what are you, a bad at geography gay, bad at driving gay, or doesnât sit in socially acceptable ways gay?

blake kathryn

Kiana Khansmith
Today's Document
trying on a metaphor

titsay

taylor price
RMH

pixel skylines
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
Claire Keane
Xuebing Du
Three Goblin Art
Aqua Utopiaď˝ćľˇăŽĺşă§č¨ćśăç´Ąă

⣠Chile in a Photography âŁ
KIROKAZE

PR's Tumblrdome
occasionally subtle

if i look back, i am lost
seen from United States

seen from Canada
seen from United States

seen from Uruguay

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Singapore
seen from Malaysia
seen from TĂźrkiye

seen from United States

seen from Japan
seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from Kenya

seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from Japan

seen from Mexico

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
@bitey-cat
what are you, a bad at geography gay, bad at driving gay, or doesnât sit in socially acceptable ways gay?

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
If you have a cat please reblog this with its name please and thank you
my primary reaction to infinity war is likeâŚ. wow. under hypercapitalism we literally canât imagine any other fables about resource scarcity, huh?
iâm not even talking about only thanos. every time thanos said his plan to kill half the galaxy (because itâs âfinite,â lol ok one-semester-of-econ guy) the other characters were like âno!â or âyou canât!â or âthatâs madness!â instead of⌠counter-arguing, or saying anything like âcouldnât you just⌠double the resources with a snap of your fingers?â obviously, nobody wants thanos to murder all those people, but itâs also as if everyone tacitly accepts his framing of the problem. âi want to kill half the universe because of resource scarcity,â he says, and everyone says âno, thatâs too cruel!!â instead of âwait⌠wait just a fucking second there, paul ryan.â they donât even have a line like that even when theyâre talking amongst themselves, just musing at how twisted his worldview is, that he can only imagine infinite power as an infinite power to kill. no time is spent imagining an alternative.
and i canât help but think about how we in the quote-unquote âfirst worldâ treat the resource consumption of the so-called âdeveloping world.â we, who have enjoyed the pleasures and benefits of fridges and air conditioning and televisions and cars and convenience food and all that shit for generations: we look at the growing energy & plastics consumption of the developing world and go âuh oh, theyâre really running the tab up over there, we canât let this happen, think of theâŚ. trees!!!â we have the audacity to act like people living in poverty in the tropics wanting window fans is selfish and short-sighted for the environment, and meanwhile we use and waste all the energy and resources we can get ahold of, like a continent full of montgomery burnses.
infinity war could have taken thanosâs approach to scarcity somewhere bigger: somewhere that was useful as a parable for our hypocrisy. the way that ragnarok was brave enough to make a parable of empire; the way that black panther could explore diaspora and identity; the way that the winter soldier actually had something to say about the surveillance-terror state. but for all the moving pieces of infinity war, i donât think it knew where its central ethic rested. certainly, its characters showed the desire to preserve and protect life. but thatâs true of any superhero film.
what it comes down to for me, is that itâs not enough for this movieâs theme to be âletâs protect people, because killing people is bad!â or even, sorry steve, âwe donât trade lives.â itâs not enough. thanos basically says, âthereâs one bowl of soup and one spoon and two hungry people, so one of them has to die.â so what i needed was someone to openly reject that whole proposition. not just âno, you shouldnât kill trillions,â but âno, that is fucking ludicrous, i reject that worldview. i reject human life as a brutal competition. group survival, even in the face of scarcity or hardship, is exactly what the fuck we developed culture for.â like, we could use that message. that message, delivered palatably in a blockbuster action movie, could do some good.
but it wasnât really in there. maybe in little bits, in pieces. maybe. so iâm sure weâre going to have to endure a bunch of âwelllll, thanos was a bad guy, but he did have a point about scarcityâ metas. because weâre still failing to see how asking other people to die so that the rest can enjoy plenty is itself exactly the fucking problem on this bitch of an earth
i will acknowledge that gamora comes the closest to doing this. gamora comes down on thanos for slaughtering half her planet. but!! but! then thanos gets this horrible line about how the children who grew up after his genocide got to have âfull belliesâ and the planetâs a âutopiaâ now. and what does gamora get to say back to that? nothing! she doesnât get a line after that! she looks angry and grief-stricken, but the writers donât give her a single fucking thing to say in disagreement!! like, how about: âgrowing up as a traumatized survivor of genocide isnât very fucking utopian????â the writers couldnât imagine that fucking line?
Yay Iâm not the only one who thought, âOh no, at some point Iâm going to inevitably run into some jackhole trying to defend Thanos as having a pointâŚâ, and âOR you could just create more resources and distribute them equitably?â
I was so fucking pissed about that, because we KNOW what happens to cultures when substantial percentages of the population are eradicated by famine or disease or war. It is not a good time! It is not twenty years later and everyoneâs well fed! Because if you eradicate 50% of a population, you destroy labour, you destroy infrastructure, you screw absolutely everything for the survivors.
