Resident Evil 2 (E3 2018)
d e v o n

Andulka

#extradirty
Claire Keane

Discoholic šŖ©
tumblr dot com

Janaina Medeiros
Show & Tell
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
RMH
Today's Document

Kiana Khansmith
ojovivo
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Jules of Nature

Kaledo Art

oozey mess
Monterey Bay Aquarium
No title available
KIROKAZE

seen from Taiwan

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from Finland

seen from Türkiye

seen from Germany
seen from United States

seen from Russia
seen from United States

seen from Russia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Taiwan
@aloversgaming
Resident Evil 2 (E3 2018)
ćć¤ćŖćć¶ć¼ć RESIDENT EVIL 2 remakeĀ E3 2018 Announcement Trailer ā³ : Masterpiece Resident Evil 2 returns, so happy to see R.P.D Leon again!
I ran into some pretty militant vegans today. I have nothing against vegans in general (why would I care what you do & do not choose to eat). If being a vegan helps someone feel like they are making a difference in the world, power to them. The thing is, I donāt get the militant side of it. Thereās no ethical consumption under capitalism - pretty much everything you consume has issues. Hyper-focusing on the suffering of animals doesnāt make sense to me when pretty much everything that you eat or buy relies on the suffering of people. I think we all draw our lines in the sand, and thatās fine. Some people donāt buy Nestle products, some people are vegan, some people only buy local meat, some people boycott companies that have negative stances on issues that affect them (Lindt re: Autism Speaks, Walmart re: wages, Urban Outfitters re: homophobia). But you canāt possibly know about or cut out everything because thereās no way to completely eradicate unethicalĀ consumption - itās rotten to the very core - capitalism itself.
Donāt throw stones when youāre standing in a glass house.
The militant side of it is probably because animals are being boltgunned, gassed and having their throats slit while otherwise generally good people continue paying people to do those things, using the justification āyou canāt do no harm so why bother minimising itā. You can do so much less harm. You can save multiple animals from a life of enslavement and torture just by buying the soy or almond or oat milk instead of the cowās milk, and the lentils, beans or chickpeas instead of flesh. And the vegan versions of foods often require more than an order of magnitude less water, land, and greenhouse gas emissions. Itās not some Herculean feat, itās literally just buying different stuff at the store. You do not have to hyper focus on it, you just change the food you buy to exclude the products of the animal holocaust (and in the process reduce your risk of getting some of western societyās worst diseases) and continue going about your life. Please stop making excuses to keep contributing to this. Be on the right side of history.
The expansion of soybean plantations into forests is also contributing to climate change. Deforestation is responsible for about 15% of all the global greenhouse gas emissions caused by people. Not to mention the effect this is having on local people & animals in South America.
Similar issues with almond milk, which is largely produced in California (which is an issue because of the amount of water needed to be transported to California to grow almonds).
Personally I just donāt really drink milk (or very little) because the benefits are vastly overestimated by milk industry lobbying, but thatās my choice and Iām not going to force it on others. Iām a sucker for cheese though (like I said, donāt throw stones in glass houses lol).
As for lentils, beans, chickpeas -Ā your vegetables are grown by exploited labour.
Also, itās super fucked up and antisemitic to compare eating meat to the holocaust. These animals are raised for slaughter. If there wasnāt a meat industry, they wouldnāt exist. Thatās not at all comparable to the murder & oppression of millions of Jews (and other victims that the Nazis targeted).
Iām not saying you should stop being a vegan, or that you should stop trying. Iām saying that people try in different ways with different things and itās human nature to have a limit to the number of things that you care about, and thatās fine.
Your entire blog is about being militant.Ā Youāre also judging that human life has more worth than animal without there being a single ounce of evidence that any of it matters. If youāre going to make statments like that then haveĀ scientific proof to back it up, you FEELING people are important doesnāt mean jack.Ā Iād love to know what makes comparing animal death to human death fucked up. What results on your research into the meaning of life and origin of life did you obtain to have you to make such claims?Ā ābEcuasE thEYārE PEolpE!!1ā³ isnāt any argument with any weight.Ā I personally find animal rights more important than whose allowed to marry and whose allowed to enter what bathrooms, but youāve half a decade worth of posts complaining about all that.Ā Personal bias. Aināt no real purpose, right, or wrong.Ā All signs point to evolution as the reaosn why life exists. If so, then everything that has happned in the past, present and future on this planet has zero meaning. Earth could disappear tomorrow and the universe wouldnāt notice.Ā Itās people that decided people are important, not some higher being. This wholeĀ ābut people always matter!ā nonsense is based on emotion. Meaningless and ruled by ego.Ā Also, your glass house comment is speaks; āEverything is rotten at its core, so donāt bother at allā. I find this quote from the show Angel is much greater - āIf nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we doā Irritating post, dude.Ā
