birdsocks:

They are studying us in petri dishes

utopians:

American moment

(via gloedende)

eggwraith:

eggwraith:

opens box that reads “i wanna draw again”. inside lies a note. the note says, “mental illness and difficult circumstances have taken years of interest, accessibility, and skill away from me. i want to forgive myself for that. i want to heal my relationship to my hobbies. i want to feel connected to something that once made me feel good, but the cyclic discouragement is difficult to overcome.” i turn over the note. on the back it reads “wannta drawe sexy bodies awooga”

seems like this one really resonated with the artists who dont do art fandom

(via quarra)

girard:

i dont mind when people are annoying online bc i remember back when i was 14 and so annoying online and its fun to be young and not know how to act we’ve all been there. Checks bio. oh theyre older than me

(via redacted-metallum)

brionbroadway:

every week there’s (rightfully) a new post about how murph and emily should be on game changer, but i think we need to acknowledge that murph was sam’s villain origin story

greenteaandtattoos:

shatterpath:

sazandorable:

mathiasandthefinntrolls:

Please return us to a world where Notp and squick are used for a ship you don’t like instead of just making up a load of bullshit about how immoral it is or w/e lol 

a short selection of concepts and phrases that used to be commonplace in fandom and we’d really benefit from making that a thing again:

NOTP: the opposite of an OTP (One True Pairing). It is a ship a fan strongly dislikes. The word is a portmanteau of ‘no’ and ‘OTP’ and thus is not a contraction of any particular phrase.

Squick: anything that is a deep-seated, visceral turn-off. Squicks may be shared by many fans or be specific to one; one person’s kink may be another person’s squick.

YKINMKATO, or kink-tomato: Your Kink Is Not My Kink, And That’s Okay: used to indicate support for fannish diversity and to distinguish between disapproval or kink shaming and simply having different taste.

DLDR: Don’t Like, Don’t Read: a phrase used to warn against complaints about an aspect of fic or meta. A “live and let live” philosophy of fandom, which places the responsability for avoiding content one doesn’t want to see on the side of the fanwork consumer, rather that on the creator’s.

SALS: Ship And Let Ship: similar to the above specifically about shipping tastes.

YMMV: Your Mileage May Vary: a phrase used to acknowledge that any given individual’s personal opinion on the topic at hand may differ due to their own tastes, standards, values, experiences, etc.

As the OP points out, all of these crucially imply no moral judgment of what they’re designing.

(definitions lifted more or less wholesale from fanlore’s relevant pages)

bring the healthy fun back to fandom!

If ever a time comes when I don’t reblog this when it appears on my dash, assume I’m dead

(via redacted-metallum)

lemonsharks:

penrosesun:

guidetodreaming:

One of the most important things I learned in my Language and the Law class is that law enforcement will intentionally misinterpret every type of statement asking for a lawyer as not asking for a lawyer. Even directly saying it like this “I will not speak to you without a lawyer” can be taken as a simple statement of fact rather than a request for a lawyer. You literally have to state “I am now invoking my right to a lawyer” and every time they try to proceed with an interrogation you have to answer every question with “I am invoking my right to have a lawyer present”. You can’t just tell them you won’t talk without a lawyer or that you want a lawyer. You have to state that you are invoking your rights. Otherwise they could just say “well they just said they wouldn’t speak without a lawyer present. That’s not invoking their rights to a lawyer. It’s just stating a fact.” even just stating your right to a lawyer doesn’t count!

PLEASE share this addition. I am a lawyer who works in criminal defense, and this is one of the most avoidable things that people consistently get wrong about the Miranda rights.

Here are some more “ambiguous” phrases which courts have found DO NOT invoke your right to a lawyer:

“Maybe I should speak to my lawyer first.”

“I might like a lawyer.”

“I think I should have a lawyer present for this.”

“Could I speak to my lawyer first?”

“How long until my lawyer gets here?”

And perhaps most egregiously – “Get me a lawyer, dawg – ‘cause this is not what’s up.”

Here are the magic phrases which you need to know if you want to invoke your Miranda rights:

1) “Am I free to leave?”

It’s worth asking this even if the answer is obvious. Even if the officer does not let you leave, by forcing them to admit that you are not free to leave, you are creating a record which your attorney can use to prove that you were in custody. Miranda rights only apply if the interrogation is custodial, meaning that police officers will frequently claim that their suspects were “not in custody” to get around their Miranda rights.