THIS! Halving the population vs doubling the population hypothetically has the SAME DAMN EFFECT on population growth. Unless Thanosâ actual goal was to cripple the population in the way the previous post mentions.
And donât think for a fucking minute that Thanos is not an unreliable source for whatâs happening on Gamoraâs planet.
The longer this movie sits, the angrier I get. I will not be seeing it a second time in theaters.
I havenât seen any of those movies, but this strikes me as a Necessary Take on a villain in 2018 spouting college-student overpopulation rhetoric.
I am not a fan of college-student overpopulation rhetoric.
I am ⌠Even less a fan of this big-budget franchise choosing it as a motive in 2018.
There have been many genocides in human history, and not one of those populations has bounced back with a cheery âGosh, with all THOSE fuckers gone, I can finally stuff my face with croissants and accumulate wealth!â
The only way that killing some people results in other people getting more stuff is if you kill the people who hoard disproportionate amounts of The Most Stuff, and take their stuff on behalf of people who have less stuff. And that is called a Revolution, and that is frowned upon and considered antisocial in most circumstances. Stuff is distributed unequally. Itâs a fact. Killing half of people does not magically free up 50% more stuff.
I donât know how seriously people take the âfinite amount of energy in the universeâ thing, but itâs something that creationists attempt to use to bully everyone else. The idea is that it makes evolution seem improbable, âbecause entropy.â Under creationism, âentropyâ means âthings inevitably getting worseâ and it fits in well with their view of the world. They think itâs physics. Creationists say âenergy in a system dissipatesâ, and ask how life could evolve and be complex without God to power it.
The gentle stock response is that Earth is not a closed system. It receives a constant source of energy. This energy comes from the Sun. We have a direct conduit to a sufficient amount of energy to power the life force of the planet, in terms of Making And Eating Stuff. The Sun shines on the Earth, it grows the plants, and everything eats the plants or each other. (All of the other stuff happening on Earth is basically recreation.) but while the Sun will one day burn out, the plants do not eat up the Sun. Even if every square inch of the sinful earth was covered in greedy trees and cabbages, the Sun would continue to shine on it. Thatâs the energy source. Itâs. The Sun. Itâs usually up there somewhere.
So, like, if people are justifying genocide with âoh well, there was limited energy in the universeâ then, like, do these Marvel movies take place somewhere without anyone having heard of the Sun? Does their planet have a plug leading out the back, thatâs plugged into a big pot of fossil fuels? Does everyone have a mild concussion that makes teenage-philosophy-Discourse sound edgy and deep? Is the Sun in their universe actually just a Chris in a very large hat? This piece of lore worries and vexes me
(ETA) SHIT, FUCK, I THINK THIS IS SPOILERS. IâM SO SORRY. I REALLY DONâT KNOW THIS FANDOM, I JUST REALIZED IT MIGHT BE SPOILERS. IâM SO SORRY
I have had this on my mind for days, someone please help:
Why are dogs dogs?
I mean, how do we see a pug and then a husky and understand that both are dogs? Iâm pretty sure Iâve never seen a picture of a breed of dog I hadnât seen before and wondered what animal it was.
Do you want the Big Answer or the Small Answers cos I have a feeling this is about to get Intense
Oooh okay are YOU gonna answer this, hang on I need to get some snacks and make sure the phone is off.
The short answer is âbecause theyâre statistically unlikely to be anything else.â
The long question is âgiven the extreme diversity of morphology in dogs, with many subsets of âdogsâ bearing no visual resemblance to each other, how am I able to intuit that they belong to the âdogâ set just by looking?â
The reason that this is a Good Big Question is because we are broadly used to categorising Things as related based on resemblances. Then everyone realized about genes and evolution and so on, and so now we have Fun Facts like âelephants are ACTUALLY closely related to rock hyraxes!! Even though they look nothing alike!!â
These Fun Facts are appealing because theyâre not intuitive. So why is dog-sorting intuitive?
Well, because if you eliminate all the other possibilities, most dogs are dogs.
To process Things - whether animals, words, situations or experiences - our brains categorise the most important things about them, and then compare these to our memory banks. If weâve experienced the same thing before - whether first-hand or through a story - then we know whatâs happening, and we proceed accordingly.
If the New Thing is completely New, then the brain pings up a bunch of question marks, shunts into a different track, counts up all the Similar Traits, and assigns it a provisional category based on its similarity to other Things. We then experience the Thing, exploring it further, and gaining new knowledge. Our brain then categorises the New Thing based on the knowledge and traits. That is how humans experience the universe. We do our best, and we generally do it well.
This is the basis of stereotyping. It underlies some of our worst behaviours (racism), some of our most challenging problems (trauma), helps us survive (stories) and sharing the ability with things that donât have it leads to some of our most whimsical creations (artificial intelligence.)
In fact, one reason that humans are so wonderfully successful is that we can effectively gain knowledge from experiences without having experienced them personally! You donât have to eat all the berries to find the poisonous ones. You can just remember stories and descriptions of berries, and compare those to the ones youâve just discovered. You can benefit from memories that arenât your own!
