Childfree, 20, Australia. This blog is 70% reblogs by volume

Member of The Internet Defense League

  • Question: what's extreme is people like you not realizing that sometimes diversity can go too far. When characters are made black or disabled or gay for no reason it hurts the story and it hurts the cause of the people who are supposedly being represented. - Anonymous
  • Answer:

    blue-author:

    I like how you sent me an ask claiming that no one says a thing except people rhetorically making fun of the position that no one actually holds, and then you send me an ask clarifying that you hold exactly the same position.

    I’m kind tempted to just not address anything else you said and just marvel in the perfection of that.

    What’s the reason for making a character white? What’s the reason for making a character straight? What’s the reason for making a character abled or neurotypical or cis?

    When you assume that making a character Other relative to yourself weakens the narrative, you’re revealing a terrible thing about yourself: that you can’t imagine that those people have backstories and inner lives the way that you do.

    Every single person in a fictional narrative is ultimately there because a writer decided they needed to be there, but when the person looks like you and matches your expectations, you accept that this person who was made up for the plot had a life full of events that led them to the point where they’re appearing on the screen or page.

    But when your expectations aren’t met, you start saying it’s forced. You can’t accept that events led them here because you don’t grant them the kind of life that you know you have. Your empathy does not extend to them. 

    Look at how many white people think they can relate to a little girl in an industrial orphanage who falls in with a capitalist robber baron during the Great Depression more than they can relate to a little girl in the foster system in modern New York who falls in with a career politician, all because of a difference of race. The original Annie’s situation and world were only slightly less alien to us than the Victorian period, but making her white somehow makes her relatable in a way that a little girl who clearly exists in our world isn’t.

    The fact is, empathy is linked to imagination and we can (and do!) relate to people who are literally alien beings in literally alien worlds. The choice not to relate to Quvenzhané Wallis as Annie—or a Black or gay or female or trans video game character—is a choice to shut off both imagination and empathy. 

    The failing is not with the narrative, it’s with you.

Source: blue-author

bakinginthebatcave:

walkingdeadites:

steveholtvstheuniverse:

every achievement in cinema history has led up to this moment

                 

  

Source: lindsaybluth

Text

archgayngel:

asthmagirl:

cybergarbage:

debbiegallagher:

i’m done with gay boys who think their gayness allows them to be as offensive as they want

image

image

image

(via lifeofaseamonster)

Source: debbiegallagher

aluox:

me

(via foggypebble)

Source: aluox

immaculatellamalord:

lauriejuspeczyk:


221becquerel:



queenaglaia:



uncalmly:



silentknightley:



rookieoftheday:



Do you understand how scary this picture is



god forbid a real person do real person things he wasnt just a robot who killed people jesus fucking christ



uh yeah its not like he killed and tortured six million jews or anything



Hold on just a tick. Listen, I’m Jewish, so I’m perfectly capable of understanding that what he did was just…..well, there are no words for it. But let’s not round it up to simply Jews that got killed. It was six million people that died in those camps, not just Jews. Did you know that homosexuals were sent there, too? Yeah, I’m sure you did. They had to wear special little symbols on their clothes. Do you know what it was? It was a pink triangle.
It was six million PEOPLE. 
But you let that roll over in your mind for a while and you are going to forever see this man as a monster, but that’s not what he was. He was someone who thought he was truly doing something right for his nation, no matter how shitty he was doing it. Believe me when I say that I don’t like him. I really don’t. My grandfather’s brothers died in those camps, and my grandfather escaped to Spain, then to Mexico. He was lucky.
This is not a monster holding hands with a little girl.
This is Adolf Hitler, a man, holding hands with a little girl. 
Yeah. It’s fucking scary. It really is. Do you know why?
It’s because you’re seeing that he wasn’t, in fact, a monster. You’re seeing in this picture that he was a man. He was a man, and that’s really the saddest part of it all.






As a History major who specializes in the history of early modern Europe, I’ve studied a lot of dictators in detail, not just Hitler. The number one mistake anyone could ever make in history is making the assumption that only inhuman monsters are capable of doing terrible things. Stop dehumanizing Hitler just so you can reassure yourself that “normal” humans aren’t capable of doing bad things. Hitler liked children and dogs, he was a vegetarian and he cried like a little boy when his mother died. I’m not saying he was a good, innocent person, but when you stop attributing human characteristics to historical figures like Hitler, it’s how you overlook people just like him in real life, and it’s how people like him end up back in power.


