(by Daniel Farò)
Rubeus Hagrid | Keeper of Keys and Grounds at Hogwarts
Artist Telmo Pieper Repaints His Own Childhood Drawings
Previously: Everyday Objects Turned Into Creative Illustrations
"Ace Hardware: No screwing, just lots of screws."
"Ace Hardware: Nail your roof, not your partner."
"Ace Hardware: For when it really is just a hammer in your pocket"
One of my friends wanted to see a photomanip of the ace hardware logo in ace flag colors, and then I thought of these terrible puns, so here you go.
"Ace Hardware: Lube for your motor, not your junk"
"Ace Hardware: Erecting buildings, not your penis"
"Ace Hardware: Where nuts aren’t genetalia"
"Ace Hardware: The hammer is not our penis. Its just a hammer."
"Ace Hardware: Where muff, is short for muffler"
"Ace Hardware: Yes that is a hammer, but we’re still happy to see you."
"Ace Hardware: You can get Off™ in our repellent aisle”
Just so everybody knows, the mirror is actually more reliable than the camera. Even though people say “the camera never lies”, it distorts your photographs a little bit. It has to turn a 3d image (you in real life) to a 2d image (a photograph) and consequently skews the proportions a little bit.
Also, “photogenic” is a real thing. Certain faces photograph well and others don’t. It’s all down the angles, proportions and size of your features.
Have you ever seen someone stunning who looks great in professional photographs and not in candids? Yeah, that’s because there’s a huge difference between a professional and an amateur. Professionals know how to minimise the issues cameras have. Lighting, angles and even the distance you are away from the camera plays a part (the amount of distortion varies depending on how close you are).
TL;DR if you think you look great in the mirror but not in the photo, trust the mirror. You look great!
NOT ONLY THAT, but when you look in a mirror, you’re seeing your face in motion, how others would see it. In a photograph, you’re still, and it can make small flaws and the like seem a lot more prominent, despite them being quite minuscule in person.
Also! Also, when you see yourself in the mirror you are looking at you face reverse of how a camera pics it up. No face is perfectly symmetrical so you get so used to seeing a mirrored version of your face that when it’s flipped in a picture you subconsciously notice the tiny differences in your face and thus you think you don’t look right.
I have never felt so relieved and beautiful thank you guys
technology isnt making people talk less, its allowing people to choose who they want to talk to. i dont want to talk to your “intellectual” anti-technology ass, i want to talk to like, twelve different people who are vastly more interesting and never have to look up from my phone to acknowledge you
Thoughtful underwear with hidden powers. For every pair purchased you fund 7 pads to a girl in need.
OH SHIT YOU GUYS THIS COMPANY IS MAKING UNDERWEAR THAT IS STAIN RESISTANT, ANTIMICROBIAL, AND WILL ABSORB UP TO 6 TEASPOONS OF LIQUID BUT STILL LOOKS FUCKING SEXY
AND DID I MENTION THIS PART:
For every pair of THINX you buy, you help one girl in the developing world stay in school by providing her with seven washable, reusable cloth pads.
AND WHY IS THAT SUCH A BIG DEAL? HERE’S WHY:
After doing some research, Agrawal says she found that more than 100 million girls in the developing world were missing a week of school because of their periods, and using things such as leaves, old rags, or plastic bags in the place of sanitary pads.
THE SIZES RUN FROM XS TO XXL AND THE PRICES ARE NOT INSANE, THEY’RE OBVIOUSLY HIGHER THAN THOSE 5 FOR $10 SALES AT TARGET BUT YOU WON’T HAVE TO THROW THEM OUT BECAUSE YOU MISCALCULATED YOUR FLOW AND BLED ALL OVER THEM BEFORE YOU COULD GET TO A BATHROOM
I’M SORRY FOR SHOUTING I’M JUST REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS
LIKE HOLY FUCKBASKET IT’S ABOUT DAMN TIME
Hey. Sure allow me to explain.
First of all, its glaringly untrue. Real men do hurt women. The distinction between “real” vs. whatever the opposite of real is in this context is moot when men are raised in a patriarchal culture that drills into their psyche a set of prescribed gender roles that is bound to affect their perception and treatment of women. In fact, many of them validate their own sense of masculinity by instilling domination and enacting violence against women.