On the other hand, if you had a terribly traumatic experience involving, say, an eagle, then your brain will try to protect you in every way possible from a similar experience. If you collect too many traumatic experiences with eagles, then your brain will not enjoy eagle-shaped New Things. In fact, if New Things match up to too many eagle-like categories, such as
* pointy * Specific!! Squawking noise!! * The hot Glare of the Yellow Eye * Patriotism?!? * CLAWS VERY BAD VERY BAD
Then the brain may shunt the train of thought back into trauma, and the person will actually experience the New Thing as trauma. Even if the New Thing was something apparently unrelated, like being generally pointy, or having a hot glare. (This is an overly simplistic explanation of how triggers work, but itâs the one most accessible to people.)
So the answer rests in how we categorise dogs, and what âdogâ means to humans. Human brains associate dogs with universal categories, such as
* four legs * Meat Eater * Soft friend * Doggo-ness???? * Walkies * An Snout, * BORK BORK
Anything we have previously experienced and learned as A Dog gets added to the memory bank. Sometimes it brings new categories along with it. So a lifetimeâs experience results in excellent dog-intuition.
And anything we experience with, say, a 90% match is officially a Dog.
Brains are super-good at eliminating things, too. So while the concept of physical doggo-ness is pretty nebulous, and has to include greyhounds and Pekingese and mastiffs, we know that even if an animal LOOKS like a bear, if the other categories donât match up in context (bears are not usually soft friends, they donât Bork Bork, they donât have long tails to wag) then it is statistically more likely to be a Doggo. If it occupies a dog-shaped space then it is usually a dog.
So if you see someone dragging a fluffy whatnot along on a string, you will go,
* Mop?? (Unlikely - seems to be self-propelled.) * Alien? (Unlikely - no real alien ever experienced.) * Threat? (Vastly unlikely in context.) * Rabbit? (No. Rabbits hop, and this appears to scurry.) (Brains are very keen on categorising movement patterns. This is why lurching zombies and bad CGI are so uncomfortable to experience, brains just go âINCORRECT!! That is WRONG!â Without consciously knowing why. Anyway, very few animals move like domestic dogs!) * Very fluffy cat? (Maybe - but not quite. Shares many characteristics, though!) * Eldritch horror? (No, it is obviously a soft friend of unknown type) * Robotic toy? (Unlikely - too complex and convincing.) * alert: amusing animal detected!!! This is a good animal!! This is pleasing!! It may be appropriate to laugh at this animal, because we have just realized that it is probably a ⌠* DOG!!!! Soft friend, alive, walks on leash. It had a low doggo-ness quotient! and a confusing Snout, but it is NOT those other Known Things, and it occupies a dog-shaped space! * Hahahaha!!! It is extra funny and appealing, because it made us guess!!!! We love playing that game. * Best doggo. * PING! NEW CATEGORIES ADDED TO âDoggoâ set: mopness, floof, confusing Snout.
And thatâs why most dogs are dogs. Youâre so good at identifying dog-shaped spaces that they canât be anything else!
This is sooo CUTE!
I love this!
@elodieunderglass thank you for teaching me a New Thingâ˘ď¸
Youâre very welcome!
Technically the cognitive process of quantifying Doggo-ness is called a schema. But I wrote it a while ago, on mobile, at about 4 am, while nursing a newborn baby with the other arm, and Iâm frankly astonished that I was able to continue a single train of thought for that long, let alone remembering Actual Names For Things (That Have Names.) I strongly encourage you to learn more about schemata if you are interested in this sort of thing!
What you are talking about is Cladistics. Come up with a schema, make a tree that separates dogs from non dogs, and although this may be a good way for us to recognize a dog if you meet one in the street, it is not actually answering the question of what makes a dog a dog and not something else.
The organic definition of a Species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and have fertile young. Odd as it may be, dogs can all interbreed, although some pairings (chihuahua/Great Dane) might boggle the imagination, dogs mate and have dog kids. This is how new breeds are made.
This does have a problem in that the borders are fuzzier than you may think, because Dogs can breed with wolves. This gets even more complex since wolves can breed with coyotes, and although I have never seen a dog/coyote mix, there is actually one group of thought that they may all be one species.
One opinion is that dogs should be considered a subspecies of wolves, Canis lupus familiaris.
The real way animals are classified today is by phylogeny (genetic descent). Dogs come from other dogs, so if an animalâs parent is a dog, they are likely a dog. Sometime in the ancient past was the first dog, and all of the dogs today are related to it.
I am afraid that you are incorrect on several points. FIrst, that is not the question. You fundamentally misunderstood the OPâs question, as well as my own rephrasing of Gurdyâs question, which was, as OP said very clearly:
how do we see a pug and then a husky and understand that both are dogs?
Which I rephrased it as:
given the extreme diversity of morphology in dogs, with many subsets of âdogsâ bearing no visual resemblance to each other, how am I able to intuit that they belong to the âdogâ set just by looking?
Or, as you rephrased it: âthis may be a good way for us to recognize a dog if you meet one in the streetâ
Yes
Yes it is