Pokemonās Misty. My first posted digital art piece and first posted fanart ever.Ā I hope to spend as much time as I can improving and learning.Ā If anyone is interested in my progress as time goes by, feel free to follow my D. Art or Instagram :) https://www.instagram.com/aloversgaming/ https://aloverssoulz.deviantart.com/
āPeople are naturally lazy and will never do any kind of work for free.ā
Minecraft Players:
This has been very painful ššššā¦I still do not believe it!!ššššI am very sorry for the family šā¦ ā¦.Hiromi Tsuru always in our heartsšā¦.
Dragon Ball Super - 117 - Thoughts And Opinions! Patreon exclusive opinions and reviews ofĀ Dragon Ball Super. Feel free to become a Patron and enter the community. Thank you and enjoy. <3Ā
nakedsasquatch itās ya man
Okay but seriously folks - as often as I joke about this movie stirs my loins and as weirdly popular as this text post got a while back, I wanna rap with you all about why the George of the Jungle remake is a pretty important piece of cinema.
Itās literally the only movie I can think of that is based completely around the unheard of āFEMALE gaze.ā Granted, while Iām a huge movie buff Iāve not seen every movie ever made. But even so, even if thereās another example of the āfemale gazeā in cinema that has escaped me itās still damn impressive that a kids movie from 1997 based on a Jay Ward cartoon from the 60ās managed to turn gender representation in media on itās fucking ass!
First things first, letās look at our leading lady and love interest - Ursula, played by Leslie Mann.
Let me just say that while Leslie Mann is adorable and a talented actress, she does look a little less conventional and a little more plain compared to the bombshells that Hollywood likes to churn out. Leslie, in comparison, looks much more like a real women youād meet on the street. She dresses pretty conservatively and plain throughout the filmĀ ; Wearing outfits that are more functional than fashionable for trekking through the jungle, pulling her hair back and so forth. Not that if she was dolled up and more scantily clad it would give her character any less integrity, but can we appreciate how RARE that is in the male dominated industry of film? Just think about all the roads a film about a woman in the jungle COULD have taken but didnāt - no scenes with her clothes strategically ripped or anything! You can say this is a kids movie, intended for children and thatās why the sensuality of the female lead is so downplayed but there are PLENTY of kids movies that handle women in a very objectifying and sexualized manner despite the target audience is pre-pubescent. Like, a disgusting amount. So I donāt think āitās a kids movieā is why the film doesnāt take ANY, let alone EVERY, opportunity to showcase the main female characterās sex appealā¦
ā¦especially considering the sex appeal of the film rests squarely on the well defined shoulders of our male lead, George of the Jungle played by Brendan Fraser in the best god damn shape of his life!
*Homer Simpson Drooling Noises*
Whenever members of the reddit community try to compare the sexualization of women in fiction to the design of characters such as Batman and Superman, I always want to just sit them down and show them this movie. Because THIS is what the female sexual fantasy looks like, and Batman and Superman are male power-fantasies. Look at him - his big blue eyes, his soft hair, his lean, chiseled physique built for dexterity rather than power. Heās wild and free, but gentle. Itās like he fell right out of that steamy romance novel your mom tried to hide from you growing up.
Hell, the whole plot seems to be designed around how damn hot he is! First, for the majority of the film, he wears only a small strip of cloth to cover the dick balls and ass. Everything else is FAIR GAME to drool over for 40 minutes. Then, after he meets Ursula she takes him with her to San Francisco just so we can enjoy him in a well-tailored suit (as seen in the gif set), running around in an open and billowy shirt along side horses while Ursula and all of her friends literally crowd around and make sexual comments about him, and my personal favorite, ditch the loincloth entirely and have him walk around naked while covering his man-bits with various objects while one of Ursulaās very lucky friends oogles him and makes a joke along the lines of āSo THATāS why they call him the āKING of the Jungleāā¦ā
And yes, itās also a very cute and funny little movie. Out of all the movies based on Jay Ward cartoons, it was the most faithful to the fast-paced humor and wit of the original source material (yes even the new Peabody and Sherman movie which honestly I thought was too cutesy-poo.) But thatās not why this movie is popular with the gay community or why we all became women in 1997. Itās just really cool that thereās a film out there where the sensuality of the female form takes a back seat for the oiled up, chiseled, physique of Brendan Fraser (in his prime that is)
One thing to add: in the scene mentioned above where the ladies are watching him in the billowy shirt running with the horses, it pans back to about 50 feet away to two guys in suits at this party looking at the women and one of the guys says, āMan, what is it with women and horses?ā So not only does this movie highlight the female gaze, but it blatantly points out that western male sensibilities donāt have a clue what actually appeals to women.
