quixotic chaotic

We have an update 

there’s more!

Pieter Hanson’s original tweet 

donate to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society

donate to Make-A-Wish

oh my god

The best part of ‘me, an intellectual’ is that the grammatically correct pronoun would be ‘I’.

you: me, an intellectual

me, an intellectual: I, an intellectual

hi where the fuck do you think that fragment is getting nominative case. listen to me. subjects of transitive verbs in nom-acc languages get nominative case by agreeing with a tense node. are you listening. fragments are accusative in english because that’s the default case when there’s no case-assigning node. meet me in the pit behind the denny’s and i will explain this to you. bring a whiteboard

you: The best part of ‘me, an intellectual’ is that the grammatically correct pronoun would be ‘I’.

kirby, a linguist: meet me in the pit behind the denny’s and i will explain this to you. bring a whiteboard

honestly the feeling of betrayal i am filled with when i see and lgbt person on the other side of he discourse is incredible like

FUCKER I AM DOING THIS FOR YOU IM LIKE DISCOURSE JESUS RN  IM SUFFERING SO YOU DONT HAVE TO

IM SUFFERING SO THAT THE STRAIGHTS ARENT IN THE COMMUNITY

where do I start on this mess

If literally calling a trans woman a penis, denying it, and refusing to reexamine your behaviour is what you call “doing this for me,” then… please, stop helping me so much. I neither want nor need it.

You doing this was neither asked, nor fucking wanted, as far as I and too many others are concerned. And if we’ve actually brought up this subject, let me tell you about my own feelings of betrayal when seeing LGBTQIAP+ people engaging in the exact same behaviors they rightfully rail against Straight people for (erasure, invalidation, dismissal of direct lived experiences, mockery and demonization of entire marginalized communities, blatant misgendering etc).

…. Except no, I don’t feel such betrayal, because I accepted long ago that being the target of bigotry and oppression does not act as some sort of miracle vaccine against oneself engaging in bigoted and oppressive behavior in turn. The discourse on this goddamn site has just been the last nail in the coffin of my remnants of optimism.

You’re doing this shit for me, you say? Then stop fucking trying to slap SGA on me, via ‘the community is for people who experience SGA and trans people’ pile of rot you call a definition.

You’re doing this shit for me, you say? Then stop trying to strip away letters from the goddamn acronym just because you and the rest of your ilk have gotten drunk on the ‘let’s undo the activism work disparate groups have put in for decades, because the presence of these people under the umbrella makes our over-reliance on SGA problematic’ power-trip.

You’re doing this shit for me, you say? Then slap yourself and cordially tell the rest of your baying mob to do the same the second you lot want to trot out anything along the lines of ‘bi people who don’t experience SGA are straight’ or ‘pansexuality gets included under bisexuality.’ Stop fucking defining people’s orientations for them. Stop speaking over bisexuals when they’ve told you time and again the nature of the definition they use. Stop speaking over pansexuals like myself, who define ourselves as having a distinct orientation and identity that can stand on its own, as ‘attraction REGARDLESS of gender.’

You’re doing this shit for me, you say? Then stop shitting all over the split-attraction model and learn that just because it didn’t work for some of you, that doesn’t mean it cannot work for anyone else. Stop marching into people’s lives with jackboots on and hitting them over the head with accusations of ‘internalized homophobia!’ without knowing anything of their unique circumstances and issues. ‘Oh, human sexuality is such a wide and diverse and marvelous spectrum, that comes in so many different and unique forms…. whoops, except when it’s about people identifying in a way that we look down upon! Can’t have that!’

You’re doing this shit for me, you say? The fucking stop assuming I am threatened by heteroromantic asexual people or aromantic people sexually attracted to a different gender or view them as oppressors that need to be kept away from me, my loved ones and my safe spaces. At this point, I feel infinitely safer and more respected by even the strawman-est of strawman ‘cishet aces’, than ANY goddamn aphobic gatekeeper / SGA discourser.

Because it fucking wasn’t ‘cishet aces’ who:

You want to do something for me? Shut your mouth until you learn empathy and do penance for all the hurt and harm and misery you and yours have caused.

A philosophy I very much live my life by.

Yeah, too bad he was a Nazi.

was he? shit

I’m assuming by “he was a Nazi” you meant he played a PARODY of Hitler in a MOVIE and in that same movie he also plays a barber who disguises himself as said Hitler parody and delivers one of the greatest anti-fascist speeches of all time.

