the big than theory

Reasons why Parks and Rec deserved an Emmy

- Set in small-town Indiana, still manages to have 40% of it’s ensemble cast be POC, and not one of them is a token either

- 40% of the cast are women. ¾ are POC. All of them are badasses. 

- Every single fucking episode is funny. Seriously. 

- Perd fucking Hapley. I can’t even explain, you just have to watch 

- Pawnee citizens holy hell 

- The flawless political commentary behind the Langman’s and the Male Men 

- The scene in Comeback Kid where Get On Your Feet is playing and they’re all struggling to walk on ice 

- Chris Traeger and his mental illness. They worked it in so that it was comedic, but if it glorified anything, it was asking for help and accepting it. 

- Okay just Chris in general 

- Gary Jerry Larry Terry Gary Gergich Gengurch Gergich 

- Donna, the character who is exactly who she needs to be throughout her life. She acknowledges the need to change her behavior occasionally, but it doesn’t dent her confidence one bit. 

- Ann Meredith Perkins, you beautiful sun-ray nurse. The best friend everyone needs. Quirky and grounded and intelligent. 

- THE FUCKING SAPERSTEINS 

- ESPECIALLY JEAN-RALPHIO 

- Everything Tom Haverford has ever said 

- Ben fucking Wyatt. I can’t even elaborate without crying and combusting. Much better nerd than any weasel from The Big Bang Theory. Feminist. Best Husband Ever. 

- ANYTIME BEN OR LESLIE ARE DRUNK HOLY SHIT 

- Cones of Dunshire and Requiem for a Tuesday 

- FUCKING ICE TOWN 

- April Blart, Mall Cop 

- April’s character development *heart eyes* 

- Andy and April’s love 

- Mouse Rat and hits like The Pit, Catch Your Dream, and - 5000 CANDLES IN THE WIND 

- LIL SEBASTIAN 

- Bert Macklin, FBI 

- Johnny and Johnathan Karate 

- Andy Dwyer, secret genius 

- Ron Swanson, the manliest man to ever man, owner of the world’s best character development, hater of Canada and vegans, beautiful beautiful man 

- Duke fucking Silver 

- I dig your groovy tunes man

- Ben and Leslie’s healthy, realistic, and beautiful relationship 

- Benslie proposal 

- Benslie wedding 

- Ben’s triplets freakout 

- the BOX 

- Amy Poehler plays the most amazing woman to ever grace any screen. Leslie Knope, a socially inept but selfless woman who dedicates her life to public service, her family, and her friends. Deeply flawed main character that wasn’t made lovable by her unfortunate but relatable love of sugar and hatred of vegetables, but instead by her love for others and thoughtfulness and work ethic and optimism. Food habits aside, her character flaws were acknowledged by the writers, her loved ones, and her. No one is an enabler for Leslie Knope’s bad behavior. When she does something shitty, she gets called on it and apologizes. But at the end of the day, hard work and positivity make a difference, and she achieves her dreams. 

- Positivity. The people on this show like each other. They believe in and support each other. They apologize when they’re wrong. They forgive when they’ve been wronged. They go out of their way to make lives better. And it is still funny.

Bucky: So, um, what are you gonna do? Do you want me to talk to Steve, let him down easy?
Tony: No. I’ll let him have tonight. Then in the morning, I’ll send him an e-mail letting him know this body is never gonna be his wonderland. I mean, frankly, you’ve got a better shot than he does.

  • Kuroko, in a boxing position: Prepare yourself for what may come.
  • Kagami: Kuroko, do you really think we’re gonna fight?
  • Kuroko: My fists aren't up here because I’m milking a giant invisible cow.

anonymous asked:

Maybe ham was a scientist at some company and then got fired for his weird experiments on animals and plants? And the other characters are his scientist freinds

:) no animal experimentation even in aus
:))))) Ham would get fired for trying to claim aliens are real and thats it. 
:)))))))))))) 

Atomic Prejudice

Not about nuclear power! This post is about ‘staying in your lane’, various forms of prejudice such as racism, ableism, homophobia, etc. Content warning for discussion of torture as 'therapy’, medical scary stuff, mention of rape and other non-con .

I have a lot to say about 'staying in your lane’, but first I want to talk a bit about the Judge Rotenberg Center.

