WONDER WHY THOSE ALL DONâT LOOK LIKE THE SAME COLOR? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOTÂ
OTHER THAN BEING PART OF THE SAME FAMILY OF BLUES, THEY ARE NOT ALL THE SAMEÂ FUCKING COLOR! WHY WOULD THEY ALL BE THE SAME FUCKING COLOR! DO YOU THINK WE JUST NAME NEW COLORS FOR KICKS!?!?!?
WHEN DESCRIBING A CHARACTERâS GOD FORSAKEN EYE COLOR, PICKÂ ONEÂ YA GODDAMN HIPPIE
#google translate does not capture the tone switch so i have to say. first two sentences are like. normal maybe kind of feminine posting tone #& the last is like. shounen manga protagonist. action movie hero. jojo's bizarre adventure character. #the tone you would use if you were holding a gun with the safety off (â @chadlesbianjasontodd)
I just think it's so interesting that people end up falling in love with their friends' boyfriends! I absolutely despise every single one of them. give me my fucking homie back you goddamn bastard
If I don't see any code geass cosplayers at the revolution themed dashcon I'm gonna be ... well, unsurprised. Because it's a largely forgotten show from 2006. But still slightly sad ... because the revolution themed dashcon is an excellent habitat for code geass cosplayers
Besides being My Childhood Cringe and the reason i made my first tumblr account in 2011, code geass is still one of the craziest, most genre confused pieces of media iâve ever seen.
It's about the horrors of colonialism and war and genocide. It's a high school drama. It's a sexy mecha show. thereâs titties everywhere the 2006 fan service is absolutely tasteless and egregious. But don't get distracted, this is a show about rebels fighting to overthrow an evil genocidal empire except for when it's about the worldâs largest pizza, yes, the world's largest pizza. Sponsored by Pizza Hut. This Show Is Sponsored By Pizza Hut. Major characters will die in devastating ways that you will remember forever. Buy Pizza Hut. The fandom is mostly yaoi of the two male leads but theyâre not canonically queer. There are some canonically queer side characters! but watch out! youâll wish there werenât! It takes place in the futuristic year of 2017, which is actually in the 1960s if you convert the shows alternate universe calendar into our own.
If you were to ask me whether this show is good, bad, or so bad that itâs good, i would have to tell you honesty that itâs good. The pizza hut titties out horrors of colonialism show is good.
sorikai polycule that starts with sokai dating (because external pressure and heteronormativity) and Sora keeps inviting Riku to dates. Heâs like âoh Riku would love fishing! We should bring him :)â. At first Kairi is kinda annoyed (âI keep planning nice dates and he keeps inviting Riku!â) but then she realizes that she likes having Riku there too, and that itâs really enjoyable just hanging out with Riku while Sora goes off on his side quests. Eventually, going out as a trio (but with romantic context) becomes the norm without them realizing it. At one point Leaâs talking with Kairi and goes âoh by the way, you should bring your boyfriends! I bet theyâd love itâ and Kairi is like âboyfriends with an s?????â and Lea ends up explaining polyamory to her (he spent 10 years with exclusively Strange Gay People (himself included) for company, of course he knows what polyamory is). Anyway long story short they sit down, have a talk, and walk out with all three dating (Sora is dating Kairi and Riku, Riku and Kairi are in a queerplatonic relationship (they donât know that word but they are) that involves a bit of romance).
albatrosses will wipe the floor with any species of bird you choose to compare them to. theyâre the Most, or at least Extremely, by almost every metric
wingspan. lifespan. intricacy of mating dances. devotion to monogamy. investment in offspring. ability to circumnavigate the globe. literary symbolism that is flexible but not to the point of meaninglessness. eyeliner quality. I could go on
I low-key love the fact that sci-fi has so conditioned us to expect to be hanging out with a bunch of cool space aliens, that legitimate, actual scientists keep proposing the most bizarre, three-blunts-into-the-rotation "theories" to explain the fact we're not.
Some of my favourites include:
Zoo Theory: What if there are loads of aliens out there, but they're not talking to us because of the Prime Directive from Star Trek? (Or because they're doing experiments on us???)
Dark Forest Theory: What if there are loads of aliens out there, but they all hate us and each other so they're all just waiting with a shotgun pointed at the door, ready to open fire on anything that moves?
Planetarium Theory: What if there's at least one alien with mastery over light and matter that's just making it seem to us that the universe is empty to us as, like, a joke?