Unfortunately you have answered the question âwhat is a dogâ (which wasnât asked) by describing âsome characteristics of dogsâ and concluding âdogs are a species of dogs.â That was never a question in this post, and it is not the answer to this question either, and youâre not quite correct about what a âspeciesâ is. But I am endlessly happy to talk about this at GREAT LENGTH. because your understanding of a species COULD BE BETTER. And by the end of this LONG POST it damn well will be. We are now going back to class.
Press J to skip it on your dash.
The answer to the question âwhat makes a species a species?â is not, as you put it, âwell you see actually, a species is a species.â
A species is actually defined as a bundle of particular characteristics, which include what it can make babies with - but which remain a distinctive identity regardless of what that organism can fuck.
We donât know how blurred the sexual/reproductive boundaries between the different types of prehistoric beasts were, on account of how you canât intuit that from a single gatdamn fossil, but we sit down and give âem their own binomial names anyway, because we define species based on specific characters.
The reason we use the concept of âspeciesâ to begin with is because we need it to communicate; we know that domestic horses and wild zebras are necessarily distinctive, and we intuit that even though they can interbreed and produce occasionally viable offspring, they are not the same animal, and each has a discrete identity. Part of this is because technically they might breed, but they wouldnât normally. (Nor would wolves and coyotes.) Another part is that they fulfill different niches and exhibit different natural behaviors. And still another part is physical characterisics; the adaptations of a zebra to its environment are unique, and itâs reasonable that they should contribute to the overall definition of âzebra.â Thus, if you were describing âa specific species of zebraâ you reach for the traits that are distinctive - âA specific population of zebras, sharing characteristic appearance/behavior/territory/social structure/genetic quirkâ - not a list of everything that they could conceivably fuck, and not an argument that two distinctive species of zebras are actually both horses. Animals within a species have more in common with each other than animals that donât. Given all of the blurring that occurs around issues of reproduction, this is a fundamental part of the definition of a species.
Thus, stating that the complete and entire definition of a species as âanimals that can breedâ is itself extremely problematic, and shied away from by anyone whoâs ever stood on the other side of the lecture podium.
Hereâs what you say instead, when youâre an official adult scientist:
A species is a defined population of living organisms with a group of distinctive characteristics, which include the ability to exchange genes to produce fertile offspring that share those characteristics. Individuals within the same species have more in common with each other than they do with individuals outside of the species.
If you donât hit every single one of those points in your definition, then youâre not going to get the right answer.
The better answer to the question âWhat is a dogâ is actually more like:
âA domestic canine, Canis familiaris, is a terrestrial carnivore selectively bred over generations from a common ancestor shared with the modern gray wolf (Canis lupus) to suit specific human needs. The domestic dog exhibits extreme morphological diversity and has been bred for a large array of behaviors and characteristics, from herding other animals to providing medical aid. While dogs can breed with other canids and produce viable offspring, the domestic dog has distinctive characteristics, including a delayed period of childhood compared to wolves, increased attention and understanding of human nonverbal cues, increased ability to coexist with low aggression in close quarters with other species, and the ability to live on pet food made largely out of grain, which wolves canât do, and which is pretty bloody weird if you think about it.â
That way, youâve covered your goddamn ass. Because otherwise some perky undergraduate is going to put their hand up and ask âbut what about wild coydogs?â And now you can answer, âCoydogs in wild settings, despite having domestic dog ancestry and being capable of breeding with other canids, are not considered domestic dogs because they do not share enough key characteristics with domestic dogs.â
âWhat about coydogs in domestic settings? Or my Aunt Maudâs wolfdog?â
âIf a wild canid/domestic canid crossbreed meets enough criteria for domestic dogs, it would be considered a domestic dog. Your Aunt Maudâs wolfdog was in all probability just a husky with weird eyebrows anyway, but if it ate kibble, was allowed around children, and was completely emotionally fulfilled by living with humans in a house, it did not share the traits of wolves.â
âBut what about black wolves?â will come a question from a reasonably well-informed kid at the back. âBlack wolves are only black because of domestic dog ancestry. Does that make them dogs?â
âIf they fulfill the role and function - the niche - of wolves, then we call them wolves,â I say with utter serenity.
âBut what about infertile dogs that canât breed with anything?â
âIf they share the characteristics of domestic dogs, they remain dogs,â I reply, âRegardless of what would happen if they theoretically fucked a wolf.â
âWhat about beings that reproduce asexually, or without having sex?â asks a smart and clever student.
