us rule

washingtonpost.com
FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use
The move would roll back the Obama-era rules on net neutrality, setting the stage for a vote next month that could reshape the entire digital ecosystem.
By https://www.facebook.com/brian.d.fung

Originally posted by starscream-and-hutch

This is another red alert for everyone who uses the internet. This ruling is a huge attack on the democratic foundation our internet was built upon. It will essentially allow the big boys AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast to speed up and slow down sites as they choose. So if you have Verizon, Tumblr might be super fast, but not if you have Comcast! And forget about loading Facebook unless you have a social network bonus plan for 3.99 a month! That is the future of the internet if this goes through. Do you have an online portfolio on a wordpress site? Good luck sharing that with anyone. 

Seriously, if anything, make it known you oppose this change. It really only serves internet providers, no one else.

I feel like one day, when the ARMY gets big enough, BTS will flip a switch and all their fans (whose minds have been manipulated through various brainwashing techniques in music, variety shows, and interviews) will snap into action. Who knows what we’ll end up doing? It will be like that one Spongebob episode.

Shungie’s 600 Follower Giveaway!

SO despite my overall inactivity, this blog just hit 600 followers a couple days ago. SOOOO to celebrate I decided to do another giveaway as a thank you for your patience and support! <3

Winners receive:

1st place - Colored full body:

2nd place - black & white waist up:

3rd place - Lined bust

AND A FOURTH PLACE WINNER - Chibi, full body & colored

Winners will be determined using random.org.

Rules:

1.) Must follow me by the end of the giveaway

2.) You can reblog more than once (not necessary but greatly appreciated :D)

3.) Winners have up to 24 hours to send me a note on Tumblr to claim their prize. If they don’t send me a note, I’ll choose someone else.

WILL NOT:

- Draw anything offensive/crude

- Very sexual things


GIVEAWAY ENDS ON DECEMBER 5th AT 11:59PM EST.

anonymous asked:

Tsuburaya finally beats Chaiyo! It's not considered finished yet but, TSUBURAYA FINALLY BEATS CHAIYO!!!

THANK YOU FOR THE INFO!  

Let me share a link to an article about this:


http://www.scifijapan.com/articles/2017/11/20/news-flash-jury-rules-in-favor-of-tsuburaya-pro-in-ultraman-rights-lawsuit/

and here is another:

http://tokusatsunetwork.com/2017/11/us-jury-rules-favor-tsuburaya-ultraman-rights-lawsuit-um-corporation/

This is really good news for Tsuburaya and might finally put to rest this 21 year old legal dispute over who actually has the international rights to their creation. This may also create even more problems for that fake Ultraman movie coming out of China and possibly open up the path to get even more of the Showa series we have yet to see in the West such as The Return of Ultraman, Ultraman Ace and Ultraman Taro released for us to see!

This totally made my morning!  

After speaking with the admin team from the group mentioned in Samhain’s previous question, we will be going ahead with a new rule regarding face to face interactions! In addition, we will be adding a new tag to be used for open face to face posts after the event (there’s no need to use this tag during the event, as there are group tags to use), so please be sure to track the tag ourtownftf.

YOU SHOULD USE THE NEW FTF RULE STARTING NOW HOWEVER!

Please see here for an explanation regarding the new open ftf rule. This will be linked on our checklist for future reference, and to keep all new members up to date.

We have also edited our tracked tags list, as we know some tags have gone unused. You can find this on the new members checklist, so please be sure you’re only following the roleplay tags stated there! At least 2-3 have been removed.

Talking with writers online

Their stories: Amazing grammar, soaring vocabulary, beautiful imagery and prose which flows like a river.

In chats: no capitalisation or punctuation, swears like a sailor, misspellings everywhere, acronyms and abbreviations every five words, idek

Space Ranger Partners.

The rules about responding to call outs aren’t working

Privileged people rarely take the voices of marginalized people seriously. Social justices spaces attempt to fix this with rules about how to respond to when marginalized people tell you that you’ve done something wrong. Like most formal descriptions of social skills, the rules don’t quite match reality. This is causing some problems that I think we could fix with a more honest conversation about how to respond to criticism.

The formal social justice rules say something like this:

  • You should listen to marginalized people.
  • When a marginalized person calls you out, don’t argue.
  • Believe them, apologize, and don’t do it again.
  • When you see others doing what you were called out for doing, call them out.

Those rules are a good approximation of some things, but they don’t actually work. It is impossible to follow them literally, in part because:

  • Marginalized people are not a monolith. 
  • Marginalized people have the same range of opinions as privileged people.
  • When two marginalized people tell you logically incompatible things, it is impossible to act on both sets of instructions.
  • For instance, some women believe that abortion is a human right foundational human right for women. Some women believe that abortion is murder and an attack on women and girls.
  • “Listen to women” doesn’t tell you who to believe, what policy to support, or how to talk about abortion. 
  • For instance, some women believe that religious rules about clothing liberate women from sexual objectification, other women believe that religious rules about clothing sexually objectify women. 
  • “Listen to women” doesn’t tell you what to believe about modesty rules. 
  • Narrowing it to “listen to women of minority faiths” doesn’t help, because women disagree about this within every faith.
  • When “listen to marginalized people” means “adopt a particular position”, marginalized people are treated as rhetorical props rather than real people.
  • Objectifying marginalized people does not create justice.