Berserker Theory: What if there were loads of aliens, but one of them made infinite killer robots that murdered everyone and are coming for us next?!!
Like, the universe is at least 13,700,000,000 years old and 46,000,000,000 light years big. We have had the ability to transmit and receive signals for, what, 100 years, and our signals have so far travelled 200 light years?
The fact is biological life almost certainly has, does, or will develop elsewhere in the universe, and it's not impossible that a tiny amount of it has, does, or will develop in a way that we would understand as "intelligent". But, like, we're realistically never going to know because of the scale of the things involved.
So I'm proposing my own hypothesis. I call it the "Fool in a Field" hypothesis. It goes like this:
Humanity is a guy standing in the middle of a field at midnight. It's pitch black, he can't move, and he's been standing there for ages. He's just had the thought to swing his arms. He swings one of his arms, once, and does not hit another person. "Oh no!" He says. "Robots have killed them all!"
The 20 Minutes Late with Starbucks hypothesis: They noticed us and want to meet us! But since they are several million light-years away and don't have FTL travel, they're just gonna take a while.
Personally I lean towards the First One At The Party Theory. Yeah, the universe is 13 billion years old, but our own life-supporting solar system is 4.6 billion and the majority of known exoplanets are younger than us.
It took about a billion years for life to arise, once our planet existed. If our galactic neighbors are operating on a similar timescale, there might just not be anyone out there yet whoâs technologically advanced enough to make contact. Right now, the best we can hope for might be people at similar levels of development to us, looking out at the starts and wondering if anyone else is out there.
donât know if thereâs an official name for this theory but I will call it the âWe Canât Talk To Fishâ theory
because while I am absolutely positive that there is life out there (it seems highkey unlikely that in an infinite universe across billions of years only one planet got life), *even if* we were close enough to make contact and *even if* both sides were advanced enough to try to communicate⌠we might still not ever hear it because itâs in a form we donât interpret as communication. we have trouble communicating with *other humans,* let alone other species. itâs like sending a probe underwater and hoping the fish talk back to you.
So "currying" a furry animal means grooming or brushing it with a currycomb, which in turn comes from the Old French correier meaning "to prepare [something]", because you prepare a horse for riding by brushing it; it's most commonly applied to horses but you can get e.g. currycombs for dogs.
If I understand correctly, medieval French folk tales considered chestnut-colored horses to be deceitful and tricky; the Old French word for a chestnut or dun horse was fauvel, and so the Old French expression correier fauvel, literally "to brush the chestnut horse", meant lying or being hypocritical for personal gain. This turned into "curry favel" in 15th-century English, and then mutated into "curry favor" over the next few centuries as people forgot about the horse.
So "currying favor" is really "brushing the Horse of Lies", and the reason you can't curry goodwill, or love, or hatred, or even disfavor is that we didn't have Horses for those.
And it follows that we can gain the ability to curry other things by assigning them to Horses.
#google is backing you up on this (via @oldguardians)
I realize, looking back on this post, that regular readers of my blog may have thought I made this up. Making up a ridiculous etymology is certainly the sort of thing I might do; in fact I've been meaning to start a sideblog dedicated solely to sufficiently accurate etymologies, and have a notebook with dozens of them jotted down, I just haven't had the time to do anything with them.
But I want to stress that this is not one of those cases. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the very real etymology of the phrase "curry favor".
The Old French fauve or falve referred to the light-brown color that's sometimes called "fallow" in modern English, but since it also sounded similar to faux, meaning "false", it was also associated with deceit and trickery ; the idiom estriller Fauvel literally meant "to groom the fallow one" but idiomatically meant "to lie or trick people".
Then in the 1300s we get the French poem Roman de Fauvel, a satirical poem about a fauve horse, whose name is derived both from the color and from the fact that FAVVEL is an acronym of Flaterie, Avarice, Vilanie, VarietĂŠ, Envie, LaschetĂŠ (Flattery, Greed, Vileness, Fickleness, Envy, and Cowardice) - all the different vices that this horse embodies.
Fauvel (purportedly modeled after Enguerrand de Marigny [source], an advisor to King Philip IV) is a sinful, conniving, and very rich horse who has various religious and secular leaders fawning over him and brushing him; it was well-known enough that "grooming Fauvel" came to mean "sucking up to someone powerful" more than just "being evil", and when it was translated into English the grooming was translated as currying, which specifically is grooming a horse with a curry comb [wiktionary]. From this we got the Middle English expression "currying Fauvel", which then mutated via folk etymology (in the "reinterpretation of unfamiliar words as more familiar ones" sense, not the "people are wrong about etymology" sense) into "currying favor".