2) “I am invoking my right to remain silent.”

Simply staying silent will not invoke your right to remain silent. As absurd as this is, you must explicitly say that you are invoking your right to remain silent in order to invoke that right.

3) “I am invoking my right to an attorney.”

As stated above, you must be not only clear and unambiguous, but clear and legally unambiguous. Don’t get cute. Don’t get sassy. And on the flip side, don’t get intimidated and use verbal ticks to minimize your request. Say the line with those words exactly – say it clearly, and say it once, and then say nothing else.

Because even after you’ve done all this, the police can still try to get you to talk. They’re not supposed to interrogate you, but they’re allowed to make casual conversation, and if that conversation just happens to circle back around to the thing they wanted to question you about, well, that’s really your fault for talking after you said you wouldn’t, isn’t it? Can’t possibly fault the poor officers when you initiated – if you really wanted to have your rights respected, you wouldn’t have talked to them in the first place.

The police know this, and they will mercilessly exploit this loophole. So, once you’ve successfully invoked your Miranda rights, any and all conversation you have with police officers will put those rights back into jeopardy. 

Putting it all together:

Ask: “Am I free to leave?”

If they say no, say: “I am invoking my right to remain silent and I am invoking my right to an attorney.”

And then shut up and do not say a single thing to them for any reason whatsoever until you have actually spoken to an attorney. Yes, even if it takes hours. Yes, even if they start talking to you about something else.

Finally, a very important disclaimer:

I may be a lawyer, but I’m not your lawyer, and I cannot guarantee that what I’ve just laid out here will always work for every situation. We didn’t get to this bizarre and absurd place overnight – we built this ridiculous system piecemeal, by deciding on a case-by-case basis that certain phrases were “too ambiguous” or certain types of questioning weren’t actually questioning at all. The law is still in flux, and is still fundamentally out to get you, and willing to bend plain meaning beyond all recognition to do it. Even if you invoke your rights perfectly, exactly as I have specified above, there’s a chance that your invocation of rights will be disqualified on some new technicality that no one’s even thought of yet – and that’s precisely the problem.

Watch this video: “Don’t Talk To The Police”

(via redacted-metallum)

I have become increasingly less comfortable watching violence on TV and since living alone I have also become 100% more anxious meaning Criminal Minds is a shitty fucking special interest to have because I only like to watch the parts where they’re talking to each other and even then I get scared and/ or uncomfortable

cassidybychance:

“Johann Scheff, trans lady SW arrested in 1932 for nicking women’s clothes from a department store in Berlin.”
We’ve always been here. Not even book burnings can truly erase it.

(via julykings)

headspace-hotel:

rpmaniac:

jlegaspi178:

histerinae:

jlegaspi178:

urbanfantasyinspiration:

My God they actually look like dogs now

Lord, the changes! DO PUGS NEXT!!!

ACTUALLY! A breeder in Germany started to breed healthier pugs called “retro mops” and currebtly ppl are trying to get AKC and UKC to recongnize them as the new standard.

heres the comparison:

Reblogging with updates! Healthy bulldogs AND healthy pugs! ❤️

The absurd breed standards are a recent thing, developed in the past 100-150 years. The healthier breeds are much closer to their 19th century ancestors.

A pair of French bulldogs painted by Carl Reichert (1836-1918)

“Sweet Temptation or Willpower”

Charles Van den Eycken, 1891.

“Sweet temptation or willpower” I love that painting so much

(via anathematic)

orteil42:

i need you all to lend me your strength i’ve spent the last several days exhausted at the mere thought of the insurmountable task ahead of me [regular thing i have accomplished multiple times before]

Anonymous asked:

opinion on the pals over at r/cookieclicker

orteil42:

orteil42:

redditors and cookie clicker players. pick a struggle

i’m sorry i can’t do this i can’t be mean to people who enjoy my stuff even as a joke! if you’ve played my games i love you and when i die you too will be entombed in my pyramid

delphinidin4:

His sweatshirt reads, “Pro-child, pro-family, pro-choice”. His sash says “honored guest”. His pin says, “honorary sister”.

(via redacted-metallum)

deeperspacenine:

Image ID: a picture of a desert captioned ‘this is not a wasteland’ and a picture of an empty parking lot, captioned ‘this is’. End ID

(via fuckinnightangel)

portmanteaurian:

still thinking about yesterdya’s nancy, it’s so so good

(via welpnotagain)