âExcellent question,â I say. âArenât you glad that our nice big definition of a species includes those awkward outliers too? Otherwise thereâd be no point in having the word, now would there? We will note, though, that organisms such as bacteria are not usually defined by species, but by strain - a different word - since bacteria divide asexually and live everywhere at all times with no real regional differences, so âspeciesâ no longer means much when you zoom in that far. After all, âspeciesâ is only meant to be a useful concept for humans to sort animals with; it isnât actually engraved in the genetic code anywhere, like a serial number that actually means something.â
The predictable hand goes up: âWhat if, like, dogs keep evolving? Like in the future, if people all evolve to live underwater and so do our pets?â
I answer first, âThat would be weird,â in the traditional looking-over-the-tops-of-your-glasses flat affect; then I continue, âThe current understanding of dogs is âterrestrial carnivore,â so if they became fully adapted as aquatic carnivores I suppose we could call them their own species - a seadog descended from terrestrial dogs; or simply still call it a dog and expand the definition of dogness, like how we speak of âdialingâ a number even though phones no longer have physical dials. Both are legitimate; species boundaries are constantly being re-evaluated and redrawn, based on scientists learning new information about the species. Because the definition of a species is simply not limited to what it makes babies with.â
I pause, feeling like it would be irresponsible not to add a personal safety announcement here. âAlso, do NOT presume to BEGIN to have this conversation with birdwatchers or Bird People. For your own safety, if you ever meet an ornithologist in a dark alley, forget COMPLETELY about this idea that the concept of a species is based even REMOTELY on âproducing viable offspring.â The subtleties of different bird species can be characterized based on minor variations in song. People have meetings about this, at which they throw chairs. DONâT GET INVOLVED.â
âWhatâs the point then?â says a petulant student. âLike, if we all know what a dog is.â
And I reply, âExactly! We invented language to communicate, and we impose it upon the natural world, drawing distinct and arbitrary boundaries in order to communicate, despite the natural world being a teeming, nebulous, essentially un-quantifiable n-dimensional hypervolume that resists such boundaries; Nature abhors a vacuum, and loves a grey area, but humans prefer to articulate abstract concepts using concrete language forms, even if doing so is fundamentally inaccurate.â
âBut what if a Chihuahua fucked a wolf AND THEN-â
âRING SPECIES,â I bellow suddenly, interrupting a discussion that always degenerates into someoneâs contorted furry/wolfkin/OC fantasies, by forcibly moving to the next slide: âARE SAID TO OCCUR WHERE A POPULATION RINGING A GEOGRAPHIC OBSTACLE, SUCH AS THE SEAGULL POPULATIONS AROUND THE NORTH POLE, CAN BREED WITH THE POPULATIONS ON EITHER SIDE OF THEM BUT NOT WITH POPULATIONS ACROSS THE CIRCLE. EVERY DISTINCT POPULATION IS USUALLY CONSIDERED A SEPARATE SPECIES, AND -â
In conclusion, there is no shame in being wrong, but see how much easier it is to teach others, once you lay the groundwork for being correct?
Apologies to everyone else who was dragged along on this Magic School Bus ride, and went through the entire five stages of grief because of it.
Iâm watching Doomsday Preppers. These people have an unbelievably bleak view of humanity, like, Iâm just saying my family survived the complete disintegration of Lebanese civil society without shanking their neighbours for water or stockpiling hand grenades.
If your reaction to a foreseen future economic collapse is to set traps and stockpile guns to kill your neighbours who want some of your huge food stock, you are broken and I have no idea how to fix you.
^^^ The ability to cooperate with others is an evolutionary advantageÂ
My husband and I used to think we were âpreppers,â until we discovered that for most people, âpreppingâ means hoarding guns and ammo and bear traps and nonsense like that, and planning to turn on other survivors in the event of some society-destroying cataclysm. And here we were geeking out about woodworking and first aid and sustainable edibles foraging and water purification and subsistence farming and how best to set up an agrarian community to maximize square footage.
Turns out weâre just prepared solarpunks. I think Iâm fine with that. Miss me with the toxic, gun-crazy, neighbor-hating Prepper culture and join me in my garden of native wild edibles.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Also how can Arthur Conan Doyle write a character like Irene Adler 1891 and have her 1. Outsmart Sherlock Holmes and get away with it and 2. Be in no way a damsel or love interest to Sherlock.. But every modern retelling not only has her be a sexual /love interest character but she is posed as being very very smart⌠But never smart enough to just outwit him, get away with it and move on? Women can be smart, sure, but no one is allowed to be smarter than Sherlock.
Itâs been over 120 years and Irene is, at her best, never as decently treated as the original.
Arthur Conan Doyle: Hereâs a story about male insecurity where the police underestimate her for being a woman and feel the need to get her because sheâs a woman and Sherlock is ultimately beaten by a woman and in a bit of character development accepts it and acknowledges her intellect.
Sherlock fans: Uh no way Sherlock is smart Sherlock is so so smart she must have used her feminine wiles or her sexy things or her love to undermine him but he gets her in the end i feel a strange catharsis at changing this ending but Iâm sure Doyle always meant to be this way, it just feels right.
Half of the reason that Adler was able to out-wit Holmes was because Holmes was too narrow-minded. Holmes is smart and has knowledge of many subjects, but he also strongly relies on social order and norms to solve crimes. Heâs even says in A Scandal in Bohemia that:
âWhen a woman thinks that her house is on fire, her instinct is at once to rush to thing which she values most. It is a perfectly overpowering impulse, and I have more than once taken advantage of it ⌠A married woman grabs at her baby; an unmarried one reaches for her jewel-box.â
Holmes uses this social norm and order to stage an attack and find out where Adler hid the photo in her house. He drops his guard and is so proud of himself because he knew that this would work, he knew that if he created disorder, ânaturalâ order would attempt to counteract that disorder.
Adler defies those social orders and norms: she is an untitled American woman who earned her own money through a career as an opera star, instead of relying on a husband or family to have financial security; she outwitted Holmes because she cross-dressed and indicated that she frequently did so, allowing her to have a lot more freedom roaming around London on her own terms, and her stage career aided that so that she could act like a man easily; and she didnât care one bit about her reputation or being a âpureâ woman, had several boyfriends, and was known for being an âadventuressâ. More importantly, she had the ability to defy those social norms while simultaneously being able to present herself as the ideal respectable and under-estimable Victorian-era woman.
Adler literally defeats Holmes by dressing in drag then happily goes off with her new husband whom she loves very much. And Holmes respects that and is thoroughly impressed. Not only does he respect that, he realizes that he was on the wrong side of things, that he shouldnât have agreed to take on the case for the King of Bohemia. This is the exchange that follows after Holmes, Watson and the King read Adlerâs letter.
âWould she not have made an admirable queen? Is it not a pity that she was not on my level?â
âFrom what I have seen of the lady she seems indeed to be on a very different level to your Majesty,â said Holmes coldly
Holmes takes Adlerâs side and realizes that the photograph is her protection from the King, not something she intended to use as a weapon against him. Adler never exploited the King to get what she wanted, only kept it as a safeguard of her own happiness. She made sure she had a way of ensuring that she alone guided her future.
Irene Adler is âthe womanâ to Sherlock Holmes, not because she was sexy or he was in love with her. She was a reminder that real life doesnât always follow what social norms and order are to be expected, that people shouldnât be taken on face value or respected just because of their title or apparent respectability and ability to follow social order and norms, and that there are two sides to every story.
Take a lesson from Sherlock Holmes, people. Doyle knew what he was doing. If weâre going to keep making him roll over in his grave from creating Sherlock Holmes media, please, at least respect him and Irene Adler.
Another key thing to remember about this story is that it is Holmes agreeing to help an abusive ex-boyfriend erase his ex. And Holmes comes to deeply regret doing this, realising that it was wrong.
This is the case where Holmes was the bad guy - and he realised it. This is a powerful commentary on his character; the moment where, in flippant pursuit of a puzzle, he realized he was simply acting as the catâs-paw of a malicious little man. That moment when a fun puzzle of matching wits shows the other side; where the fog of the thrill of the hunt shows the perspective of the fox, desperate, cornered by the blind brute malice of a hound, saving her own life. Thatâs all she wants; not revenge, not a long con, but her own life. It isnât punched home hard enough, but itâs still a punch: The Great Literary Hero, trapped in his own narrative, realising that he has more fellow-feeling for the fox than his master.
The only reason Irene kept the photograph was to protect herself. She wasnât blackmailing the King for wealth or influence; she just wanted to lead a normal life without being stalked, kidnapped, robbed and/or killed. She was a good person; she had a fiancĂŠ she loved and a plan for a nice life; she never planned to bother the King. The King planned to obliterate that, simply to save himself from potential embarrassment.
Holmes as an archetype has few classical ideals, but a moral code is one of them. Gutting that from the story simply shows you havenât read it.
And changing the story to âsexy lady make Holm go Wowâ is just a weird kind of wish fulfilment - better served by writing a female OC of your own - itâs not under copyright after all.
you know what i need??? more myth and superstition in scifi.
give me starship captains like the sailors of old, weathered and wary of the vast beast that is deep space, who religiously keep their own personal traditions and rituals to appease her and guide their ships safely through her vast depths.
give me wide-eyed ensigns eagerly drinking in tales of great creatures of the void, space whales and other more malevolent leviathans, dismissed as tall tales by more cynical cadets who only trust the sense of their own eyes.
give me whispered accounts of ghost vessels, lost long ago in great battles across the universe, populated by a literal skeleton crew.
give me a space bermuda triangle.
give me a universe as cold and unfathomable as the ocean, and no less mysterious and forboding.
I think thereâs a massive potential for this in the Star Wars universe. Iâve seen it done in fics. It would be really cool if there was more. Solo has the tiniest suggestion of it.
if you firmly believe cowboy cats would say meowdy hit that mf reblog
some oddly specific advice from Hesiod (c700 BC)
which thicc girl hurt you (and stole your grain)
Looking up makeup tutorials for How To Paint Pretty Symbols on Your Own Ass (To Look Like The Slayer of Men and Deceitful Acquirer of Grain That You Really Are Inside)