Boromir said: of course the tree is dead. You donât need a wizard to tell you that.
Faramir said: he says itâs because itâs a stupid way to keep a tree. he says it always ends up dying, every time, because we donât keep it propply.
Boromir said: donât talk like a baby. And donât say that! Mithrandir has never understood the duties of Stewards.
Faramir said: he says it isnât politics, itâs gardening. he says we donât let the roots go down deep enough, and they always hit stone, and white trees would keep growing forever-and-ever, if you let them; and if their roots canât grow any more they always die, âcos it starves them, and thatâs mean. it ought to be in the ground, and you shouldnât keep a grown big tree on a - a - a - a PATIO, and not one at the top of a tower neither, a thousand feet above the plain, without enough food for a tree to eat. And thatâs mean of us.
Boromir said: Mithrandir talks a lot of rubbish.
Faramir said: he says Minas Tirith has a proud tradition of killing saplings that are very rare, and he will only give us houseplants or tomatoes for presents until we get better at it. and he says thatâs why the Lawn of Ecthelion is always yellow in summer too. Underneath the grass, thereâs just a little dirt we brought here, and underneath that thereâs the stone of the tower, which âvaporates, and it canât hold very much water, for the grass to keep between rains.
Boromir said: actually - I do believe that. But the Lawn of Ecthelion always lives again - as soon as it rains.
Faramir said: yellow lawn grass isnât dead, itâs just doormat. Waiting for the rain.
Boromir said: dormant.
Faramir said: maybe.
Boromir said: fine, fine, fine -
Boromir said: okay, Faramir, maybe youâre right. So what? What of it?
Faramir said: well, I donât know. But I donât like the tree anymore.
Boromir said: you donât like the White Tree of Gondor.
Faramir said: I donât like how it looks like we failed it. I donât like it being dead. I donât like to think of it starving to death. And I donât like how itâs everywhere.
Boromir said: but the White Tree is alive everywhere else.
Faramir said: no look at it, Boromir, itâs dead.
Boromir said: no it isnât, look. Itâs alive on you and itâs alive on me. Look on mine. Look at the leaves. Whatâs that made of?
Faramir said: Broidery.
Boromir said: People donât embroider all those leaves just to be on a dead tree.
Faramir said: is mine alive?
Boromir said: they all are. The only dead one is the one on the tower, and honestly, maybe youâre right. Maybe itâs a stupid place for a real tree.
The Eldar as a people are fascinating and riveting to me.
Inheritors of a broken cosmos.
Blamed for the sins of people that their own ancestors sought to distance themselves from.
It seems even most 40k fans donât understand or know that the Craftworlders are the equivalent of conscious dissenters who left the Aeldari Croneworlds as cults of the Ruinous Powers became prominent and eventually took over completely.
The Asuryaniâs ancestors were not the ones who birthed Slaanesh into this realm⌠those who were actually at fault were close enough to ground zero to be consumed immediately.
And yet the Asuryani and other Eldar inherit the ruins.
They inherit a whole cosmos so utterly shaped by the fall of the proudest of their own kind and they have to reckon with that every single day.
The Asuryani Paths are a way to regulate a hyperattuned mind and soul , necessary because any dysregulation is radiant enough in the Warp that it attracts unwanted attention.
Imagine this: if you feel a strong emotion, no matter what, be it rage at something, boundless love or joy or sorrow your soul shines so brightly that it summons daemons.
You feel so much that you have to pour yourself wholly into some abstract pursuit, some philosophy or career, some PATH just in order to stay sane⌠and if you fail your immortal soul is consumed.
Open a bank account or get a credit card without signed permission from her father or hr husband.
Serve on a jury - because it might inconvenience the family not to have the woman at home being her husbandâs helpmate.
Obtain any form of birth control without her husbandâs permission. You had to be married, and your hub and had to agree to postpone having children.
Get an Ivy League education. Ivy League schools were menâs colleges ntil the 70â˛s and 80â˛s. When they opened their doors to women it was agree that women went there for their MRS. Degee.
Experience equality in the workplace: Kennedyâs Commission on the Status of Women produced a report in 1963 that revealed, among other things, that women earned 59 cents for every dollar that men earned and were kept out of the more lucrative professional positions.
