Ilse of Gold in flowers' bloom...

countchedulaxvii:

Why watch the presidential debate when you can watch the SNL version like three whole days later

utena-tfln:

[Photoset - First image is Anthy watching Utena leave with Akio. Second image is Anthy’s sad face.]

[Text - (719): Well who could blame her. I would run away from me if I could.]

yonkobe:

happily-hatemarried:

hadespatches:

xekstrin:

It’s true
If they’re writers they’re all bisexual

There’s a whole class on fem-slash. I didn’t manage to go full-lesbian though. I failed one of the courses and now I’m stuck as a pansexual. It’s not bad, really.

I was a bit of a rebel and ended up asexual.

But I ended up spending too much time focusing on the lesbian courses and I kind of ended up falling behind in the art courses

yonkobe:

happily-hatemarried:

hadespatches:

xekstrin:

It’s true

If they’re writers they’re all bisexual

There’s a whole class on fem-slash. I didn’t manage to go full-lesbian though. I failed one of the courses and now I’m stuck as a pansexual. It’s not bad, really.

I was a bit of a rebel and ended up asexual.

But I ended up spending too much time focusing on the lesbian courses and I kind of ended up falling behind in the art courses

The thing about this appropriation of the burqa that people need to understand is that people like Lady Gaga haven’t done a thing for the communities [here and abroad] that wear, live and breathe the garb who are subjected to harassment for doing so. The words “appreciation” and “admiration” are painfully hollow when you take a piece of clothing from a community and strip it of its intent and the consequences that come from it. Lady Gaga makes millions and taxes subsequently take a huge chunk of those millions. Therein, a quarter of her taxes are used to ravage Muslim majority populations. Has she spoken out about this? Has anyone orientalist who bastardizes our garb done so? Where were they when the Sikh tragedy happened? Where are they now when Newsweek posts a horribly offensive article on Muslim rage, aggressively written by their puppet Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who I’m ashamed to call my fellow Somali? Do they come to our defense when we’re expected to kneel over and apologize on behalf of extremists, who funnily enough kill us as well? If I wear a burqa, nijab.. or hell even a fucking hijab, I’m a stupid, brown savage who has no capacity to think for herself. But when Gaga wears it, its revolutionary and fashionable. People love to scream equality and colorblindedness when such an event arises, but such a world is completely theoretical until we fix these the caricatured perceptions about Islam. The power dynamics here cannot be ignored.

My friend Khadijah and her thoughts on Lady Gaga recently being spotted donning a “burqa” (via eastafrodite)

important

(via songofthelioness)

elenilote:

“I got a fan letter from a young lady. It was a suicide note.

So I called her, and I said, “Hey, this is Jimmy Doohan. Scotty, from Star Trek.” I said, “I’m doing a convention in Indianapolis. I wanna see you there.”

I saw her — boy, I’m telling you, I couldn’t believe what I saw. It was definitely suicide. Somebody had to help her, somehow. And obviously she wasn’t going to the right people.

I said to her, “I’m doing a convention two weeks from now in St. Louis.” And two weeks from then, in somewhere else, you know? She also came to New York - she was able to afford to got to these places. That went on for two or three years, maybe eighteen times. And all I did was talk positive things to her.

And then all of the sudden — nothing. I didn’t hear anything. I had no idea what had happened to her because I never really saved her address.

Eight years later, I get a letter saying, “I do want to thank you so much for what you did for me, because I just got my Master’s degree in electronic engineering.”

That’s…to me, the best thing I’ve ever done in my life.”

What an amazing man

I PUT TOO MUCH PICKLED MANGO IN MY LETKHA KICHURI ;-;

podiumtoast:

crusader-kayron:

colonelcheru:

coryruinseverything:

yumizoomi:

phoenixwrong:

samcrocker:

theknighttoyourtime:

super-scout:

aetropos:

starexorcist:

tehmostaewsumblogevar:

starexorcist:

ecrusher:

10knotes:

M&Ms Droplets

now that’s what photography should be about… not a black and white picture of someone’s shoes

The top picture is full of M&M’s. They’re bule, red, orange, green, yellow, and brown.

