©LPAAYNE

TAGS:

jaundiceyeyes:

BRUH

jaundiceyeyes:

BRUH

(via apathxxtic)


posted 4 weeks ago with 104,119 notes

TAGS:

dreamingofcossackia:

live to ride

dreamingofcossackia:

live to ride

(Source: kas-a, via weaseltotheface)


posted 1 month ago with 576,125 notes

TAGS:

catbotherer:

scratchingpad:

I need safety goggles

very gently pat

(via vandalscum)


posted 1 month ago with 72,941 notes

TAGS:

thatscienceguy:

As children we’re taught the process of a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, and the story normally goes along the lines of a hungry caterpillar eats and eats until it can eat no longer, then it hangs upside down and forms a chrysalis, from which a beautiful butterfly emerges.
But what actually happens inside the cocoon?
It’s actually quite surprising, the caterpillar does not merely change its body a bit and grow wings, no… It dissolves. Almost entirely. The caterpillar excretes an enzyme which decomposes all the tissues and fibres into basic organic material, leaving only a few ‘cell disks.’
These cell disks comprise all the different types of cells in an adult butterfly - its eyes, legs, wings, etc. The caterpillar is actually born with them but they just remain dormant until metamorphosis. 
Once all the caterpillars cells have been decomposed the adult cell disks then start to grow, using the organic materials left over, eventually forming the butterfly that emerges a few days later.

thatscienceguy:

As children we’re taught the process of a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, and the story normally goes along the lines of a hungry caterpillar eats and eats until it can eat no longer, then it hangs upside down and forms a chrysalis, from which a beautiful butterfly emerges.

But what actually happens inside the cocoon?

It’s actually quite surprising, the caterpillar does not merely change its body a bit and grow wings, no… It dissolves. Almost entirely. The caterpillar excretes an enzyme which decomposes all the tissues and fibres into basic organic material, leaving only a few ‘cell disks.’

These cell disks comprise all the different types of cells in an adult butterfly - its eyes, legs, wings, etc. The caterpillar is actually born with them but they just remain dormant until metamorphosis. 

Once all the caterpillars cells have been decomposed the adult cell disks then start to grow, using the organic materials left over, eventually forming the butterfly that emerges a few days later.

(via shallowbeliever-)


posted 1 month ago with 5,772 notes

TAGS:

kittydothedishes:

Top memory of 2014 is bringing my mom to a show and the girl onstage goes PUT YA HANDS IN THE AIR IF U EVER GOT YA ASS ATE and my mom immediately throws her hands to the damn ceiling

(via apathxxtic)


posted 1 month ago with 547 notes

TAGS:

pinuparena:

By Sarah Schmidt

pinuparena:

By Sarah Schmidt

(via gagashairbow)


posted 1 month ago with 3,525 notes

TAGS:

(Source: sucked, via gagashairbow)


posted 1 month ago with 606,867 notes

TAGS:

(Source: missdontcare-x, via gagashairbow)


posted 1 month ago with 32,280 notes

TAGS:

(Source: jewist, via pizzaemma)


posted 1 month ago with 60,547 notes

TAGS:

lowendtheory:

This is re: my Odd Future post.
First of all, many thanks to mai’a, whom I’m pretty sure most folks reading this are already following, but should be if they’re not.
Second, I’m not quite sure that I did anything to justify the sexism and homophobia in OF’s music; in fact, I’m pretty sure I called it out.  But I think that what makes it possible to ignore the fact that I was calling it out was the fact that I was also trying not to couple that critique with a retreat into a kind of smug critical self-satisfaction where I get to feel morally superior to or smarter than what or whom I’m critiquing.  
It’s not only because I think that style of critique has led to barely disguised displays of racism.  It’s also because I think that style of critique often allows us 1) to get away with learning very little about what we’re criticizing by applying the same critical formula to everything and anything, so long as we can show evidence of the ways in which it is misogynist and homophobic—and, for that matter, racist; and 2) to imagine our criticism as transcending the object of our critique by oversimplifying it (i.e. “TTC says stuff for attention”) or by performing a weird kind of doublespeak where we claim in one breath that it has no meaning and then, in the next breath, point out the homophobic and sexist meaning that is everywhere in it.
One of the cool things about the internet, and about tumblr especially, is the way that it allows for the quick propagation of all sorts of antiracist, antisexist, antihomophobic, etc., ideas.  The appearance of sites like Color Lines, Jezebel, Racialicious, Feministe (sites which vary greatly in quality and ideological orientation), among others, have all been really important in popularizing antioppression ideas in general, and in producing a class of people able to problematize and critique oppressive discourses, especially those that can be found in popular culture.  
One of the not so cool things about the internet is that it has helped to produce a class of people who are, relatively speaking, quite comfortable in their general anti-oppression stance.  Anti-oppression discourse, nowadays, isn’t even about a politics (i.e. working collectively to change the world you inhabit) as much as it is about style—about speaking the right language, using the right terms, expressing outrage at the right moment, etc.  Unlike previous generations of people discussing anti-oppression ideas, we who are members of this class don’t need to go to long, drawn-out meetings or to join activist groups in order to satisfy our desire to be against oppression.  The discussion, in many ways, comes to us—just follow the right people, read the right blogs, etc.  Anti-oppression, that is, arrives to us with the slick, polished sheen of a mass-marketed commodity.
Without even talking about the billions of people who cannot access this kind of discourse precisely because the very late capitalism that provides us with cheap-ish computers and internet access needs to keep their wages incredibly low in order to do so, I’ll end by saying this: I believe that there’s a difference between producing evidence of oppression, explaining oppression, and fighting oppression.  One can produce evidence of oppression without being able to explain why oppression happens.  My problem with the Jezebels and Racialiciouses of the world, as well as with a lot of stuff I see around here, is that they glorify their own capacity to produce evidence about oppression without explaining it.  Or if they do explain it, the explanation tells us very little: it relies on the fact that we know oppression is bad and the fact that it feels good to know that.  This, I think, is why sarcasm works so well on Jezebel and various other liberal feminist blogs—it allows its reader to ignore the lack of analytical depth by allowing her to substitute the feeling of Knowing Better Than Someone Else Does.
You might think that people who analyze oppression professionally would at least think about the question of who benefits from oppression, a question that necessitates at least a critical view onto capitalism.  The problem is, of course, that those who produce evidence of oppression professionally have a class interest in not explaining or learning to explain who benefits from oppression.  Folks like (Racialicious founder) Carmen Van Kerckhove have found creative ways to make a living off of talking about race (and talking about talking about race) without explaining much at all save the fact that racism exists, a fact that we seem not to be able to be reminded of enough.
But the fact that an entire industry has emerged to produce evidence about oppression without doing much at all to fight it should tell us something about where we’re at in terms of capitalism.  Anti-oppression has become a commodity, too, and “we” are part of the machine by and through which that commodity is made and consumed.  I’m not trying to trivialize or downplay the existence of oppression—oppression exists, and exists on a scale any in ways I am not even in a position to know or speak about.  But I am trying to begin to understand how capitalism has enabled people—especially upwardly mobile, college educated people like me—to generate an anti-oppression discourse that allows many of us to feel as if we are doing much more to fight it than we actually are.

lowendtheory:

This is re: my Odd Future post.

First of all, many thanks to mai’a, whom I’m pretty sure most folks reading this are already following, but should be if they’re not.

Second, I’m not quite sure that I did anything to justify the sexism and homophobia in OF’s music; in fact, I’m pretty sure I called it out.  But I think that what makes it possible to ignore the fact that I was calling it out was the fact that I was also trying not to couple that critique with a retreat into a kind of smug critical self-satisfaction where I get to feel morally superior to or smarter than what or whom I’m critiquing.  

It’s not only because I think that style of critique has led to barely disguised displays of racism.  It’s also because I think that style of critique often allows us 1) to get away with learning very little about what we’re criticizing by applying the same critical formula to everything and anything, so long as we can show evidence of the ways in which it is misogynist and homophobic—and, for that matter, racist; and 2) to imagine our criticism as transcending the object of our critique by oversimplifying it (i.e. “TTC says stuff for attention”) or by performing a weird kind of doublespeak where we claim in one breath that it has no meaning and then, in the next breath, point out the homophobic and sexist meaning that is everywhere in it.

One of the cool things about the internet, and about tumblr especially, is the way that it allows for the quick propagation of all sorts of antiracist, antisexist, antihomophobic, etc., ideas.  The appearance of sites like Color Lines, Jezebel, Racialicious, Feministe (sites which vary greatly in quality and ideological orientation), among others, have all been really important in popularizing antioppression ideas in general, and in producing a class of people able to problematize and critique oppressive discourses, especially those that can be found in popular culture.  

One of the not so cool things about the internet is that it has helped to produce a class of people who are, relatively speaking, quite comfortable in their general anti-oppression stance.  Anti-oppression discourse, nowadays, isn’t even about a politics (i.e. working collectively to change the world you inhabit) as much as it is about style—about speaking the right language, using the right terms, expressing outrage at the right moment, etc.  Unlike previous generations of people discussing anti-oppression ideas, we who are members of this class don’t need to go to long, drawn-out meetings or to join activist groups in order to satisfy our desire to be against oppression.  The discussion, in many ways, comes to us—just follow the right people, read the right blogs, etc.  Anti-oppression, that is, arrives to us with the slick, polished sheen of a mass-marketed commodity.

Without even talking about the billions of people who cannot access this kind of discourse precisely because the very late capitalism that provides us with cheap-ish computers and internet access needs to keep their wages incredibly low in order to do so, I’ll end by saying this: I believe that there’s a difference between producing evidence of oppression, explaining oppression, and fighting oppression.  One can produce evidence of oppression without being able to explain why oppression happens.  My problem with the Jezebels and Racialiciouses of the world, as well as with a lot of stuff I see around here, is that they glorify their own capacity to produce evidence about oppression without explaining it.  Or if they do explain it, the explanation tells us very little: it relies on the fact that we know oppression is bad and the fact that it feels good to know that.  This, I think, is why sarcasm works so well on Jezebel and various other liberal feminist blogs—it allows its reader to ignore the lack of analytical depth by allowing her to substitute the feeling of Knowing Better Than Someone Else Does.

