I love these new "type these words into your tags box and post the first tag that automatically pops up" thingies, so fun. Let’s do another one:

  • can’t: And if you’re straight you can’t say queer
  • don’t: DON’T BE AN ASSHOLE
  • first: First Doctor
  • help: HELP I’M DYING
  • please: PLEASE DON’T FUCK UP DAENERYS
  • one: One hundred percent agree
  • my: ‘Better get my tool kit’
  • will: ‘He likes willies and bums and all that’
  • stop: STOP USING THIS LINE
  • get: ‘Better get my tool kit’
  • honestly: HONESTLY DESTROY MY ASS
  • I’m: I’m a moron

(Source: orangeyouellis)

(Reblogged from ohmygiddyrassilon)

childservices:

horoscope app: today u gonna #stunt on these hoes
me: damn….das tru

(Reblogged from lameborghini)

theprettygoodgatsby:

my favorite part of hamlet is at the beginning when they see the ghost of hamlet sr for the first time

and the guards are like “Horatio, you go talk to it! You went to college!”

and Horatio is like “Yeah! I did go to college! I will go talk to the ghost!”

like. where did horatio go to college. did he go to ghost college

(Source: thefreshprinceof-denmark)

(Reblogged from eighttwotwopointthreethree)

thelimpingdoctor:

Shut the fuck up about Pluto

When we learn new facts, we have to reconsider our systems of categorization. Science adapts to new information—in this case, the increasing number of other Kuiper belt objects we’ve discovered, including ones bigger than Pluto. They’re not new planets, so neither is Pluto. Not to mention the orbital behavior.

It’s still there. It’s still called Pluto. It’s just a Kuiper belt object.

Science adapts to new facts. This Pluto nostalgia isn’t cute and it has an undercurrent of anti-science, anti-intellectual backwardness. Get over the outdated models you learned in first grade and learn something new about the goddamn solar system, because the solar system is exciting and we learn amazing new things about it literally every single day.

The universe doesn’t give a fuck about your grade school nostalgia.

(Reblogged from frecklestherobot)
hallelujahchorus:

how could you fuck up so tremendously

hallelujahchorus:

how could you fuck up so tremendously

(Source: yamiyuugi)

(Reblogged from thehufflepuffwholeaptthroughtime)

deductiontoseduction:

i made a graph of my personality

(Reblogged from evil-bones-mccoy)

likeabookonashelf:

We are awaiting only one more participant.

(Reblogged from frecklestherobot)

frecklestherobot:

martinfreeman:

sherlock casablancaed john this is literally all the evidence i need tjlc is real

Did you miss the part of Casablanca where they don’t end up together at all and are never going to see each other again?

(Reblogged from frecklestherobot)

Anonymous asked: there's this thing called male gaze, do some research. it's all about camera angles and women's bodies being presented to be titillating. yes karen gillan has long legs but that doesn't mean the camera has to slowly pan up them as the introductory shot for her, especially when we just saw her as a child

trying-to-resonate-concrete:

besides-itstoowarm:

"how dare karen gillan have legs"

"how dare amy pond be a sexual character who is introduced in a sensual manner because she is a kissogram and her sexuality is a very important part of her character"

"i don’t know how to close my eyes when pretty women are on screen so i’m going to blame the production team and probably moffat for good measure"

doctor who has the least amount of male gaze on any tv show aimed at adults that i’ve ever seen so we can talk about shows that are actually really fucked up

I’m getting bored of lazy, hypocritical shite masquerading as literary criticism from this crowd. Seriously, Moffat-haters. Step up your game. If you keep embarrassing yourselves, you’re going to put me out of business.

Tip for everyone: there is no easier way to tell that someone has not done effective research than the phrase “do some research.” “It’s all about camera angles and women’s bodies being presented to be titillating” is just about the crappiest summary of Laura Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” that I’ve ever read. No, it isn’t about “bodies presented to be titillating.” That’s just visual media, because human bodies are titillating by nature of the fact that humans are, by and large, naturally sexual animals. This goes for men and women - we are naturally inclined to find other people sexually attractive. That television directors (which, by the way, Steven Moffat is not) sometimes play off of that is really pretty unremarkable.

What the male gaze is is a style of direction that has the camera take the point of view of a man who is sexualizing a woman. Focus on curves, etc. And it does so so as to provide a sense of patriarchal order that the male fantasy - both that of the character in the film and that of the audience - would have. It’s a tough sell that the use of a point of view shot from a character to slowly reveal the face of the new co-star - while said male protagonist is handcuffed and is at that point taking a submissive role to the female character - is reinforcing a fantasy of patriarchal order. My take on the scene - that it is nothing but the slow reveal of the new co-star - seems considerably more likely.

It’s also clear that this is the only example of male gaze in Steven Moffat Who that you have on hand. And that’s clear because you are responding to a point made about River Song. If you actually had substantial examples of male gaze in Moffat Who - enough to constitute a pattern - you would probably either argue something pertaining to River, or make the point that there is some pattern here. Instead, you repeat a common talking point that you probably found on Tumblr once. Listen, I know that literary criticism is hard, but this is just lazy.

Oh, and I’m baffled by the “especially when we just saw her as a child” bit. Are people prohibited from being attracted to people who used to be children? Because if so, that’s an awful lot of people who we can’t be attracted to. If not, then how long after we see someone as a child are we allowed to be attracted to them? Does it have to be at least an episode? A season? Until we forget what they looked like? I mean, it’s not like they magically aged Caitlin Blackwood into an adult and she’s still a child inside. Karen Gillan had been an adult for some time by the time this episode had been filmed.

Ultimately, the basic premise of your argument is “there are too many female bodies in Moffat-era Who.” And given that I honestly can’t remember a single instance of the use of a woman’s body in Moffat Who to sexualize a woman’s peril - only ever to reinforce their own dominance and agency - your argument basically boils down to “women in Moffat’s Who are both too sexual and too empowered.” Which is just disgusting.

Basically, repeating talking points you saw on Tumblr does not constitute research.

(Reblogged from trying-to-resonate-concrete)

marciaoverstrand:

Screw writing ‘strong’ women. Write characters who are people. [x]

(Source: olennatyrrell)

(Reblogged from frecklestherobot)