Reblogged dreadblades
Reblogged mackdaddyofthecravate
Not "It's a product of it's time" as a way to excuse its problematic undertones but rather "it's a product of it's time" to say that the issues it tackles were relevant then and its stances that now seem milquetoast were radical then, and that heavy handed, cheesy driving home of those viewpoints was sometimes necessary, and our acceptance and normalization of those viewpoints is in large part because of media like it normalizing those viewpoints and imagery, and watching it in the modern day turns into a loving study of history of the masses and public opinion
Yes this is about the original star trek
Yup. Historical context is vital to understanding progressive messages in old media. (And also accepting different styles of storytelling.) A lot of stuff ages poorly or won't hit as hard when decades (or even centuries) removed from its year-of-origin, but that doesn't mean there isn't a message there and that that message didn't build into what we are today.
Hell, a lot of Star Trek's messages are still relevant to this day (or can be easily used as a parallel/allegory for current issues). There's an entire genre of TOS episodes warning against the dangers of AI and computerized warfare. General Order 24 evoked fears of mutually-assured destruction via nuclear bombs. (Still haven't achieved de-nuclearization in 60 years.) "Dagger of the Mind" still works as a critique of how we treat mental health patients.
Hell, Kirk himself was seen as radical for his time for being such an openly-emotional and soft-hearted individual despite his rank and responsibility. There's an interview out there where the interviewer hopes that Kirk's characterization might encourage some men to be gentler and more empathetic.
Reblogged honeybeaus
Sunmi [Blue] Concept Photo #1
Reblogged veliseraptor
I'm sorry, I cannot find who in the LBFAD discord inspired this, but I finally made it, as promised.
Reblogged sinmenon
The beautiful Lucía Dressed in white satin with ribbon and lace.. 🎶
Reblogged xelbleedsglitter
My earring stack for the Star Trek Las Vegas convention. I don't normally wear silver jewelry, but these were all gifted to me by people who didn't know about my obsession with rose gold and copper. I love the way they match each other, though.
Reblogged ellie-tarts
Currently on Lace Market for a frankly ridiculous $750
Reblogged sinmenon
she's my sister she's my friend she's my saint
Reblogged froschli96
Wikipedia is lost to our friends across the waters.
This means that Wikipedia has been banned in the UK, because Wikipedia refuses to require age verification from users in order to access the site. Other countries, including the US, are trying to put similar regulations in place. Basically, requiring people to identify themselves to access any content on the internet that their government considers “inappropriate for children”. This was supposed to be for pornography, but now, it’s so much more…
Governments are essentially moving to make it so that they can track our internet activity. There will be no such thing as privacy and anonymity on the Internet anymore. The world governments will be watching you, not just your own, all of them, and any site that won’t comply with the governments putting these laws into effect, will be banned in those countries.
This is a matter of privacy, of data security (how many places online do you want to be keeping your ID on file? The more that do, the more likely your data is exposed in a data breach), of censorship and of the freedom of information. The UK just banned an online ENCYCLOPEDIA. Not North Korea! Not China! The United Kingdom!!! Because they said it contained information inappropriate for minors, and it had to collect its users personal private data in order to let them see it, and they said no!
S.1748 - Kids Online Safety Act has been introduced in the United States Congress, and Australia and the EU are also looking at similar regulations.
This is just the beginning. This fight is going to be world wide. This isn’t “protecting the children”. This is censorship, and conditioning us to surrender our right to privacy!
NOPE
Did we read the article, besties? Or did we see a screen cap of a tweet with a screen cap of a headline and invent a story?
Because this did not ban Wikipedia.
It wasn’t even a ruling against Wikipedia. It was a challenge in advance of a ruling from Ofcom who said they could apply Category 1 duties on Wikipedia when they do the categorization starting this summer.
So the wikimedia foundation filed before that could be decided to say hey, wtf, we’re an encyclopedia dudes. And it looks like the judge said, no, I get it, but you can’t file this until they actual assign a category. The judge dismissed the case. It wasn’t a ruling against it. And yeah, that difference matters because laws can come down to where you put a damn comma.
I’m not as used to getting UK court records, so this is harder than usual for me. If someone over there knows where I should be looking, lmk, but the WMF has stuff posted
And cause I know the rate of click through and fact check is crap on this hellsite:
The judge recognized the “significant value” of Wikipedia, its safety for users, as well as the damages that wrongly-assigned OSA categorisations and duties could have on the human rights of Wikipedia’s volunteer contributors. The Court stressed that this ruling “does not give Ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia’s operations”, and indicated they could face legal repercussions if they fail to protect Wikipedia and the rights of its users. In order to achieve that outcome, he suggested that Ofcom may need to find a particularly flexible interpretation of the rules in question, or that the rules themselves may need amendment in Parliament.
The actual problems are bad enough, don’t jump to the worst interpretation and make people think they’re already entirely fucked. As ever. This is bad, but it is not what’s described in tweets.
If you have a government at this point, you need to be up their ass daily about these censorship and online safety laws because it’s really fucking bad. Especially if your phone is your Internet. Some of what you can do to work around this shit on a computer doesn’t work on your phone. It’s not just porn. It’s going to be anything that the guy in charge doesn’t want you seeing.
There is already a massive issue with news silencing or ignoring stories. This will make that into direct censorship. If you’re in the UK, raise hell.
If you’re in the US, you know the choices here will fuck the rest of the world too because so many things are headquartered here, so when you don’t feel like calling again, think about everyone not under this regime, and how you’re legitimately helping globally.
Cause we joke that we don’t want someone to see our private bookmarks on ao3, right? Do you want to have your actual human face associated with every webpage you ever click on?
Reblogged honeybeaus
A mile, maybe, from Parth Galen in a little glade not far from the lake he found Boromir. He was sitting with his back to a great tree, as if he was resting. But Aragorn saw that he was pierced with many black-feathered arrows; his sword was still in his hand, but it was broken near the hilt; his horn cloven in two was at his side. Many Orcs lay slain, piled all about him and at his feet.
Reblogged honeybeaus
Red Velvet - IRENE & SEULGI 'TILT' Image #2-1
