers (hat tip to James Hamman – this book is amazing) will insist on willfully misinterpreting us, we just ain’t gonna give them the ammo.

What it comes down to is that the medieval period was as vibrant as any other period of history. If you’re going to player hate, go ahead, but please don’t act like you know anything about either medieval or ancient history when you do. There is no period of rational supermen followed by ignorant monsters. There are just people doing their best in the circumstances.

* Caesar Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici Vol. X. (Rome, 1602), p. 647. “Novum incohatur saeculum quod, sua asperitate ac boni sterilitate ferreum, malique exudantis deformitate plumbeum, atque inopia scriptorum, appellari consuevit obscurum.”

It’s a [Tinder] Date! (Part 2/3)

Summary: Thinking he needs to find a date, Natasha signs Steve up to Tinder. In Queens, Peter Parker does the same to you. It’s a match!

Word Count: 1,314

A/N: I really love how this is turning out :) Enjoy it, guys!

Part 1

Originally posted by imaginingbucky

Impossible. It was impossible. There was no way. This really wasn’t Captain America. The person behind the screen was not Steve Rogers. There wasn’t. And so, you voiced it.

“It’s not him.”

Peter scoffed, nudging your side. “You don’t know that.”

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Personally I love how Margot looks. Maybe because my breasts look exactly like that. And to that anon who said she's 18 not 50. Well I am 18 and you are part of the problem making me very self conscious about how my body looks. Kayla, thank you for making a sim that looks like me. It makes me happy to feel represented somewhere.

There are more than thirty messages just like this one in my inbox.

Margot might just be a bunch of pixels, but she represents a lot more than that to a lot of people. Real people have real bodies that are shaped like Margot’s. I’m not the perfect spokesperson for this and I don’t want people to think that’s what I’m trying to do here, but I will never stand for body shaming of any sort.

anonymous asked:

hi there! what's problematic about the phrase "women and femmes"? a lot of queer-identified folks i know use it a lot when referring to patriachial oppression, and at first it made sense to me but now i'm not so sure it does. thanks!!

femme is a specific identity that arose in a particular context within working-class communities in the 1930s & 40s centered around dating & having sex with other women & it’s silly to use it as a catch-all term for “feminine” (although I recognise that saying this is fighting a losing battle, lmao).

using “femme” to vaguely mean “feminine / feminine-presenting people” is 1. to misappropriate that terminology and 2. (and more importantly at this point imho) to imply that femininity or feminine presentation are hallmarks of “real” women, as positioned against gender nonconforming & butch women (who are decried for being “masculine” and therefore basically men). holding up “femininity” as a prerequisite for womanhood is, besides being flat-out misogynistic, always going to exclude and demonise lesbians (because even femmes aren’t acceptably feminine & are gender nonconforming in many aspects of their behaviour), & especially butches.