Secondly, this phrase is usually uttered in condemnation of blatantly violent acts of women (ie. sex trafficking and murder), but the casual aggressions that the vast majority of women deal with is never accounted for when talking about real vs. fake men, because at that point, it becomes painfully obvious that most men do gleefully engage in misogynistic behavior. What I mean by this is what about the rampant objectification of women in media and literature? What about casual rape jokes? What about street harassment and the fact that in most surveys in many regions of the world, well over 90% of women admit they are verbally or physically aggressed by a man and feel pressured to comply due to fear of backlash? What about domestic violence occurring in one third of all hetero relationships?
At what point does a “real man” not engage in belittling a woman? When it causes death or permanently entraps her in a life of misery? Is there is no space between the former and living in a world free of anti women rhetoric? The phrase doesn’t tackle all the grey area between the aforementioned and peak destruction, when in fact, its subtle microaggressions that become catalysts for cases like that of UCSB shooter, who killed women and men who associated with said women. Many men who commit grave offenses against women left hints and context clues that they were misogynists and had deeply depraved understandings of women and many don’t take heed to them until its too late.
Going back to the former point, separating real from unreal men is about protecting the concept of masculinity instead of women. Its a really coy way of derailing dignified discourse concerning the well being of women to centralizing the conversation about how “not all men are like that” when in fact, patriarchy creates the very real possibility that all men can be like that and many are. It concretizes the existence of masculinity, instead of realizing that the male pursuit of being the strongest and most victorious does in fact lead to devastating consequences, many of them gendered.
Saying “real men don’t do (x)” is a feel good, self centered mechanism that men use to relieve themselves of critically examining the world we live in and how their roles as both beneficiaries and agents of misogyny sustains a world where such violence is possible. The unreal men are to be tackled, instead of a poisonous culture that has validated them since inception. Since we say “boys will be boys” and reassuring young girls that if a boy picks on her, he must be infatuated, thus equating abuse with love. This approach treats the vast cases of globalized, politicized, socialized and institutionalized sexism as isolated incidences in an apolitical vacuum which individual males are a shame to manhood, instead of byproducts of manhood.
here you have zuko
he just came back to the show. he’s a firelord now and he’s riding dragons and taking action and as ready to take down bad guys as he ever was. he’s already a fucking badass.
then we have katara.
she was here for, what, three books now? she’s an established master waterbender now and she is probably the reason why gender equality is more common in the Northern Water Tribe. she hardly did shit. she sits around and looks sad a lot. she does some healing. apparently she allowed her husband to play favourites with the kids. the opposite of a badass. more like sadass.
can that change please? can we have katara and zuko being old and kicking ass and taking names and flying fucking dragons? i want katara to be part of the fun too. why does she get to sit around and just mope? this isn’t the katara we knew in the past. i want the katara of the past to come back in this old lady body and pull a king bumi on us. i want this
tonks went to school with bill and charlie weasley
she was in the same year as charlie
i can imagine they would have been mates, the older weasley boys would have been just as good at causing havoc as the twins at times and this particular trait caught tonkss attention, shapeshifter and cheeky as hell and ‘lacking the ability to behave herself’ as she was
not to mention they were all amazing at quidditch and enjoyed friendly rivalry, and they were all top students
so man they used to get up to mischief, they hung out a lot, they knew each other pretty well and kept in contact after hogwarts and enjoyed those times during the order and gathering war and stuff when they got to hang out together, theyd sit up nights together drinking and laughing and telling stories
but then tonks dies and her little baby teddy becomes almost like another weasley grandkid, about a year older than bills little victoire, they watch him grow up, play with his metamorph skills, go to hogwarts, get detentions, play as a chaser for hufflepuff..
and every now and then, teddy does something that is ~so ~painfully tonks, that bill and charlie just have to sit back and have a moment. he says ‘wotcher’ without ever knowing his mum did. he loves the weird sisters. he trips over his shoes.
when he gets a bit older, teddy has a little period where he gets kind of freaked out about being a metamorphmagus - ‘what if this isn’t how i’m meant to look? what if i changed something, ages ago, and never changed it back? how would i even know?’ - so charlie takes him aside and sits him down and goes ‘nah, kid, you look exactly like you should. you know how i know?’ ‘how?’ ‘cos you look exactly like your mum when you get angry. and you pull the same face as her when youre about to get up to trouble.’ and he goes and gets, from a long forgotten album, a photo of teenage tonks with a bunch of her hogwarts friends, pulling faces at the camera, and
"thanks uncle charlie," teddy says, holding the old frail photo with precise care, and they both let the silent tears fall down their face
Steven Moffat has called on Doctor Who fandom to prove when it is definitively said that the Doctor is not human.
