I mean, Tony would totally want to go, but he would make a THING out of it, and then he'd build a thing that does that thing, and he'd be all excited about making the thing do the thing, and then he'd make the thing do the thing better, and faster, and more efficiently, and then six months later as he's rolling out the new factory, he'd kind of remember that he was supposed to be going to classes for this with you in order to learn to do the thing, and he'd probably feel bad about making a whole thing out of your thing and he wouldn't even get upset that you're not excited about his new factory.
thor is the friend you call when you wanna do something and all your other friends think it’s boring
you could be like “hey, thor, do you wanna take a knitting class with me?” and he’d say sure because he likes learning new midgardian things and he loves you and he’s canonically one of those people that likes seeing the smiles on other people’s faces when they’re doing something they really love to do
Some Angry Star Wars Fans: THE ORIGINAL TRILOGY IS THE ONLY PURE STAR WARS, THE PREQUELS RUINED EVERYTHING AND THE NEW MOVIES ARE ALL GOING TO SUCK BECAUSE NOTHING CAN EVER MATCH THE BRILLIANCE OF THE ORIGINALS!
Me: yeah but like they literally named a fishy looking species "mon calamari", so
Blowing a dandelion is basically you helping a weed ejaculate.
I was having a good day. We were all having a good day.
I mean it’s kind of not, seeds aren’t analogous to sperm, hell, pollen isn’t analogous to sperm, plants don’t do dimorphic gametes like that. a better analogy would be firing a couple dozen fully-formed babies from a tshirt cannon
Contractions function almost identically to the full two-word phrase, but are only appropriate in some places in a sentence. It’s one of the weird quirks of this language we’ve.
Never stops making me smile. I want someone like this in my life. 💜
Okay so the best thing,the best thing about Sirs Patrick & Ian being best friends is that they met because of the X-Men movie.
I saw Sir Patrick speak a year or so ago and someone asked him about their friendship. He told this story about how I think they’d once or twice worked on the same production but had had very little interaction, and that when he’d been a kid, he’d utterly looked up to Sir Ian, who had had an established theater career at a very young age.
People assume that they’ve been friends since they were young, which makes sense given the sort of work they’ve done and their career trajectories, but no. Sir Patrick basically had a giant hero-crush-from-a-distance on Sir Ian for most of his life AND THEN on the set of X-Men, their trailers were put next to each other and they were significantly older than anyone else on the set, so they started spending their downtime together.
And became inseparable. And this is amazing.
So everyone who wants a friend like this, you have time.
Okay but the Hat was just like, “Sure kid whatever” when Harry requested against Slytherin. What kind of conversation was this?
NO NEVILLE I CAN’T DO THAT YOU HAVE THE HEART OF A LION
THE WIZARD OF OZ WILL GIVE YOU COURAGE NEVILLE
HAKUNA MATATA NEVILLE
DO NOT RECITE THE DEEP MAGIC TO ME NEVILLE I WAS THERE WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN
Okay, I’ve seen this post a couple of times & something just occurred to me.
Harry was pretty 50/50 Gryffindor/Slytherin from what I remember the hat saying (and according to the wiki blurb on hatstalls having a fairly equal split of traits from more than one house is the common cause of them) so when he asked not to be put into Slytherin the hat was fine with taking that preference into account and put him in Gryffindor. (Also the fact that the hat said he could be great and powerful in Slytherin and Harry’s response was pretty much no I don’t want that pretty clearly demonstrates non-Slytherin traits.)
On the other hand, the above doesn’t mention the hat being at all indecisive about where to put Neville. The hat wasn’t going “hmmm this is tough you’re pretty Gryffindor but you’re kind of Hufflepuff too”. It was probably more like “Yep! Gryffindor for sure!” Followed by Neville being all “No I’m totally a Hufflepuff!” and then proceeding to argue with the hat about it for almost 5 minutes. (Which when you think about it is a super Gryffindor thing to do.) By the end the hat was probably like oh my god kid you’re so Gryffindor you’re practically Godric’s heir shut up and get sorted there already!
“You’re practically Godric’s heir!”
As Neville pulls the sword of Gryffindor from the depths of the hat seven years later, the hat must have been so fucking smug. Like “oh yeah kid, this is such a Hufflepuff thing to do. Charge in with a blade and the bare basics of a plan that basically boils down to ‘I trust Harry, kill the snake.’ Helga would TOTALLY have done that. Oh wait! Did I say Helga? I MEANT GRYFFINDOR!”
