what i'm not shallow what are you talking about

raiona  asked:

Hey there! I have an indoor cat and we're setting up a bit of a catio for him out on the deck. I've gotten a large shallow planter that I'd like to fill with something for him to dig in, but I'm not sure what sort of material would be best. I thought sand originally, but the one thing I can find talking about digging for cats referred to fresh soil. Unfortunately searching is mostly turning up people looking for help with cats digging up their flowers. Any idea what would be best?

Maybe just test a bunch of things and see? If you’ve got the space, you could put different substrates in shallow trays (like metal baking trays) and see which ones he likes to walk on or dig in or lay on. That could inform you what he’s most likely to use in the actual planter. Or, you could do a mix - dirt under, sand on top?

3

Time slows down before an accident, you know. My last ten years were pretty slow.

voguefairytales  asked:

Imagine Peter frickin Parker telling Tony he's got homework & Tony looks @ him for a minute and just says "what's her name?" And Peter's like "Wha- What?? Psh. No. Omg..... Alright her names (Y/N) & I promised her I'd help her study for physics." "Is she hot?" "I'm not that shallow. She's smart and funny and kind and... Yeah okay fine she's hot." And Tony just pats his shoulder. "I get it, pal"

YESS!!! And Peter’s face is most definitely bright red and Tony just has this smirk and literally every time Tony sees Peter after that he’ll just causally ask how (Y/N) is doing and Peter will just start subconsciously talking all about you until he catches him self and quickly says “but we’re just friends,” and of course Tony doesn’t buy it because he knows, he always knows XD 

erinc1978  asked:

FWIW, I wasn't trying to excoriate you. I think I read the post you were referring to very differently than you did, and also I think that now I'm losing track of what's being talked about in all the back and forth. As best as I can tell, I thought that post was saying that feminist critique can be shallow and tumblr-y and assholish but doesn't have to be, and some of it is basically just trying to examine what's in a work and look at cultural assumptions etc. (cont'd)

(cont’d) And I thought it seemed like you might be saying that feminist criticism was worthless because it didn’t have specific social changes like enacting a law as a goal (it seemed to dovetail with other stuff you’ve said about criticism in general, feminist or not, being worthless), but wasn’t sure? (cont’d)

(cont’d) And I think you read the post as defending stuff that gets into nasty personal attacks in a gaslighty way as “it’s not personal, it’s just literary critique”?

Anyway, sorry for any distress I caused, I honestly didn’t mean to. At this point I don’t feel I have enough context to know whether your interpretation of the post or mine is closer to what the person means to defend. FWIW, I actually do think “I worry for anyone who liked 50 Shades” is pretty useless as criticism, but also think “Some of the implications in 50 Shades strike me as troubling and here’s why” may have something insightful to say.

I’m honestly getting tired of saying this over and over and over again, and getting the impression that most people are just not getting it no matter how I try to explain it, but I’m gonna try one last time (and then stop because this is fucking exhausting and I have actual shit to do, like write, that saying the same shit over and over is eating into my time to do):

Very frequently, people talk about “feminist critique” (and other feminist projects) and really minimize everything they are actually saying. They say things like “people think there oughta be a law,” eyerolling and totally dismissing any concerns that their critics have. They describe in great detail how their detractors are being silly and blowing things out of proportion.

To this end, they present a version of what they are doing that sounds totally innocuous: “Hey! You can enjoy something and also take issue with some of it! That’s all we ever said!

Meanwhile, minority writers are terrified to write because they might get something wrong – sometimes including writing about their own group in ways that “feminist critiquers” have labeled “a bad trope.”

Meanwhile, fans are harassed and even get death threats, because the things they enjoy “promote or condone” serious sounding stuff like “pedophilia” or “misogyny.”

Meanwhile, people say things like “don’t donate to ao3, and through that means pressure them to change their policy” (and then turn around and say they are “not for censorship,” even though the exact thing they are trying to make happen involves making certain unacceptable works disappear.)

Whatever the screenshotter means personally, she(?) is minimizing the way the rhetorical device she defends is actually used, and the upshot of defending it. 

Because of this, I tried in my original post, in a very intellectual, wonky, and not-emotionally-driven sort of way/voice, to point out that that rhetorical device doesn’t actually accomplish much (and is therefore a bad thing to choose to do, if your goal is something “feminist,” where “feminism” implies some sort of goal related to changing the world in some way.) I chose those words to avoid sounding yelly and condemning… and apparently it made what I meant to say incomprehensible.

Oops.

Think about it this way: There are plenty of pro-LGBT Christians and churches in the world. These people are not homophobic. Some of these people are even LGBT! 

But someone who points out a homophobic legacy, and says “I wish I could share your optimism, but I can’t” is not being paranoid or evil. They are expressing a concern that a particular pattern hasn’t yet been stamped out, and may be impossible to stamp out.

Let me tell you a bit of a story. When I was in grad school, several of the professors I admired were “feminist philosophers.” This was interesting and a little scary to me, because as a kinky person, when I googled feminism and BDSM I found a lot of creepy shit that said things like we shouldn’t even be welcome in NOW meetings, we were fans of and therefore somehow endorsed Nazis, etc. I wanted to find something positive in the social change, but I didn’t know how I could if a large part of the point was that I was some kind of kryptonite to other women.

So I decided to take one of these professors’ classes. And what I found was really interesting and weird… everyone in the room seemed to already be a feminist, and assent right away to things I was questioning and wanted to understand why people believed.

But, more than that:

Everyone else in the room, on that first day, talked about how “feminism has a PR problem.” They lamented that young women seemed to find the idea distasteful or toxic, and repeated over and over things like the famed slogan “feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” How could aaaaaaaaaaaanyone take issue with that? Especially young women, who reaped the rewards of The Movement?

And I just sat there squirming in my seat, unsure if it was wise or even safe to take on a whole room of say, nine other people, all of whom just couldn’t imagine that their beloved way of thinking could actually have hurt anyone. Because it’s totally innocuous! It just says “women are people!” Nothing else!

If the problem is really that and nothing else, then the analysis that says “we have a PR problem” makes sense. We’re doing nothing wrong, but somehow people think we are!

But the other way to get “a PR problem” is to do things that people find distasteful or threatening, and to not acknowledge or fix them, and have weird faith that if you just find the right communications directors, everyone will be cool with you. And then be baffled when it doesn’t work.

And that’s how I felt in that room (and what I wanted to say.)

And… that is the way I feel, and more than that, that is the thing I see, when people say “but feminist critique is just about getting you to look at things you love a teensy weensy bit differently! Nothing we are doing is threatening at all!”

I am deeply, deeply leery of rhetoric like this. I am skeptical that it comes from nice people, but even when it does come from nice people, I worry that those nice people are compartmentalizing on purpose, so they don’t have to look people in the eye who are saying “that project has some dangers. Please acknowledge this.”