Speaking in the latest issue of DWM (#475) he says: “Here’s a question I tried on some Doctor Who fans recently, and we were all a bit startled by the answer, when it finally emerged – if we got it right. Okay; keeping in mind that everything you know for sure is probably wrong, answer me this: in which story is it confirmed, definitively, that the Doctor is not human? (source: x)
Yeah, I know a lot of humans who just walk the fuck around with two hearts and explode with radiation while they’re dying and becoming entirely new people and growing new hands and shit.
Eight did say he was “half human on my mother’s side,’ but the context makes it clear that it’s just The Doctor being The Doctor.
I fucking hate Moffat. He needs to be stopped.
'Expertise' as used here almost always requires the acceptance and approval of the Powers That Be - automatically excluding anyone who has knowledge that comes from experience (look, ‘expert’ and ‘experience’ have the same root for a reason), who can’t afford/has no access to traditional institutions through which ‘expertise’ is conferred, whose expertise conflicts with the agenda of those Powers, etc., etc.
The glory of Google and Wikipedia and everything like them is their ability to democratize knowledge. Furthermore, that is precisely what teachers want: to help people learn stuff, whether they normally would or not, whether it’s taught in schools or has been thrown aside for three months of test prep, whether it’s the area someone specializes in or is simply curious about… There’s no reason whatsoever that knowledge has to come from a ‘professional’ rather than some other source; that doesn’t make the knowledge any less potent, or any less true.
There is no division between “students and teachers, knowers and wonderers”. I am a teacher; I am also a student, always, because no matter your knowledge, you can always learn more. ‘Knowers’ v. ‘wonderers’? Really? How do you think people come to know things in the first place? I’m definitely an ‘expert’ on a number of things—an institutionally certified expert, even!—but I still wonder about all those things. Besides, who determines what is ‘knowing’? Plenty of those things I have expertise in are *not* institutionally certified, and that makes my expertise not one whit less.
For instance: I know a shitload more about recovering from traumatic brain events than my neurologist. He knows all about how these things happen in the first place, all the ins and outs and mechanisms; however, when it comes to practical advice for what’s necessary to not continue to fuck yourself up in the weeks afterward, he learns a hell of a lot from me. He’s an MD/PhD, he’s about as ‘expert’ as you can get; but that’s nothing in the face of actual experience. In fact, the main reason I knew he was an infinitely better doctor than the other neurologists I’d seen is because he acknowledged how little he knew about the experience of, say, having your life force drained from you by anti-seizure medication. Despite his honest-to-Dog genius, he does not pretend to all-encompassing expertise, or treat his fount of knowledge as the only valid source - which makes him smarter and more ‘expert’ than anyone who thinks they know it all.
And everyone knows that the only difference between professionals and laymen is that one gets paid for their achievements and the other doesn’t. It’s such a pathetic example, really: ‘laymen’ is a word created to distinguish the people who were not endorsed by the institutional Powers That Be in religious life; the Jesus Christ of the Bible was a layman, and as such was anathema to the institution. Now, we’ve all seen how much we should blindly trust and accept what the Church/etc. tells us, right?
Finally, that bit about “achievement in an area” is utterly nonsensical. Is ‘achievement’ supposed to stand in for ‘experience’—which, as already noted, is never accepted as institutionally valid in conferring ‘expertise’? Does ‘achievement’ mean an official document a la a diploma? How many of the world’s political leaders have degrees in management, policy, diplomacy, etc.? Have they ‘achieved’ less than those who have studied those topics in a fucking ivory tower? To reverse the question, there’s that old saw about how those who can’t do, teach. Now, I think that’s bullshit, because teaching is a fucking skill, and plenty of people who have incredible achievement in an area can’t go into a classroom and convey any of that in a useful way. By the same token, when those people *are* good teachers, do we keep them out of the classroom because their ‘expertise’ comes from experience rather than academic success? Never.