But in the bottom picture we clearly see there’s white, pink, and even purple candies in the bowl.

The bottom picture is of gumballs! This concludes that the bottom picture is not taken with that camera at all. I’d even go as far to say that it was edited in photoshop with a filter!

Yes the above image and the below image are not the same photograph being taken. This is rather obvious.

BUT Mr. Wright there is one thing you overlooked. Examine the droplets on the bottom image. None of them are from the same angle. This is a natural occurance when looking through water droplets.

Is it not possible that the photographer took the second image first?

Would it not be more probable that when asked HOW it was taken he/she took the above image of their setup Using M&Ms, something much more common in a household rather than many gumballs, something they may have just bought for the original photo? 

So to claim it was not taken with the same camera is indeed a long shot Mr. Wright.

Thank you for your time.

Really Edgeworth, is that you’re argument.

Aren’t you overlooking the fact that there are no pink M&Ms. This proves undeniably that these are not, in fact M&Ms, but some other kind of candy.

And one other thing, I find it highly improbable that not one piece of candy is facing so the M logo is on the candy.

So in conclusion, there is no way these are possibly M&Ms.

hey mister I think you’re confuuuuuuused. Edgeworth agreed that they weren’t M&M’s. He was just refuting that there is a possibility there wasnt any photoshop used and that the above image was only depicting the method used in the bottom image.

I think someone might be getting a little senile hehehe

Everyone seems to be walking around the accusations by examining whether they are or aren’t M&Ms. That is not what’s important. What we should be looking at is instead, the so-called droplets, compared to the background image.

The angles within the droplets do not realistically coincide with one another! As well, I don’t spend much time staring at drops of water, but I can surely say I’ve never seen such clarity in any water droplet. Also, as in the former picture, there is an obvious fogging on the glass, surely caused by whichever process was used to spray the water. Where is the fog? 

On top of all that, the drops are amazingly tiny compared to the anonymous-candy. One could argue the sheet is further away than in the ‘example’ pic, but the blurring of the candies definitely objects to that. We could also try to assume that the spray method used in the ‘original’ photo caused much tinier water spots, but are we to believe that the photographer was so careless that they couldn’t recreate the correct droplet size in the ‘example’? Surely, they should have been able to cause at least a closer resemblance.

Sure seems like they went out of their way to showcase the methodology of how the photograph was taken, yet neglected to go far enough to ensure it could be a like-comparison?

Rather unlikely!

Actually, Mr. Godot!! 

Well, according to the properties of light and the way it’s refracted…

If you mirror it the right way, they line up just fine!

Hold on there, pups. You’re all going in completely different directions. Shih-na, if you will?

Lang Zi says: “The truth lies not at the exit, but rather, shines outside the maze itself.”

You need to see past the boundaries given to you in order to figure out the actual purpose and, as much as I’d hate to admit, both Mr. Prosecutor and the crow-girl have some pretty tame ground under their feet with those assumptions.

As said before, it’s logical to assume the photographer is merely depicting the method used in order to get the results shown in the second photo—and it can be just that.

But what if it’s something else entirely?

We’re all wolves who’ve been swindled by the coyote that has stolen our kill. How do we know if the photographer just isn’t using some clever ploy to get us all confused? He could have taken these pictures separately and simply put them together with getting us riled up in mind.

I think we all need to reconsider our options, here.

Non! Non! Why must we argue over zis candy??!

Is all candy, no? ~

Right!

It’s all just candy everybody! We should be eating it, not arguing over it!

Mr. Nick, buy some for Mystic Maya now! Buy her some!!

this is so quality

Not to burst everyone’s bubble…

but someone changed the original pictures.

TUMBLR, YOU MADE MY DAY, AGAIN!

what is happening

seventypercentethanol:

THE NAMELESS STORIES; CHAPTER 1: THE SKY IS A HOLLOW SEA

In which a memory is lost, then found, and lost again.

Requires CSS, Javascript, optimized for Firefox, apologies if it breaks on other browsers. Also a warning for flashing animated gifs. As a note, I’ll be updating the story as whole chapters.