Since the rule is literally impossible to follow, no one is actually succeeding at following it. What usually ends up happening when people try is that:

  • One opinion gets lifted up as “the position of marginalized people” 
  • Agreeing with that opinion is called “listen to marginalized people”
  • Disagreeing with that opinion is called “talking over marginalized people”
  • Marginalized people who disagree with that opinion are called out by privileged people for “talking over marginalized people”.
  • This results in a lot of fights over who is the true voice of the marginalized people.
  • We need an approach that is more conducive to real listening and learning.

This version of the rule also leaves us open to sabotage:

  • There are a lot of people who don’t want us to be able to talk to each other and build effective coalitions.
  • Some of them are using the language of call-outs to undermine everyone who emerges as an effective progressive leader. 
  • They say that they are marginalized people, and make up lies about leaders.
  • Or they say things that are technically true, but taken out of context in deliberately misleading ways.
  • The rules about shutting up and listening to marginalized people make it very difficult to contradict these lies and distortions. 
  • (Sometimes they really are members of the marginalized groups they claim to speak for. Sometimes they’re outright lying about who they are).
  • (For instance, Russian intelligence agents have used social media to pretend to be marginalized Americans and spread lies about Hillary Clinton.)

The formal rule is also easily exploited by abusive people, along these lines:

  • An abusive person convinces their victim that they are the voice of marginalized people.
  • The abuser uses the rules about “when people tell you that you’re being oppressive, don’t argue” to control the victim.
  • Whenever the victim tries to stand up for themself, the abuser tells the victim that they’re being oppressive.
  • That can be a powerfully effective way to make victims in our communities feel that they have no right to resist abuse. 
  • This can also prevent victims from getting support in basic ways.
  • Abusers can send victims into depression spirals by convincing them that everything that brings them pleasure is oppressive and immoral. 
  • The abuser may also isolate the victim by telling them that it would be oppressive for them to spend time with their friends and family, try to access victim services, or call the police. 
  • The abuser may also separate the victim from their community and natural allies by spreading baseless rumors about their supposed oppressive behavior. (Or threatening to do so).
  • When there are rules against questioning call outs, there are also implicit rules against taking the side of a victim when the abuser uses the language of calling out.
  • Rules that say some people should unconditionally defer to others are always dangerous.

The rule also lacks intersectionality:

  • No one experiences every form of oppression or every form of privilege.
  • Call-outs often involve people who are marginalized in different ways. 
  • Often, both sides in the conflict have a point.
  • For instance, black men have male privilege and white women have white privilege.
  • If a white woman calls a black man out for sexism and he responds by calling her out for racism (or vice versa), “listened to marginalized people” isn’t a very helpful rule because they’re both marginalized.
  • These conversations tend to degenerate into an argument about which form of marginalization is most significant.
  • This prevents people involved from actually listening to each other.
  • In conflicts like this, it’s often the case that both sides have a legitimate point. (In ways that are often not immediately obvious.)
  • We need to be able to work through these conflicts without expecting simplistic rules to resolve them in advance.

This rule also tends to prevent groups centered around one form of marginalized from coming to engage with other forms of marginalization:

  • For instance, in some spaces, racism and sexism are known to be issues, but ableism is not.
  • (This can occur in any combination. Eg: There are also spaces that get ableism and sexism but not racism, and spaces that get economic justice and racism but not antisemitism, or any number of other things.)
  • When disabled people raise the issue of ableism in any context (social justice or otherwise), they’re likely to be shouted down and told that it’s not important.
  • In social justice spaces, this shouting down is often done in the name of “listening to marginalized people”.
  • For instance, disabled people may be told ‘you need to listen to marginalized people and de-center your issues’, carrying the implication that ableism is less important than other forms of oppression.
  • (This happens to *every* marginalized group in some context or other.)
  • If we want real intersectional solidarity, we need to have space for ongoing conflicts that are not simple to resolve.

Tl;dr “Shut up and listen to marginalized people” isn’t quite the right rule, because it objectifies marginalized people, leaves us open to sabotage, enables abuse, and prevents us from working through conflicts in a substantive way. We need to do better by each other, and start listening for real.

2

everyone I talked to said let Ford say fuck

I’m back - if you said you wanted to collab, I’ve got funny or angsty Stans and Fords, and mullet Stans, lemme know what you want to line/color

Let’s be honest if the events of the Marvel Cinematic Universe actually happened, and Loki did try to take over earth, we probably would have just let him.

Loki: You are meant to be ruled.

Us: Yeah you’re probably right, the United States just elected Donald Trump as President. Clearly we can’t be left unsupervised.

Loki: Wait, what?

Friendly reminder that Percy Jackson tries his best to follow the rules, while Annabeth Chase just breaks them