This whole thing is bullshit. All those signal words—expertise, professional, layman, student, teacher, knower, wonderer, achievement—are deliberately misused, ignorant of their actual definitions and meanings, to make a faux-profound statement that has no purpose other than to bitch about how the Powers That Be are no longer as all-important in conferring expertise as they used to be.
You can be an expert without paying for it. That really pisses this person off.
"I worry that in an information-driven age of technological marvels, nobody will treat me like I’m a wizard-priest anymore."
I think this is becoming a sort of under-the-table war. And I’m not really exaggerating. For example, recently various academic groups and journals have been banning their members and editors from having blogs:
“Academic blogging grew from the desire to compensate for people being unable to access academic scholarship,” Saideman told the Guardian. He said academic blogging has become a part of a professor’s job and that it is part of a movement to share scholarship with broader groups of people, including translating it into other languages.
One of his many critiques of the ISA’s proposal is that it further reduces the plurality of voices in scholarship, potentially affecting the number of minorities and women heard in academic discussions. If you’re telling people that the only way to be on editorial teams is by reducing your voice elsewhere, then that’s logically going to reduce the amount of voices out there,” Saideman said.
Initiation never ends
writer vs. muse: the animation
I tried to scroll over this
i saw this a few times but I just realized what was happening, this is sick
NYX Butter Lipsticks $6. Super creamy, pigmented and some in tons of fun and neutral colors.
Rimmel Kate Moss Lipsticks (black packaging)/Rimmel Kate Moss Matte Lipsticks (red packaging) $5. Both are super pigmented and creamy. Even the matte shades are creamy and not drying for matte lipsticks.
Maybelline The Buffs Lipsticks $6. Price varies on drugstore. They have a nude for every single skin tone it’s awesome! Pinky nudes, beige nudes, warm nudes, deeper browns.
Maybelline Vivids Lipsticks $6. Super pigmented, creamy, rich shades.
Maybelline Color Elixirs $7. These liquid lipsticks have more a glossy finish. Almost like a super pigmented lipgloss but with better staying power. They have great shades from corals, bright pinks, pinky nudes and purples.
NYX Matte Lipsticks $6. Matte but not drying, awesome shade selection and creamy.
Abusive Expectations - Makes impossible demands, requires constant attention, and constantly criticizes.
Aggressing - Name calling, accusing, blames, threatens or gives orders, and often disguised as a judgmental “I know best” or “helping” attitude.
Constant Chaos - Deliberately starts arguments with you or others. May treat you well in front of others, but changes when you’re alone.
Rejecting - Refusing to acknowledge a person’s value, worth or presence. Communicating that he or she is useless or inferior or devaluing his or her thoughts and feelings.
Denying - Denies personal needs (especially when need is greatest) with the intent of causing hurt or as punishment. Uses silent treatment as punishment. Denies certain events happened or things that were said. Denies your perceptions, memory and sanity by disallowing any viewpoints other than their own which causes self-doubt, confusion, and loss of self-esteem.
Degrading - Any behavior that diminishes the identity, worth or dignity of the person such as: name-calling, mocking, teasing, insulting, ridiculing,
Emotional Blackmail - Uses guilt, compassion, or fear to get what he or she wants.
Terrorizing - Inducing intense fear or terror in a person, by threats or coercion.
Invalidation - Attempts to distort your perception of the world by refusing to acknowledge your personal reality. Says that your emotions and perceptions aren’t real and shouldn’t be trusted.
Isolating - Reducing or restricting freedom and normal contact with others.
Corrupting - Convincing a person to accept and engage in illegal activities.
Exploiting - Using a person for advantage or profit.
Minimizing - A less extreme form of denial that trivializes something you’ve expressed as unimportant or inconsequential.
Unpredictable Responses - Gets angry and upset in a situation that would normally not warrant a response. You walk around on eggshells to avoid any unnecessary drama over innocent comments you make. Drastic mood swings and outbursts.
Gaslighting -A form of psychological abuse involving the manipulation of situations or events that cause a person to be confused or to doubt his perceptions and memories. Gaslighting causes victims to constantly second-guess themselves and wonder if they’re losing their minds.
I have reblogged this so many times and I do not plan to stop anytime soon.