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
how do you take photos of your books outside without looking like a fool? asking for a friend who keeps taking blurry photos because theyâre trying to be quick about it and is failing miserably
So I made a discovery a while ago, going to all of my school dances throughout middle and high school, and it is this: the more uninhibitedly ridiculous you can be, the better you feel AND LOOK. People would ask me occasionally how I learned to dance, or say that they could never actually move their bodies and have fun at this event designed specifically for those things because they didn't know how to do it in some mythical "right way". Y'all, I just kind of bounce and spin weirdly when I try to dance to popular music without preplanned choreography, and people would compliment me on it. You only look awkward if you feel awkward.
Basically what I'm saying, with regards to the book thing and to life, is to embrace looking like a fool. Maybe you will sometimes. It will not kill you, I promise. The people who love you will still love you. But the more practice you get in just doing the shit you feel like doing without caring whether you look silly, the more people are gonna be like, "dang, you're so cool, how do you do that without looking dumb? I'd look dumb." Because most things don't look dumb at all unless you're halfheartedly cringing your way through it because you're convinced you look dumb.
monster fucker kinsey scale incoming donât ever tell me what i canât do, son
Iâm about a 1.33333
âLady Middayâ or the âNoon Witch" is a noon demon from Slavic mythology.  Sheâs a manifestation of a heatstroke. :) Iâm working on my second mini comic; âFemme Fatale Vol. 2!â which is a collection of myths feat. deadly ladies. âĄÂ
Antarctica is about to have its first ever Pride
Antarctica is set to have its first ever Pride event thanks to a group of LGBTQ+ people based in an Antarctic research center.Â
(images by Planting Peace)
that penguin has never seen so many colors at once and is having the time of their life
A PRIDEGUIN :D
One of my good friends just came out to her boyfriend about being ace. She was so worried about it, and sheâs used to having to explain what asexuality even is, even before she can worry about getting acceptance for it.Â
So she asked him if he knew what that meant, and he was like, âOh, yeah! One of my favorite characters on TV is ace! (Todd, from BoJack Horseman) I get that,â and it just made her entire coming out to him so much easier and more accepting and sheâs so much happier now.
Just. Like. Representation matters.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Parents Supporting Their LGBT Kids During Pride Month.
Well then
Time to cry
All the weay over
to picking up my babe
NO ITâS FINE
If I cry too much
iâll just pull into a KFCd drive through and eat my feelings
I need a shirt that says âProud daughter of bi momsâ.
If you get this shirt please post you and your moms all together in one big Adorable Group Pic with u in it <3
Sometimes when Iâm sad I like to imagine what would happen in a crossover universe between Discworld and Harry Potter, and what Granny Weatherwax would make of their style of magic.
But then I think about more important things, like what would have happened if Granny Weatherwax ever met Albus Dumbledore, and I canât help but feel a whole lot of shit could have been avoided if heâd had a good clip round the ear and a strong talking to about the whole âmy hands are tiedâ bullshit that enabled years of abuse and suffering at the hands of adults in a position of authority over young, vulnerable people.
Like oh, this spell requires the bond of blood to keep him safe, all right. So that just means weâre not going to hold these adults accountable for their torment and abuse? I think the entire fuck not, Albus.
Snape is a double agent who is actually working for the greater good. All right, but that doesnât stop him from being an absolute fucking shit weasel who shouldnât be around children until he learns to control himself and works out his issues in a safe and sane manner, what the fuck, Albus.
You have an entire school system that ascribes to ideas of inherent morality when in fact this is a thing that needs to be taught? Well no wonder thereâs one house in particular that keeps going off the rails, you keep telling them theyâre evil. Tell people something for long enough theyâll start to believe you. Thereâs nothing wrong with being selfish and cunning, sometimes thatâs what it takes to survive. Teach them how to use those traits for good. As strength. My land, my home, my people (not my daughter, you bitch) how dare you try to hurt them. Teach them, Albus, you have to bloody teach them and realize that evil isnât born. Itâs made. In a thousand small deplorable ways. And it starts with treating people like things and I cannot be having with this.
Of course thereâs also the other flipside to this thought process, which is imagining Gytha âNannyâ Ogg shouting âwatcher Mollyâ as she thumps Bellatrix Lestrange on the back of the head with a cauldron, and drops her like a fucking stone. Later theyâll sit together and grieve, later there will be time to pick up the pieces and mourn. But for now there are things to fight for, people to keep alive. And people to keep from doing what they shouldnât ever have to do, so you find a way to do it for them, by hook, crook or blunt force trauma.
