Read the rumor that Chris Pratt is accepting voice work bc he's unvaccinated and can't get in-person gigs, and you know what? I'm a truther now. This is my flat earth. This is my conspiracy theory I wholeheartedly accept
He could post a video of himself getting vaccinated and flash his vaccination card on camera and I'd still be like, this is clearly CGI. Look at the way the needle clips through his skin. Fake news.
I’m sorry but that’s fucking hilarious
spiritual successor to “this is just to say”
The first time I heard my parents swear, I was about 6 and my dad and I were buidling something out of two-by-fours in the garage and he hit his thumb with a hammer and, naturally, yelled “SHIT!”
I stared at him.
He stared at me, eyes watering.
“Now listen,” he said, forcing himself to remain calm as he held his rapidly-becoming purple thumb. “-That’s a word we say ONLY when we’re Really, Really hurt. Now go get your mother.”
And for an improvised moment of parenting, that was actually brilliant because I was a clumsy, uncoordinated child and was basically constantly falling, running into walls, knocking shit over and generally sounding like I was involved in a fatal accident in the other room, but now my parents knew not to worry unless they heard the reedy voice of a pained elementary schooler shrieking “SHIT!”
My teachers on the other hand, were significantly less appreciative of my father’s genius.
Anonymous asked:
Why do the British say the opposite of what they mean and call it being polite?
realphilosophytube answered:
A conversation between two people has a shared meaning that you construct together, right? Like if we have a conversation, we have to come to some agreement about what the takeaway from it was. “We passed the time,” “We discussed politics,” “We flirted,” or whatever.
The British conversational idiom isn’t about saying the opposite of what you mean per se, it’s about giving your conversational partner enough interpretive room that, if they want to, they can retroactively change the shared meaning of the conversation without explicitly acknowledging that that’s what they’ve done, and so save them from embarrassment. An example would be two people having a conversation that could be interpreted as flirting, or as innocuous. By being indirect, they give each other room to either advance by becoming more direct (making the takeaway “We flirted”) or back out at any point (making the takeaway “We chatted about how fond we both are of our platonic friendship”) without having to make themselves emotionally vulnerable by actually saying what they want. Which is why some British people find it rude when you back them into a conversational corner and the only way out is to actually say what they want explicitly: it’s considered rude to force other people to be emotionally open. The whole point is that you’re supposed to play the game together in such a way that you don’t have to do that: to fail shows either a lack of conversational skill or a lack of care for your conversation partner’s feelings.
None of this is ever made explicit, of course: that would be rude.
That’s why many Americans are rubbish at verbal flirting, but they make excellent long-term relationship partners.
Most days I’m ambivalent about being gay, but sometimes it’s a relief not to be a straight boy ™
Shut up, this rules, you corny bookworm motherfucker.
Sometimes I go to myself "you know, I don't understand what NFTs are" and then I go look it up again and discover, yes, actually I do know what NFTs are. It's just that every time I read about them again I'm left going "this CAN'T be it, there has to be something else to make this make sense" and the answer is always no.
When one thinks about "ancient" Native American civilizations and ruins... the thing is that... most of them, they weren't ancient. The Inca were not fully conquered by the Spanish until 1572... for reference, the Mona Lisa was painted in 1502 and Martin Luther made the 95 Theses in 1517.. the "ancient" Aztec Empire was younger than the university of Oxford founded in the 11th century, Montezuma lived at the same time than Leonardo Da Vinci... There are castles that are younger than Machu Picchu, those cities were inhabited by millions just a few centuries ago, and some (Cuzco, México), many actually, are still inhabited today. People speak about the Ancient Maya as if it was some mysterious civilization that was lost, and while it was past its prime at the time of European conquest, the Maya still had city-states and were living in the same areas they live today.
There are still millions of people, right now, who speak Quechua, Nahuatl, and Maya in all their dialects, and I'm just talking about the three most well-known civilizations here... there are millions of Native Americans who still speak their languages and practice their culture and beliefs alive, both thriving and struggling today.
Talking about the "Ancient Inca" or "Ancient Aztecs" makes as much sense as talking about the "Ancient Dutch" or the "Ancient Swedes", and it's another way of erasing them, saying that they just aren't around anymore just like say the Sumerians, or that they just weren't relevant to world history. They were contemporaries to modernity and they're still alive today.
You can talk about the Ancient Olmecs or Ancient Chavín though. Because the Inca and the Aztecs are relatively "modern" but their cultures were just the latest from a cycle of civilizations stretching millenia before Christ.
If you like Hawai'i because it's fucking beautiful and the waters are perfectly clear.
Then you should support the decolonization of Hawai'i and give it back to the indigenous peoples there because they are why it's so beautiful and the waters are perfectly clear.
And while we're at it support #Land Back because if we give authority to care for the indigenous people here on the main land, we can probably have a place that's that beautiful as well (assuming it's not too far gone yet).
-fae
Native Hawaiians are only a minority because colonizers came in, brought diseases, murdered them, then forced them to convert to Christianity.
You don't get to gather a group of your best friends, break into a house, kill the whole family but the kid, live there for 20 years, then complain about minority rule when the kid says "Yo. Can I have my house back?"
-fae
Muppet Frankenstein, where the only human actor is the Monster, and he has no prosthetics. Everyone just reacts to the one human in their world as a horrific monster. The body parts before the animation are even visibly felt Muppet limbs, but the creature rises as a human.
The chronicle of the monk Herbert of Reichenau for the year 1021 ends “My brother Werner was born on November 1.“
1021 was not an uneventful year. The emperor began a campaign into Italy. Illustrious abbots died. There was an earthquake. But Herbert took the time to note, at the end of the year, that his brother was born.
Of such acts of tenderness is history made.
This post broke through the shell of crustiness on my medievalist heart and made me go ‘aww’.
There was a medieval parenting manual that recommended parents smack pieces of furniture their toddlers bumped into and scold the furniture for being so naughty as to get in the way, so that the kids would laugh and forget about their bumps and bruises
I read that and my heart melted
(source: Medieval Women by Deirdre Jackson. She cited the primary source but I cannot for the life of me find the book to check what it was called)
We should hold a thousandth birthday party for Werner in a couple of years.