ALSO
heās non threatening
as mentioned above, he looks built for dexterity rather than power, but heās still a 6+ foot tall extremely muscular man, and not once are you worried for Ursula when heās with her
ALSO
letās take a look at his rival - Lyle is a cravat-wearing trust-fund kid (who, interestingly, is into Ursulaās fortune more than her, which kind of makes this a gender-swapped gold-digger thing too). Heās blonde and Ursulaās mom LOVES him. Heās more uncomfortable and less prepared to cope with the jungle than Ursula is, in his pastels and shiny shoes.
But he talks over Ursula, insists he knows whatās best for her, ignores her autonomy. In spite of the fact that Lyle Van de Groot is a rich, educated, social climber who cares deeply about his clothing and appearances he is a point-by-point checklist of unhealthy masculinity in a way that beefy, inarticulate, uneducated George could never be. Ursula is off on her own doing her own thing and Lyle hires two FUCKING POACHERS to track her down in the middle of the jungle while sheās working (or on vacation? Itās never made clear because he interrupts her before she can explain why she went on the expedition). Lyle ignores the local guides, claiming his experience with a bridge in Maui means the bridge theyāre on is safe - which leads to a significant injury for one of the guides. He then tells Ursula the guides are conspiring against him, trying to make himself and his poachers seem safe and the Africans who make up the rest of their party seem dangerous.
Check that body language! A post above points out that weāre never worried about Ursula when sheās around George. Thatās because Lyle talks to her like this. Look at his aggressive lean! Look at him literally looking down at her! Sheās tilted away from him in the least threatening position possible and heās so aggressive about whatever point heās making. When he finds her after he pushed her toward a damned lion he kisses her and she pushes him away. Want a textbook example of gaslighting? Here you go: she saysĀ ādonāt get all smoochy with me! I remember what happened with that lionā and he respondsĀ āWhat are you talking about? I was fighting that lion the whole time - you were just so terrified you donāt remember.āĀ Then he shoots George! And then he kidnaps Ursula and attempts to force her into marriage!
Now look at how George and Ursula interact (slightly NSFW):
Even though heās a big strong dude and he thinks heās doing whatās okay he lets her set the tone for their interactions. He accepts that heās out of his wheelhouse and even if he doesnāt understand it he does what she says is culturally appropriate. He learns from her! He listens to her! Compare Lyle leaning into Ursula above to this image of George and Ursula talking:
Heās listening to her, all of his attention is on on her, but heās totally nonthreatening. His torso is turned toward her but heās not invading her space, his hands are clasped, heās smiling, and sheās the one leaning into him. Look at that smile she has, look how happy she is to be listened to. Her posture in both images is vulnerable but in this one with George sheās vulnerable because she has chosen to share with him instead of because she feels threatened.
When George rescues Ursula from Lyle at the end of the film it isnāt a typical damsel situation - George doesnāt have a knock-down-drag-out fight with Lyle, he swings into a tree and offers Ursula a hand so she can reach up and save herself (and before he does it he acknowledges how much itās going to hurt and *whimpers* and looks human and scared). And youāve gotta remember that George rescues everybody. Itās not just Ursula - he also rescues a parasailer and gets shot rescuing Shep and Ape. He just likes helping, dammit!
AND this movie offers a perfect counter to the ānice guyā thing - Ursula starts engaged to a jerk who her mom thinks is a ānice guyā the moves on to actual nice man George who isnāt *just* nice - heās also patient, listens to her, has his own skills and talents, is okay with being goofy, has his own social circle and isnāt totally dependent on Ursula, and looks amazing. Ursula doesnāt go with George just because heās a *nice* guy who rescued her from an asshole, Ursula goes with George because heās an interesting, fun person who is supportive of her different way of being an interesting, fun person. AND heās emotionally available. Google image search George of the jungle and see how many smiles you can find, see how many open looks of confusion there are, see how much sadness you can see in Georgeās face. Now look for images of Lyle. His two expressions are a smirk and cartoonish fear. I know this is a cartoonish kidās movie, but it is SO powerful that the hero shares his emotions while the villain masks every emotion but fear. Lyle doesnāt want to open up, he doesnāt want to be vulnerable, he wants CONTROL. George wants to learn, to protect people he cares about, to explore new places, to laugh when heās happy and to be sad when heās sad, and that he does that while being a broad-shouldered, physically powerful dude who is NOT totally self-involved is justā¦
Like, look, I didnāt sign on to tumblr dot com for George of the Jungle discourse, but Iām just now realizing that this movie may have done the most for destroying my conception of stoic masculinity and gender roles as a child.
Like
Damn.
2nd reblog because this is even better.Ā