That last statement.

immaculatellamalord:

lauriejuspeczyk:

221becquerel:

queenaglaia:

uncalmly:

silentknightley:

rookieoftheday:

Do you understand how scary this picture is

god forbid a real person do real person things he wasnt just a robot who killed people jesus fucking christ

uh yeah its not like he killed and tortured six million jews or anything

Hold on just a tick. Listen, I’m Jewish, so I’m perfectly capable of understanding that what he did was just…..well, there are no words for it. But let’s not round it up to simply Jews that got killed. It was six million people that died in those camps, not just Jews. Did you know that homosexuals were sent there, too? Yeah, I’m sure you did. They had to wear special little symbols on their clothes. Do you know what it was? It was a pink triangle.

It was six million PEOPLE. 

But you let that roll over in your mind for a while and you are going to forever see this man as a monster, but that’s not what he was. He was someone who thought he was truly doing something right for his nation, no matter how shitty he was doing it. Believe me when I say that I don’t like him. I really don’t. My grandfather’s brothers died in those camps, and my grandfather escaped to Spain, then to Mexico. He was lucky.

This is not a monster holding hands with a little girl.

This is Adolf Hitler, a man, holding hands with a little girl. 

Yeah. It’s fucking scary. It really is. Do you know why?

It’s because you’re seeing that he wasn’t, in fact, a monster. You’re seeing in this picture that he was a man. He was a man, and that’s really the saddest part of it all.

As a History major who specializes in the history of early modern Europe, I’ve studied a lot of dictators in detail, not just Hitler. The number one mistake anyone could ever make in history is making the assumption that only inhuman monsters are capable of doing terrible things.

Stop dehumanizing Hitler just so you can reassure yourself that “normal” humans aren’t capable of doing bad things. Hitler liked children and dogs, he was a vegetarian and he cried like a little boy when his mother died. I’m not saying he was a good, innocent person, but when you stop attributing human characteristics to historical figures like Hitler, it’s how you overlook people just like him in real life, and it’s how people like him end up back in power.

That last statement.

(via dont-be-like-the-sun)

Source: satanel

Text

disembodiedangelfeet:

sometimes I realize there are people on my dash heavily burdened with horrible things

bad relationships

mental illnesses

dangerous situations

and I just desperately hope that you’ll be okay, you’ll find the strength to continue and do the right thing for yourself, you’ll make it through and be happy

all of you

(via note-the-sarcasm)

Source: castielscheesecake

jumpingjacktrash:

nekomcevil:

gelunnucifera:

callan-the-misandrist:

positive-press-daily:

This lamp absorbs 150 times more CO2 than a tree

It’s still in the “so crazy it just might work” stage, but these microalgae-powered lamps, invented by French biochemist Pierre Calleja, could absorb a ton of carbon from the air every year. That’s as much as 150 to 200 trees. [x]


NEAT

YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND. This is ingenious.
The design is a light bulb surrounded by a glass casing. The glass is filled with (water based) media and microalgae. The top is permeable to gasses so that gas exchange can occur. All of the wiring is linked to the grid underground.
Since the light source is inside, it gets scattered and “dimmed” by the water and algae. This makes it less glaringly bright and scatters the light wider, which is good for a street light. It is not longer white light as well, which helps make it easier on the eyes while still providing light.
At the same time, it provides the light for photosynthesis in the algae, so they are continuously exchanging CO2 for O2, not just in the day. It also provides a source of heat, which helps keep the algae from going dormant during cold weather (as in the snowy picture above).
And notice how I did not specify permeability - that’s because NOx’s (NO and NO2) are also permeable and can be used as nitrogen sources to microalgae. In fact, algae are relatively low maintenance. As autotrophs, they don’t require super complex media, not does it really need to be changed/added to. (I’m actually fairly certain that there would still be algae in these tanks a year later; it may need to be cleaned or something, but there would be some living algae.)



and they’re so pretty too

jumpingjacktrash:

nekomcevil:

gelunnucifera:

callan-the-misandrist:

positive-press-daily:

This lamp absorbs 150 times more CO2 than a tree

It’s still in the “so crazy it just might work” stage, but these microalgae-powered lamps, invented by French biochemist Pierre Calleja, could absorb a ton of carbon from the air every year. That’s as much as 150 to 200 trees. [x]

NEAT

YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND. This is ingenious.

The design is a light bulb surrounded by a glass casing. The glass is filled with (water based) media and microalgae. The top is permeable to gasses so that gas exchange can occur. All of the wiring is linked to the grid underground.