Keep her job if she was pregnant.Until the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978, women were regularly fired from their workplace for being pregnant.
Refuse to have sex with her husband.The mid 70s saw most states recognize marital rape and in 1993 it became criminalized in all 50 states. Nevertheless, marital rape is still often treated differently to other forms of rape in some states even today.
Get a divorce with some degree of ease.Before the No Fault Divorce law in 1969, spouses had to show the faults of the other party, such as adultery, and could easily be overturned by recrimination.
Have a legal abortion in most states.The Roe v. Wade case in 1973 protected a womanâs right to abortion until viability.
Take legal action against workplace sexual harassment. According to The Week, the first time a court recognized office sexual harassment as grounds for legal action was in 1977.
Play college sports Title IX of the  Education Amendments of protects people from discrimination  based on sex in education programs or activities that receive Federal financial  assistance It was nt until this statute that colleges had teams for womenâs sports
Apply for menâs Jobs  The EEOC rules that sex-segregated help wanted ads in newspapers are illegal.  This ruling is upheld in 1973 by the Supreme Court, opening the way for women to apply for higher-paying jobs hitherto open only to men.
This is why we needed feminism - this is why we know that feminism works
I just want to reiterate this stuff, because I legit get the feeling there are a lot of younger women for whom it hasnât really sunk in what it is todayâs GOP is actively trying to return to.
Did you go to a good college? Shame on you, you took a college placement that could have gone to a man who deserves and needs it to support or prepare for his wife & children. But if you really must attend college, well, some men like that, you can still get married if you focus on finding the right man.
Got a job? Why? A man could be doing that job. You should be at home caring for a family. You shouldnât be taking that job away from a man who needs it (see college, above). You definitely donât have a career â youâll be pregnant and raising children soon, so no need to worry about promoting you.
This shit was within living memory. IâM A MILLENIAL and my mother was in the second class that allowed women at an Ivy League school. Men who are alive today either personally remember shit like this or have parents/family who have raised them into thinking this was the way America functioned back in the blissful Good Old Days. There are literally dudes in the GOP old enough to remember when it was like this and yearn for those days to return.
When people talk about resisting conservativism and the GOP, weâre not just talking about whether the wage gap is a myth or not. Weâre talking about whether women even have the fundamental right to exist as individuals, to run their own households and compete for jobs and be considered on an equal footing with men in any arena at all in the first place.
I was a child in the 1960s, a teenager in the 1970s, a young adult in the 1980s.
This is what it was like:
When I was growing up, it was considered unfortunate if a girl was good at sports. Girls were not allowed in Little League. Girlsâ teams didnât exist in high school, except at all-girlsâ high schools. Boys played sports, and girls were the cheerleaders.
People used to ask me as a child what I wanted to be when I grew up. I said I wanted to be a brain surgeon or the first woman justice on the Supreme Court. Everyone told me it was impossibleâthose just werenât realistic goals for a girlâthe latter, especially, because you couldnât trust women to judge fairly and rationally, after all.
In the 1960s and 1970s, all women were identified by their marital status, even in arrest reports and obituaries. In elementary school, my science teacher referred to Pierre Curie as DOCTOR Curie and Marie Curie as MRS. CurieâŚbecause, as he put it, âshe was just his wife.â (Both had doctorates and both were Nobel prize winners, so you would think that both would be accorded respect.)
Companies could and did require women to wear dresses and skirts. Failure to do could and did get women fired. And it was legal. It was also legal to fire women for getting married or getting pregnant. The rationale was that a woman who was married or who had a child had no business working; that was what her husband was for. Aetna Insurance, the biggest insurance company in America, fired women for all of the above.
A man could rape his wife. Legally. I can remember being twelve years old and reading about legal experts actually debating whether or not a man could actually be said to coerce his wife into having sex. This was a serious debate in 1974.
The debate about marital rape came up in my law school, too, in 1984. Could a woman be raped by her husband? The guys all said noâa woman got married, so she was consenting to sex at all times. So I turned it around. I asked them if, since a man had gotten married, that meant that his wife could shove a dildo or a stick or something up his ass any time she wanted to for HER sexual pleasure.
(Hey, I thought it was reasonable. If one gender was legally entitled to force sex on the other, then obviously the reverse should also be true.)
The male law students didnât like the idea. Interestingly, they commented that being treated like that would make them feel like a woman.