“The Bible. We’ll just talk about the Bible for a second. People often point out that they can’t help it – they can’t help with the anti-gay bullying, because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans, that being gay is wrong.
We can learn to ignore the bulls**t in the Bible about gay people. The same way, the same way we have learned to ignore the bulls**t in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore bulls**t in the Bible about all sorts of things. The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document. Slave owners waved Bibles over their heads during the Civil War and justified it. The shortest book in the New Testament is a letter from Paul to a Christian slave owner about owning his Christian slave. And Paul doesn’t say “Christians don’t own people” Paul talks about how Christians own people.
We ignore what the Bible says about slavery, because the Bible got slavery wrong. Tim – uh, Sam Harris, in A Letter To A Christian Nation, points out that the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong. Slavery. What’re the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? One hundred percent.
The Bible says that if your daughter’s not a virgin on her wedding night – if a woman isn’t a virgin on her wedding night, she shall be dragged to her father’s doorstep and stoned to death. Callista Gingrich lives. And there is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone women to death on their wedding night if they’re not virgins. At least not yet. We don’t know where the GOP is going these days.
People are dying because people can’t clear this one last hurdle. They can’t get past this one last thing in the Bible about homosexuality.
[Addressing religious students who had walked out during the previous portion of the speech] Um, one other thing I wanna talk about is – [chuckles] – so, you can tell the Bible guys in the hall that they can come back now, because I’m done beating up the Bible. It’s funny, as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-assed some people react when you push back.
I apologize if I hurt anyone’s feelings. But. I have a right to defend myself. And to point out the hypocrisy of people who justify anti-gay bigotry by pointing to the Bible, and insisting we must live by the code of Leviticus on this one issue and no other.”
Elie Wiesel, the Auschwitz survivor who became an eloquent witness for the six million Jews slaughtered in World War II and who, more than anyone, seared the memory of the Holocaust on the world’s conscience, died on Saturday at his home in Manhattan. He was 87.
...
Mr. Wiesel was the author of several dozen books and was a charismatic lecturer and humanities professor. In 1986, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. But he was defined not so much by the work he did as by the gaping void he filled. In the aftermath of the Germans’ systematic massacre of Jews, no voice had emerged to drive home the enormity of what had happened and how it had changed mankind’s conception of itself and of God. For almost two decades, both the traumatized survivors and American Jews, guilt-ridden that they had not done more to rescue their brethren, seemed frozen in silence.
Josh Yehl is petitioning Disney and Lucasfilm to dedicate an out LGBT character to his friend, Christopher “Drew” Leinonen, who was killed at Pulse. Yehl hopes that having a gay character either inspired by or named after Leinonen could counteract some of the hate and homophobia in the world. There’s a Change.org petition but it still needs help.
This is important because I just learned about him last semester and was not aware of how much POC work he had until this post. Obviously, this wasn’t taught in art history class but are you fucking kidding me? This is amazing work and it should be on the curriculum, period.
This makes me SO ANGRY, because I have literally dozens of works by Rubens in that search/tag.
I want to take away any excuse for paintings showing a diverse history to be excluded from art history classes. So please keep sharing!! I want everyone to know about them.
The PoC in these paintings are TYPICAL of Rubens, they are NOT EXCEPTIONS.
“In the late 1960s and early 1970s, as the Vietnam War raged on, Asian American activists waged an antiwar movement that exposed the racist and imperialist nature of the war. Watching war images on the evening television news, young Asian Americans “realized with a shock that the ‘enemy’ whom American soldiers were maiming and killing had faces like their own.” Alienated by the US antiwar movement, Asian American protesters rejected the popular slogans “Give Peace a Chance” and “Bring the G.I.s Home” and touted their own: “Stop Killing Our Asian Brothers and Sisters” and “We Don’t Want Your Racist War.” For these young activists, the slogan “Bring Our Boys Home” clearly privileged American over Vietnamese lives. In 1971, the Asian American contingent refused to join the main anti-war march in Washington, D.C., because the coordinating committee refused to adopt the contingent’s antiracist statement. When Asian Americans did participate in the white-dominated antiwar marches, they passed out their own leaflets denouncing racism and imperialism.”
- Yên Lê Espiritu, “Toward a Critical Refugee Study: The Vietnamese Refugee Subject in US Scholarship” (via stabra)