Since the light source is inside, it gets scattered and “dimmed” by the water and algae. This makes it less glaringly bright and scatters the light wider, which is good for a street light. It is not longer white light as well, which helps make it easier on the eyes while still providing light.

At the same time, it provides the light for photosynthesis in the algae, so they are continuously exchanging CO2 for O2, not just in the day. It also provides a source of heat, which helps keep the algae from going dormant during cold weather (as in the snowy picture above).

And notice how I did not specify permeability - that’s because NOx’s (NO and NO2) are also permeable and can be used as nitrogen sources to microalgae. In fact, algae are relatively low maintenance. As autotrophs, they don’t require super complex media, not does it really need to be changed/added to. (I’m actually fairly certain that there would still be algae in these tanks a year later; it may need to be cleaned or something, but there would be some living algae.)

and they’re so pretty too

(via dont-be-like-the-sun)

Source: exclusively-positive-press

Text

tricksterity:

the worst things to ever happen to fashion:

  • fake pockets
  • making every single shirt see through
  • seriously why does it have to be see through
  • what is the fucking point i just have to wear another tank top or cami underneath it
  • it literally defeats the purpose of being a shirt
  • and every single shirt is see through these days this annoys me more than fake pockets and trust me that is an issue

(via the-angel-of-mischief)

Source: tricksterity

fuckyeahsexeducation:

katelucia:

Jada Pinkett-Smith is aware of the critics that frown up their noses at the way she raises her daughter, Willow. Willow cuts, dyes and styles her hair as she pleases, a fact that bothers many who feel girls shouldn’t have that much control over their appearance at such a young age.
Jada decided to address the criticism in a Facebook post:

“A letter to a friend…This subject is old but I have never answered it in its entirety. And even with this post it will remain incomplete. The question why I would LET Willow cut her hair. First the LET must be challenged. This is a world where women, girls are constantly reminded that they don’t belong to themselves; that their bodies are not their own, nor their power or self determination. I made a promise to endow my little girl with the power to always know that her body, spirit and her mind are HER domain. Willow cut her hair because her beauty, her value, her worth is not measured by the length of her hair. It’s also a statement that claims that even little girls have the RIGHT to own themselves and should not be a slave to even their mother’s deepest insecurities, hopes and desires. Even little girls should not be a slave to the preconceived ideas of what a culture believes a little girl should be.”



I’m pretty sure I’ve reblogged this before but seriously this is something we should be teaching all our children. Their bodies are theirs, not ours as parents. As soon as you tell someone their body doesn’t belong to theirs you take away so much from them.

fuckyeahsexeducation:

katelucia:

Jada Pinkett-Smith is aware of the critics that frown up their noses at the way she raises her daughter, Willow. Willow cuts, dyes and styles her hair as she pleases, a fact that bothers many who feel girls shouldn’t have that much control over their appearance at such a young age.

Jada decided to address the criticism in a Facebook post:

“A letter to a friend…This subject is old but I have never answered it in its entirety. And even with this post it will remain incomplete. The question why I would LET Willow cut her hair. First the LET must be challenged. This is a world where women, girls are constantly reminded that they don’t belong to themselves; that their bodies are not their own, nor their power or self determination. I made a promise to endow my little girl with the power to always know that her body, spirit and her mind are HER domain. Willow cut her hair because her beauty, her value, her worth is not measured by the length of her hair. It’s also a statement that claims that even little girls have the RIGHT to own themselves and should not be a slave to even their mother’s deepest insecurities, hopes and desires. Even little girls should not be a slave to the preconceived ideas of what a culture believes a little girl should be.”

image

I’m pretty sure I’ve reblogged this before but seriously this is something we should be teaching all our children. Their bodies are theirs, not ours as parents. As soon as you tell someone their body doesn’t belong to theirs you take away so much from them.

(via cozcat)

Source: clutchmagonline.com

  • guys: uh why do girls care so much about being skinny? it's so annoying
  • guys: ew fat chicks
  • guys: why do girls care so much about shopping and romance and nail polish lol so annoying
  • guys: ew crazy butch lesbian manly feminazis why can't they act more feminine lol
  • guys: why do girls wear makeup they look so much better without it
  • guys: oh i'm so sorry are you sick? tired? dying?
  • guys: haha girls suck at math/science/sports
  • guys: a girl who does math/science/sports? well? get back in the kitchen that shits not gonna get you a husband
  • guys: why are girls so sensitive when we look at their boobs or something c'mon with that top you're asking for it
  • guys: oh my god a gay guy just hit on me how fucking disgusting what a creeper doesn't he have any boundaries?
Source: 0h-darling