my favourite is minna because she's rainbow and doesn't afraid of anything

permanently butthurt that lantana is so awful

because it’s so pretty

x(

grammarmancer:

autie-baeddel-cat:

radioactive-dinosaur:

A few days ago I was teaching a lesson on the Enlightenment where students had to debate the merits of Hobbes (Humans are assholes and need an absolute ruler to keep them from clubbing each other over the head 24/7), and Locke (humans are basically decent beings who know what’s best for themselves and governments should only exist to protect their natural rights from a few corrupt people), and I was running into the problem of my kids all having a pro Locke bias.  

It’s not surprising, our whole basic governmental system is Lockean, and people generally prefer the guy who doesn’t assume they’re a autocrat away from knifing them for a extra bit of mammoth, but I needed them to understand why Hobbes felt the way he did for the lesson to work.  Then I hit upon one of those moments of inspiration.

Group projects.

I asked them which they would rather be in, a Lockean group project where everyone did their own thing and the only oversight was making sure no one felt their rights were infringed on, or a system in which they gave up some of their independence to guarantee everyone actually got their shit done on time.

"How many of you would completely trust your partners to get the work done of their own good will."

You’ve never seen teenagers jump on the Hobbes bandwagon as fast as they did.

Ha!

Tho I think that says more about other things, like issues of trust, than about Locke vs. Hobbes as methods. Cuz really, the way humans work is contextual, as in not all things apply in every situation. And for folks who’ve been raised and socialized to be independent vs. interdependent, there’s a lot less trust of another’s “good will”, so framing a study as an either/or is flawed in this way.

An interdependent group works together, whereas a group of independent individuals does not, necessarily. If you teach kids interdependent skills so they can learn to trust their fellows, you’d get them on the Locke bandwagon. It’s a matter of working in context and with the perspectives of the group, not about which model of government works better than another to keep folks in line.

I so wanted to jump on this and start explaining everything I’ve learned in my education classes already.

Like, well, there’s a problem with the comparison in that most students don’t see doing well on a group project as their own self interest so what needs to happen is constructivism.

feeeeeeeeeeeel freeeeeeeeeeeeeeee *chinhands*

frantzfandom:

2damnfeisty:

donrickles:

Eddie Murphy at the 60th Academy Awards in 1988

I had to cut this speech down to be able to fit it into a gifset so I uploaded the full thing to youtube and recommend checking it out for yourself.

I never knew this happened. Thank you for doing this.

Damn. I never knew eddie got this real

pluckyminna:

starkraving-mad:

There’s something seriously wrong when a tv network believes that it’s audience would rather see Jaime Lannister rape Cersei instead of enjoying consensual sex with the woman he loves. HBO’s insistence on adding extra violence towards women in the series…

the entire scene, friend. She kissed him, and then said “no, not here”. The reasons for her refusal are irrelevant? It’s not like “no” only matters if the other party thinks it’s a good reason. I’m not saying it was a violent rape and the show was totally accurate to the books, I’m saying describing a scene where he literally disregarded her saying no as “totally consensual” creeps me out. And honestly, I don’t really feel like there’s a context that makes this: She pounded on his chest with feeble fists, murmuring about the risk, the danger, about their father, about the septons, about the wrath of gods. He never heard her. He undid his breeches and climbed up and pushed her bare white legs apart. not skeevy as hell.

autie-baeddel-cat:

radioactive-dinosaur:

A few days ago I was teaching a lesson on the Enlightenment where students had to debate the merits of Hobbes (Humans are assholes and need an absolute ruler to keep them from clubbing each other over the head 24/7), and Locke (humans are basically decent beings who know what’s best for themselves and governments should only exist to protect their natural rights from a few corrupt people), and I was running into the problem of my kids all having a pro Locke bias.  

It’s not surprising, our whole basic governmental system is Lockean, and people generally prefer the guy who doesn’t assume they’re a autocrat away from knifing them for a extra bit of mammoth, but I needed them to understand why Hobbes felt the way he did for the lesson to work.  Then I hit upon one of those moments of inspiration.

Group projects.

I asked them which they would rather be in, a Lockean group project where everyone did their own thing and the only oversight was making sure no one felt their rights were infringed on, or a system in which they gave up some of their independence to guarantee everyone actually got their shit done on time.

"How many of you would completely trust your partners to get the work done of their own good will."

You’ve never seen teenagers jump on the Hobbes bandwagon as fast as they did.

Ha!

Tho I think that says more about other things, like issues of trust, than about Locke vs. Hobbes as methods. Cuz really, the way humans work is contextual, as in not all things apply in every situation. And for folks who’ve been raised and socialized to be independent vs. interdependent, there’s a lot less trust of another’s “good will”, so framing a study as an either/or is flawed in this way.

