Is anyone else like… bored with R5 at the moment? Or is that just me?

♪~ ᕕ(ᐛ)ᕗ how bout we start using ‘not influenced by hamiton the musical’ more than ‘historically accurate’ ♪~ ᕕ(ᐛ)ᕗ

anonymous asked:

Ok don't shoot me yet but, personally I always thought going by what is canon is the safest choice. So personally, I think Emma is straight solely because she's never had a female romantic partner or showed she's attracted to any girl. And this is canon so I go with that. I agree she could be bi. I liked your explanation last night on how that works. But that'll be a headcanon of yours and that's great. We all relate to this characters through our personal experiences and that's awesome.

And that is legit and I respect that.

I know there are tons of headcanons about this and that thing, which is great. People relate to art and to stories in a different way, and this is awesome. As a writer myself, I do encourage that. Especially when it comes to sexual and gender orientation, I know people who see this character as X when I see the same character as Y and I’m like, okay I don’t see it that way and I’m going to keep my headcanons alive in my head, but you do you.

The problem is when those headcanons about fictional character become harmful to real-life people or are drawn from homophobic/racist/etc point of view. Drawing an example from another fandom, but I know that Monty Green from T;he 1;00 was/is (?) headcanoned a lot as asexual, by me included back when I was part of that fandom. Which can be a problem with the whole disexualisation of Asian people, and especially Asian men, in the media. And so, which can make people upset if you use those bad stereotypes the wrong way.

I don’t think anyone portraying Emma as bisexual (anyone I know at least) will try to convince you she is in canon. But we will also challenge the fact that people view characters as straight until stated otherwise, because it is heterocentric and it contributes to the idea that heterosexuality is the norm and everyone is straight by default. Which is harmful to us as LGBT+ people, and especially to us as bisexual people when we are “too straight” or “not gay enough” or any other kind of lovely things people throw at us.

Like I say every time, we’re more than aware that those characters are straight by canon. We don’t need people to come and rain on our parade when we’re already grasping at straws to find our representation in the media. We don’t need people to attack us and put us back in our place just to tell us that it’s not canon and never will be. We’re more than aware of that tbh

Edit: also, example of Annalise Keating. She was only shown to be bisexual (yay) in season 1, and up until then everyone assumed she was straight. Or Callie Torres who had a whole arc about discovering her bisexuality (yay!). Just because they’re not stated as other-than-straight now, doesn’t mean they’ll never be. Anything can happen ;)

reyindee  asked:

I won't judge you just because you're a Muslim. You're my brother. Even if we're not related at all. I see you as my brother and I don't care about your religion, I'll keep loving you anyway *hugs* thanks for making me happy everyday Onii-chan!

*hugs* thanks buddy… That actually made me feel less uptight ;-;

To have to say this is tiring: moderate the content you make for pharmercy.  Think of the people processing this content.  We all find ships to love, relate to, project onto, create valuable experiences and peers you wouldn’t have met if not for the ship, but at the end of the day/night, it’s public and people are going to view it.  As a fellow pharmercy shipper, some things out there make me really uneasy and turns something that should be enjoyable for others leaves me upset at portrayals that other and fetishize Fareeha Amari, or even make Ana Amari against the ship itself.  Please do your research at the very least, because at the bottom line, you lessen the chance of normalizing content that diminishes what security, happiness, comfort to share, to what unloaded discussions are found in pharmercy.

Tl;dr: variations on a theme of “please do your research”, arranged for kazoo

Before this, historians could only link 22 of the presidents to King John. Professional genealogists had only traced the male family lines, but BridgeAnne was able to link all but one of the presidents together using both male and female ancestry.

She’s not in 7th grade anymore, but now she has her own website.


People actually expect me to believe that if you throw a group of only one sex inside a fucking maze with no memories, no social, cultural or religious discourses forced upon them, no outside influences of any kind for years and years with only each other to grow close too, trust, survive with, protect, build with, bond with etc. 


Common Descent

There’s a famous old anecdote about Charlemagne that’s been used for ages to explain how interconnected we are among our biological pasts. It has been said that everyone of European ancestry is related to Charlemagne, the great King of the Franks, born in 742 AD. If you’re European, you’re royalty. How is that possible?

I’ll tell you another tidbit first: Not only do all Europeans share Charlemagne as an ancestor, they share everyone alive at the same time as Charlemagne as an ancestor. Everyone who had kids, anyway. Let me explain:

Everyone alive has two biological parents. They each have two parents themselves, for a total of four grandparents. For number of generations that you travel back in time, you have 2^x direct grandparents of increasing separation. Extrapolate that back to Charlie’s time, and you’d need 1 trillion grandparents to cover all your ancestral bases. Michael from Vsauce did a video about it. Since that’s far more people than have ever been alive, we need to engage some incest to solve the problem. Not banjo-applesauce incest, just a bit of redrawing our family trees into family webs.

Somewhere, far enough back in the web of grandparents, we will find a person whose lines connect to every single person who comes after them. That zig-zagged trail of shared genetic history ends surprisingly recently (for Euros, again): A common European ancestor around 1400 AD. Go a bit farther, and we find a common Earthling ancestor around 3,000 BC. It’s neat stuff. But it’s all based in mathematical models, not real genetic data.

Until now. USC and UC Davis researchers Peter Ralph and Graham Coop have surveyed the genomes of 2,257 Europeans in order to put some real data behind those models. Because of the random shuffling of chromosome fragments that created your father’s sperm and your mother’s egg, you, your siblings and your cousins all share varying chunks of DNA. People who are more closely related share more of these chunks. Depending on how many chunks are shared between two people, we can calculate their approximate relation to each other. Using 2 million shared sequences and a lot of math, they proved the mathematical models correct. Turkish people are more related to other Turks than to someone from Portugal, but they are related enough that, not only do they share one common ancestor a few hundred years ago, but they share every ancestor if you go back a mere thousand years. The models guessed that a long time ago, but now we have the data to prove it.It’s likely that these patterns extend to other regions of Earth, although the numbers might be slightly (but not that) different.

Next time someone in your neck of the ethnic woods points out a famous relative or claims blue-blood descent, remind them that they aren’t so special. All street-sweepers are royalty, all nobles are peasants, and we are all Kings and Queens.

Read more at NatGeo. Have more questions? Also check out the great FAQ on the project from the researchers themselves.