The Judge Rotenberg Center is an infamous residential facility for developmentally disabled individuals. The primary source of its infamy is its use of skin shock 'adversives’ (not to be confused with Electroconvulsive Therapy, where electrical shocks are used to deliberately induce a seizure for therapeutic reasons. Which does apparently somehow manage to work not-uncommonly. It is of course still labeled a Class III 'High Risk’ treatment by the FDA as it IS delivering shocks with the deliberate intent to induce seizures. But things that would be very bad in an uncontrolled environment can still be helpful medically-heart surgery is good even though one would not usually want someone cutting open one’s chest). Autism Speaks got a lot of hate for endorsing the JRC, though to their credit they have since renounced and publicly condemned it (Autism Speaks remains bad. The JRC is simply bad enough that even Autism Speaks condemns it).

I have autism. Because of this, I know what it is like to face some of the various things that autistic people face. To use a common way of phrasing, my condemning the JRC has me 'in my lane’. I have never been tortured the way JRC tortures its residents. I have however had people attempt to alter my behavior in unpleasant ways due to my autism, so this does give me some knowledge though. But here is the thing-a lot of LGBT individuals are currently worrying a lot about electroshock 'therapy’. If they have enough experience from their life to be able to understand the badness of that, then it does not seem difficult for me to say “Imagine that, but rather than trying to eradicate your homosexuality/bisexuality/transgenderness/etc they are trying to eradicate an even bigger and harder to hide part of yourself.”. This explanation doesn’t completely communicate my understanding-'harder to hide’ isn’t very clear, I’m not sure exactly how to communicate the sensation of trying to suppress something like flapping in excitement, though I could try and possibly communicate more (“Imagine a world where people consider smiling disgusting” might be worth trying)

Rather more interestingly though, I’m still only extrapolating how bad such a thing would be-as stated I’ve never experienced it. Some nonautistic, in fact not mentally disabled at all people have however. It is entirely possible that some of them are better at extrapolating the details of how the torture interacts with autism than I am at extrapolating the torture, in which case they would in fact understand this component of autism oppression better than I do.

Most people reading this however, have hopefully not been tortured with electroshock therapy. But we can still extrapolate-if you have ever had someone hurt you, or even just suffered pain at all, that gives you at least a start. The more distant your experience is the harder it will be, requiring more explanation and/or effort. Possibly too hard to overcome-I admit if you have no experience with pain at all I am at a loss for how to start other than saying “Mary’s Room” and perhaps talking about utility functions. This is a difference of quality, not a difference of kind however.

So I say to you feel free to speak out against torturing mentally disabled people with electric shocks! And that you almost certainly didn’t need an autistic person to confirm that such a thing is bad-I’m pretty confident you could have figured that out on your own.

Now, back to the original topic (not that we ever truly left it)! Perhaps some of you are wondering about the title-'Atomic Prejudice’? Well, our word atomic comes from the Latin word 'atomus’, meaning 'indivisable’ (Spoiler alert: This was kinda awkward when it turned out we could totally divide them, and they in fact divide often in nature). Prejudice is not atomic-it has parts (just like atoms!). The prejudice I face as an autistic person divides into a variety of different parts-mockery for the way I speak and displeasure at my expressions of joy for two examples. Other people face similar things for different reasons-the details and reasons might change-perhaps they have a stutter, or face mockery for their accent. Some details might matter more, others less, and some barely at all. Regardless, prejudice is not atomic-it has parts and those parts can resemble parts of other prejudices.

There is, however, an attitude I’ve seen which stands in opposition to this view-an insistence that prejudice cannot be dissected or examined. One such example is here. A few choice quotes:

Two unalike things that have different discourses that can’t be compared because they are just… Different

In a world where [the bigotry and angry signs were identical] they still can’t be compared

You can’t compare them

And the most problematic quote:

if you aren’t POC you haven’t experienced racism therefore you cannot accurately describe what is racist and why it’s bad other than the fact it’s… Bad

Really? That sounds like EXCELLENT news. After all, I’m autistic-I’ve had speeches from my mother about how to stay safe and not offend cops. Since I can therefore describe that, I guess black people must not have to worry about anything remotely similar to that! Call the presses! Black Lives Matter can go home! Non-POC have experienced poverty and can accurately describe that-I guess racist economic oppression must be gone! Hurrah!

Or, ya know, no.

Sure, my experience with speeches from my mother about how to be safe around cops probably aren’t identical to any speech a black person has received. I doubt most of their speeches are identical either though, unless their mom’s are passing a script around. What level of 'accurately describe’ is being talked about here? The point where one can quote it word for word? I have a terrible memory-I couldn’t quote any of the speeches my mom gave me word for word. Or perhaps it is a matter of degree, in which case I suggest one first imagines what sort of ratio between autistic risk and black risk would justify one’s view, and then go look up the statistics-what if the autistic risk increase is 10% of the black risk increase? 50%? 80%? What if they are equal? What if the autistic risk is higher? And ask yourself-where did such a number possibly come from?