An interdependent group works together, whereas a group of independent individuals does not, necessarily. If you teach kids interdependent skills so they can learn to trust their fellows, you’d get them on the Locke bandwagon. It’s a matter of working in context and with the perspectives of the group, not about which model of government works better than another to keep folks in line.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

if you dont want to see the internet shit itself over some next level super racist appropriative weeaboo bullshit blacklist avril lavigne RIGHT NOW

I don’t know that she has the attention these days for it to get super big BUT IT MIGHT

coolkidroland:

pluckyminna:

ok I just saw someone using danys wedding night as an example of the tv show making a consensual sex scene into rape” I have been here 30 seconds and already I am TAPPING OUT

THIS IS WHY I WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GAME OF THRONES

I read enough of the first book to be disturbed and put it down 5ever and then suddenly the uber goddamn creepy child bride shit is so romantic get off my lawn

I keep forgetting that that fandom makes me want to chew my own face off and thus making the mistake of going back in AH HAH HAH, any problems with the books pale in light of that fandom, how do so many people hate Sansa, the whole thing is very upsetting. oh man, oh man, oh man.

You have made a WISE CHOICE, I envy you it!!! It’s full of ladies that I let myself get to know and thus love the hell out of, so I am trapped here forever, THROW TRASH AT MY FUNERAL :”””|

ok I just saw someone using danys wedding night as an example of the tv show making a consensual sex scene into rape” I have been here 30 seconds and already I am TAPPING OUT

starkraving-mad:

There’s something seriously wrong when a tv network believes that it’s audience would rather see Jaime Lannister rape Cersei instead of enjoying consensual sex with the woman he loves. HBO’s insistence on adding extra violence towards women in the series is truly disgusting.

one of the weird side effects of not having actually read the books but being fairly thoroughly spoiled for them is the little bits and pieces that i manage to miss

and when i saw that episode i was FUCKING UPSET, because i had been under the impression that that scene had been consensual in the novels

except then i find the text of the novels and she’s saying “no” and “stop” so i dont feel like being angry at HBO is the way to go here

soyonscruels:

yuuhana:

Cardcaptor Sakura’s Battle Costumes

annabellioncourt:

plz-no:

Simultaneously the worst and best movie ever made

Actually one of my teachers watched every single version of Romeo and Juliet with the original text in front of him to prove that this was the worst version, but to his great dismay its the most accurate film adaptation of it, with the lines closest to the original text and most similar stage direction and relayed emotions.

He proceeded to show it to us in class.

(Source: fuckyeah-chickflicks)

If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also

Matt 5:39

This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.   

(via thefullnessofthefaith)

MOther FuCKeR

(via aintlifepeachy)

THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you. 

(via the-world-is-a-corner)

we’re doing this rn in theology class but im gonna be That Person and ask for a source because this sounds legit but if im gonna talk about this im gonna need to cite something

(via cisphobes)

ok found a few sources for this actually so Yes this seems like a solid reading of the quote

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?17076-quot-Turning-the-Other-Cheek-quot

http://www.ualberta.ca/~cbidwell/DCAS/third.htm (about a third of the way down)

I need someone to preach this. I’ll have to use it in some spoken word at church.

(via queennubian)

Yay, sources! I heard this a while ago but didn’t have any evidence to go on. I’m so glad. That passage isn’t about being nice to your oppressors, turning the other cheek isn’t an act of passivity. It’s about turning the tables and taking back dignity. It’s about shaming those who would oppress. People don’t seem to get that Jesus wasn’t a ‘bear your yoke quietly’ kind of guy. He was an agitator and a radical, and these kind of readings inspire me so much to fight, not just people on the street but people in the church who would have us accept their toxic teachings and ask for more.

(via risingonthewingsofdawn)

Yeah, shit like this? Just proves how much those in power deliberately warp shit to their benefit. They twist any sort of resistance to the status quo to be utterly useless and then sneak it into everything as subtle propaganda. Like how “violence is never the answer” and “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” are the twisted versions that deprive folks of justice. No revolution was truly 100% bloodless, tho history can be rewritten to erase that fact, or skew it to serve as fear-mongering bullshit.

(via autie-baeddel-cat)

The central fact in Black Science Fiction - self-consciously so named or not - is an acknowledgement that Apocalypse already happened: that (in PE’s phrase) Armageddon been in effect. Black SF writers - Samuel Delany, Octavia Butler - write about worlds after catastrophic disaster; about the modalities of identity without hope of resolution, where race and nation and neighborhood and family are none of them enough to obviate betrayal…

—Mark Sinker, Loving The Alien: Black Science Fiction (1992)

(Source: shadowstookshape)

floodxland:

chainsawnicorn:

Crikey.

FIRST OF ALL

HOW DARE YOU

*patriotic aussie tears*

link