You might think that people who analyze oppression professionally would at least think about the question of who benefits from oppression, a question that necessitates at least a critical view onto capitalism.  The problem is, of course, that those who produce evidence of oppression professionally have a class interest in not explaining or learning to explain who benefits from oppression.  Folks like (Racialicious founder) Carmen Van Kerckhove have found creative ways to make a living off of talking about race (and talking about talking about race) without explaining much at all save the fact that racism exists, a fact that we seem not to be able to be reminded of enough.

But the fact that an entire industry has emerged to produce evidence about oppression without doing much at all to fight it should tell us something about where we’re at in terms of capitalism.  Anti-oppression has become a commodity, too, and “we” are part of the machine by and through which that commodity is made and consumed.  I’m not trying to trivialize or downplay the existence of oppression—oppression exists, and exists on a scale any in ways I am not even in a position to know or speak about.  But I am trying to begin to understand how capitalism has enabled people—especially upwardly mobile, college educated people like me—to generate an anti-oppression discourse that allows many of us to feel as if we are doing much more to fight it than we actually are.

(via randaroyces)


posted 1 month ago with 1,385 notes

TAGS:

sherokutakari:

"but women have sex organs on their chests! I don’t walk around with my pants off!"

I think what you mean to say is “women have secondary sex characteristics on their chests”, not sex organs

in which case let me remind you that your facial hair and enlarged adam’s apple are also secondary sex characteristics

if secondary sex characteristics bother you and you feel they should be covered up in public, please feel free to shove your entire head in a bag at any time

(via weaseltotheface)


posted 1 month ago with 147,417 notes

TAGS:

fileformat:

weloveshortvideos:

Everytime I wash a spoon

Vine by BigNik

OH my god

(via ispydork)


posted 1 month ago with 61,208 notes

TAGS:

adventuresofcesium:

steppauseturnpausepivotstepstep:

i-am-a-cloud:

So I just found out that Laverne Cox has an identical twin brother, who played pre-transition Sophia in OITNB.  I was wondering how they found someone that looked just like her to play the role!  Super cool.

they were discussing Sophia’s back story and she told them “ya know, i have a twin brother.” they asked him to do it and he said yes! 

fun fact Jenji Kohan told Laverne Cox that they were going to hire somebody to play her pre-transition because they didn’t want to traumatize her or trigger dysphoria by having her pretend to be a man and she was like “no no, I can do this, I’m an actress” but the creators of the show insisted on using her twin brother instead 

adventuresofcesium:

steppauseturnpausepivotstepstep:

i-am-a-cloud:

So I just found out that Laverne Cox has an identical twin brother, who played pre-transition Sophia in OITNB.
I was wondering how they found someone that looked just like her to play the role!
Super cool.

they were discussing Sophia’s back story and she told them “ya know, i have a twin brother.” they asked him to do it and he said yes! 

fun fact Jenji Kohan told Laverne Cox that they were going to hire somebody to play her pre-transition because they didn’t want to traumatize her or trigger dysphoria by having her pretend to be a man and she was like “no no, I can do this, I’m an actress” but the creators of the show insisted on using her twin brother instead 

(via apathxxtic)


posted 1 month ago with 105,309 notes

TAGS:

thebicker:

^^^^^HOW PRIVILEGE WORKS.

(Source: supermans, via weaseltotheface)


posted 1 month ago with 199,892 notes

TAGS:

socimages:

Are you working hard enough to achieve your natural body?
We commonly hear claims that men are naturally more muscular and physically intimidating than women.  “It’s a biological fact,” someone might say.  If that were true, though, we wouldn’t have to work so incredibly hard to make it so.
@IllMakeItMyself sent in this great example of the way in which we are pushed to force our bodies into a gender binary that we pretend is natural.  On the upper right part of the Men’s Health cover, it reads: “Add 15lb of muscle” and, right next door on the Women’s Health cover, it reads “5 ways to lose 15 lbs.”
If we have to try this hard to make it true, maybe we’re not as different as we think we are.
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College and the co-author of Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

socimages:

Are you working hard enough to achieve your natural body?

We commonly hear claims that men are naturally more muscular and physically intimidating than women.  “It’s a biological fact,” someone might say.  If that were true, though, we wouldn’t have to work so incredibly hard to make it so.

@IllMakeItMyself sent in this great example of the way in which we are pushed to force our bodies into a gender binary that we pretend is natural.  On the upper right part of the Men’s Health cover, it reads: “Add 15lb of muscle” and, right next door on the Women’s Health cover, it reads “5 ways to lose 15 lbs.”

If we have to try this hard to make it true, maybe we’re not as different as we think we are.

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College and the co-author of Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

(via weaseltotheface)


posted 1 month ago with 767 notes