While I was doing research for this post, I came across a post that I don’t think I’ll link (due to the nature of the content), but shall attempt to describe, where someone talked about the statement “don’t compare anything to rape”, and how they felt very awkward about it because their PTSD was caused by a medical incident where they felt their consent was messed up in some weird ways, their body was violated, and afterward they felt ruined sexually. They referred to it as “their rape” because it was the only word they could come up with to explain the sensation, and when they got into feminism the sensation was that it was trying to steal the only name they had for the way they were violated. Now, I get nitpicky 'you should use language in a formal and precise manner!’ feels. And full disclosure, that did pop up as I read the post. I promptly squashed it. I *really* care about people communicating precisely. And if I thought I was up to navigating such an emotional minefield I might try to help someone work out a more exact description (I do not think I could achieve such a thing). But they were trying to understand and communicate and work through something terrible. That is VERY important, but trying to make things ‘atomically’ bad blocks that. 

So the ‘atomic’ view of prejudice often just seems nonsensical, if taken literally dismisses real problems people face, hampers recovery from trauma, interferes with communication and the ability to bond with others. Anything else?

Well, the way I’ve generally seen it used also often seems rather dishonest and aggressive. If people can’t examine prejudice at all, then they are forced to simply take your word, and as a result your orders. You can use it like a weapon people to bludgeon them into obeying, or harm those you hate. I think a lot of people are ‘hardening’ the concept to try to seal themselves off from a world that is hurting them, but others are ‘hardening’ the concept into a metaphorical club they can use to intimidate and whack people. 

And that is no good. Besides the immediate harms they can achieve using the weaponized concept, bit by bit they make it harder for people to reason and comprehend and communicate and ally. A weapon whose very construction alone scars the cognitive and social landscape, even without its use.

The some other effects of suppression of comprehension vary, especially when there is disagreement-since if you can’t understand something except through someone else, what do you do when they disagree? This can be disorienting, though occasionally amusing. It can also worsen in-group conflicts, since if the only way anyone outside can know is through your group, and your group must have all the knowledge, even an innocent disagreement must publicly turn into an attempt to claim the other person is faking their membership. 

Now, of course checking your views with other people is important-I have one or more people look at almost every big post I write (I am far better at theory than practice, and so I especially worry that I may be completely missing something. Remarkably often the response has been along the lines of 'Oh, huh, that is a good theoretical description of what happened during [X]. Good job’ ‘During what? Never heard of it. Wasn’t even sure if something like this ever happened. Well, good to know’). The wonderful @alarajrogers and her ability to give long and informative rants on LGBT history, feminism history, fandom history, and probably some other kinds of history I haven’t asked about yet has been a great source of information (Plus she writes good fanfic). Even for autistic issues I prefer to check-checking is just generally a good idea.

However, as long as you are willing to have honest and productive discussion, I welcome you into my ‘lane’. I doubt you will be able to prove yourself a master of choosing fidgets if you aren’t autistic/adhd/whatever other brain things cause that, but even the ‘native’ occupants don’t know everything, and they can still try to help.

As for examples on the opposite end of the spectrum, I offer this by the wise, insightful, and kind @theunitofcaring who manages to describe view of prejudice where the ‘outer casing’ is transparent and every mechanism laid bare, this by the amusing, kind, and well dressed @funereal-disease who brings up additional psychological issues that I confess I cannot personally relate to or very well validate, as my psychology is decidedly based around theory and principle. They are both awesome people.

I know I say that shows like The Big Bang Theory and Supernatural have long outstayed their welcome with over 10 seasons each, but Critical Role has 317 hours of playtime which is like 19 seasons. Unlike the other shows it doesn’t feel like a cash cow that’s been milked to death or like I’m watching a farmer beat a horse to death with the body of another dead horse as a bludgeoning weapon.

What I’m saying is that CR has better quality and quantity than both.

The More Things Change

Haha, y’all remember when I said I had ANOTHER CC idea on top of that big one I was working on? This was that second idea. Also it’s a sequel/second chapter to Same Old, Same Old, so I suggest reading that first if you haven’t.

[Read on Ao3]

“I do not want to do this.”

Keep reading

i just watched the commercial for young sheldon because i hate myself and they use the zoom function of cameras rather liberally