And because my head wont let go of this thought:
âYou always was a right little miss,â she said, taking a puff from her pipe and resettling her weight with a hefty bounce as the younger witch struggled to get out from under Nannyâs considerable girth. âGiving yourself airs and graces and such. Pretending you was too good to scrub a pot. Well, let me tell you something, Mistress Lestrange, you ainât fit for nothing no more except maybe a noose. And if I had my way that might be the end of it. But we donât do things like that no more, we donât rule by blood.â
âThen youâre weak,â Lestrange shot back, still struggling to claw her way free. âA weak, old woman with nothing left but tricks up your fat sleeve.â
Nanny puffed in silence for a few more moments, then reached up her sleeve. âAnd your wand, dearie. Walnut is it? With a dragon heartstring core? Very nice, painting it black was a bit much, but you always were fond of your dramatics.â
She pulled out her own wand, holding it out under Bellatrixâs nose, whose face went cross eyed and then wide with panic.
âYou know, Iâve only ever heard of Priori Incantatem,â she said, puffing on the end of her pipe until the pit glowed cherry red then white hot and she exhaled smoke like a dragon, âbut I wasnât about to risk it, not in front of all those kiddies. But I reckon now might be a good timeâŚâ
Also, for your consideration. Feegles.
âHaul yoo, aye yoo, the great big ugly gangly scunner wi-oot a nose. Can ye sew? Well stitch this.â
Harry watched in consternation as Voldemort staggered back, dropped to the ground like a ton of bricks and lay still.
âThatâs it?â he demanded, lowering his wand. âThatâs all you had to do?â
Rob Anybody, perched on his shoulder, looked up at the young wizard out the corner of the eye, which was to say he looked him in the nostrils.
âWeell,â he said, gesturing towards the chaos that had been unleashed as the full force of the Nac Mac Feegle was unleashed upon the band of Death Eaters, primarily by running up the inside of their trousers. âThatâs the thing about the lads. Once theyâve decided tae dae something, they dae it good and hard.â
âBut you just headbutted him!â
âAye, weill,â Rob said, feeling as though the lad wasnât quite grasping the practicality of the situation, âhe might be a bloody great dark bigjob wizard, but he cannae cast a spell wi-oot a heid.â
Ok but the one I want to see is Dolores Umbridge vs Munstrum Ridcully, becuase that would be the Petty Academic Slapfight of doom.Â
Because Ridcully, for all his faults, probably understands that the actual learning of magic relies on a certain degree of both freedom and madness and sometimes explosions.Â
And Umbridge would crawl right up his skin with her concept of a âDefense Against The Dark Artsâ Course, and in the middle of a lecture on recent runes, would go on a âtangentâ on the history of various dark wizards and the means by which they were defeated and here Why Donât We Have A Practical Outside, The Weather Is Nice (The weather is not nice. Itâs Scotland. In Late November.) But everyone is really curious to see the old man actually take his wand out for once, only to discover that thatâs not a wand at all, thatâs a Burleigh & Stronginthearm and theyâre all going to pass it around and whoever shoots the weathervane off the top of Ravenclaw tower gets 50 points. Hannah Abbot puts a bolt through Umbridgeâs window, taking out a kitten plate and gets 100 points.
Fred and George turn the third floor corridor into a Swamp and Umbridge is pleased to hear Ridcully bellowing at the Weasley boys about âBLOODY INSONSIDERATE, NEVER HAVE I EVER MET SUCH WRETCHEDLY-â but the second sheâs around the corner it changes to â-brilliant young men, how much is this setup you have here? That potions-master could do with some aggravated moisturizing. Speaking of moisturizing, what would it take to get you two gentlemen to work on the faculty baths? Disgustingly substandard, nowhere to put your nail trimmings-â
Ridcully would like the students there too, I think. Especially the Slytherins, because heâs perfectly aware how important being a cunning bastard and willing to get your hands dirty or bloody if needed is, especially in the world of Magical Academia. Theyâre socially intelligent and disenchanted with the system, not Evil, Albus. The Malfoy boy would be a lot less trouble if he had something to do besides practicing subjectâs heâs bored with. Fratricide, perhaps. Iâm kidding Albus! (heâs only sort of kidding. Maybe not murder. Just turn him into a toad and keep him as a familair in a bowl on the mantlepiece.)
Heâd be so mad about the Chamber of secrets though. Potter! A Basilisk! Why didnât you bring the head back up itâd be magnificent hanging over the great hall. Oh I see. Well why didnât you go BACK? Perfectly good potion ingredients going to waste, doesnât that brooding mop of a potions master teach you anything about looti- er, collecting spell components?