My reaction was, âThank you for proving my pointâŚâ
The concept of date rape, when first proposed, was considered laughable. If a woman went out on a date, the argument of legal experts ran, sexual consent was implied. Even more sickening was the fact that in some statesâeven in the early 1980sâa man could rape his daughterâŚand it was no worse than a misdemeanor.
Women taking self-defense classes in the 1970s and 1980s were frequently described in books and on TV as âcute.â The implication was that it was absurd for a woman to attempt to defend herself, but wasnât it just adorable for her to try?
I was expressly forbidden to take computer classes in junior and senior years of high schoolâ1978-79 and 1979-80âbecause, as the principal told me, âOnly boys have to know that kind of thing. You girls are going to get married, and you wonât use it.â
When I was in collegeâfrom 1980 to 1984âthere were no womensâ studies. The idea hadnât occurred in many places because the presumption was that there was nothing TO study. My history professorâa man who had a doctorate in historyâinformed me quite seriously that women had never produced a noted painter, sculptor, composer, architect or scientist becauseâŚwait for itâŚwomensâ brains were too small.
(He was very surprised when I came up with a list of fifty women gifted in the arts and science, most of whom he had never heard of before.)
When Walter Mondale picked Geraldine Ferraro as a running mate in 1984, the press hailed it as a disaster. What would happen, they asked fearfully, if Mondale died and Ferraro became president? What if an international crisis arose and she was menstruating? She could push the nuclear button in a fit of PMS! It would be the end of the WORLD!!
âŚNo, they WERENâT kidding.
On the surface, things are very different now than they were when I was a child, a teen and a young adult. But Iâm afraid that people now do not realize what it was like then. Iâve read a lot of posts from young women who say that they are not feminists. If the only exposure to feminism they have is the work of extremists, I cannot blame them overmuch.
I wish that I could tell them what feminism was like when it was newâwhen the dream of legal equality was just a dream, and hadnât even begun to come true. When âwomanâs workâ was a sneerâand an overt putdown. When people tut-tutted over bright and athletic girls with the words, âReally, itâs a shame sheâs not a boy.â That lack of feminism wasnât all men opening doors and picking up checks. A lot of it was an attitude of patronizing contempt that hasnât entirely died out, but which has become less publicly acceptable.
I wish I could make them feel what it was likeâŚwhen grown men were called âmenâ and grown women were âgirls.â
I am 70. I remember all those things. I was a student nurse from 64 to 67 and we were not permitted to âfinishâ a bed bath on a male or insert a catheter in a male. Seeing male genitals might cause us âharmâ or upset our delicate sensibilities. Imagine when we graduated and were âthrownâ to the wolves. Imagine if you were a male patient who had to be the first to be âpracticedâ on by a graduate nurse. (Ha!) At the school I attended no student nurse could be married. Only one school in my city (Atlanta) would even admit married women and Male Nurses werenât even thought of. What man would want to be a nurse when he could be a Doctor. In all my training I only remember 3 or 4 Women who were Doctorâs and a very few, (less than 5 or 6) female interns or residents (and this was a teaching hospital) and most of those were OB/Gyns and one was a pediatrician.
When I graduated and was going to get married I wanted to go on birth control pills. You needed to be on them for a least one cycle before they were effective. I wonât go into what hoops I had to jump through to get a prescription from my Dr. (a man, natch) but when i went to the drug store to get the prescription filled I ended up having to get my future husband to âaccompanyâ me so the pharmacist âinterviewâ him and see if it was okay with him for me to be on the pill.
Even when we went to get a marriage license I had to get my Fatherâs signature and we had to go before a Judge because I was not yet 21 (I was 20 and 9 months).
I could go on and on, getting a credit card in MY name, etc., but I will tell you that WE MUST RESIST.
The number of people I know who romanticize gender inequality is frankly terrifying. A world never existed in which the lives of women were simplified by benevolent men who saw to her every want and need. That was not a thing. A world never existed in which women were all ladies, men were all gentlemen, & everything was some great big cishet fairytale. Feminists arenât a bunch of upstarts who want to destroy a perfectly wholesome and non-harmful system. JustâŚlook at history. Look at the posts above. We. Must. Resist..
This is what they mean, when they say âOld-fashioned valuesâ
When conservatives start waxing lyrical about the âgood old daysâ, this is what they mean. They are fully aware how much things blew for women, and they would like to return to that.Â