It’s okay. It’s an easy mistake to make.

Literally where does someone come up with the idea that a Polish immigrant with heavy leftist leanings is in any way a Nazi

In fact, Chaplin was harshly criticized by the American far right for being very anti-Nazi in the period leading up to America’s entry into World War 2, and many lambasted his film, “The Great Dictator,”–in which he parodied and ridiculed Hitler–as “anti-German” and “war-mongering.” The Nazis themselves, as well as the Nazi sympathizers and supporters of the American far right, hated him.

Chaplin’s films were banned in Nazi Germany, and Nazi propaganda smeared him constantly. (Part of the smear was claiming he was Jewish–which he was not, but calling someone Jewish in Nazi Germany was guaranteed to inflame public sentiment against them.)

Chaplin was concerned with social issues like homelessness, and was a liberal and an anti-Nazi at a time when to be either one (let along both) was to be accused of being a Communist–which at the time was pretty one of the worst things you could call someone–and indeed “anti-American.” (Because, again, American conservatives loved them some Nazis–right up until the time Hitler’s forces started invading other countries–and even then, the bulk of the US thought we shouldn’t “interfere” in what they saw as a strictly European affair.)

Even after the war, and even after the world realized the despicable things the Nazis had done, Chaplin couldn’t shake the “Communist” and “anti-American” accusations from conservative American “journalists,” politicians, and others on the far right, who were still angry with him for his pre-war anti-Nazi sentiments.

And when he refused to participate in the McCarthy’s “Red Scare” Communist witch-hunts of the early 1950s, he was banned from re-entering the United States, while on a trip to England.

In short, Chaplin’s ANTI-NAZI leanings made him so many enemies in the US that they set off a chain of events that eventually saw him kicked out of the country. Oh, sure, the US finally issued a formal apology and invited him back, but by that time, his response was pretty much, “Yeah, too little, too late.” And justifiably so.

Chaplin stood against everything the Nazis stood for, and was smeared and punished for it.

So don’t you fucking dare call Charlie Chaplin a Nazi. 

Dishonor on you. Dishonor on your family. Dishonor on your cow.

 Heteroromantic Asexuals are straight.

Heterosexual Aromantics are straight.

You can’t just choose “Not to identify” with privilege !

So then Bisexual or Pansexual people who date primarily members of the opposite sex are straight too? That makes so much sense now. Because if you can pass as straight, then you’re obviously not LGBTQIA+, right?

stop dragging bi people into this i am /literally/ bi and if one more person compares my  (very real) experiences with biphobia/homophobia to ~aphobia~ im going to lose it.

I didn’t say “pass as straight” i said straight. because cishet aros and cishet aces are straight. they are literally straight. Hetero. Str8. Bi people are Not Straight. Cishet Aro/ace people Are Straight. Go away.

I’m also bi and these arguments are literally two steps away from the shit people have said to me, about me, or about other bi people I’ve followed.

Cae-herondale is right.

Privilege isn’t just how society treats you (the idea that it is, is a transphobic mentality that leads to trans women not being let into women’s spaces because of their “male privilege”/”male socialization”), it’s also what you internalize from society.

The closet is not a privilege.

I’m not SAYING that ace people should be “closeted” i’m saying that SOME OF THEM ARE STRAIGHT. stop misinterpreting me and twisting my words.

I am not twisting your words.

You are appearing to me to say this: 

“asexual people who are cis and romantically involved with the conventionally opposite gender exclusively, should be treated in the same way as allosexual people who are cis and romantically involved with the conventionally opposite gender exclusively.”

Because we’re talking about aces and aros who are “cishet,” but still identify as asexual.

Your position seems to be that their identity as asexuals is not enough to include them in the group of Non-Straight people, because (this seems to be your reasoning) they are still treated as Straight by society.

My position is that society does not treat them as Straight. Society assumes they are straight, but the assumption has effects that suppress or punish their asexuality. This is an example of the closet. It is suffering under the assumption of straightness.

It is a similar experience to trans people who “pass” as their assigned gender, or bisexual/pansexual people who appear to be with partners of the conventionally opposite gender. Their straightness is assumed, but this assumption is “heterosexist” (for lack of a better term) violence. I have experienced both these forms of hetero*sexism, so I can testify they are similar.

If I am still getting this wrong, then I think it’s because I don’t understand the definition of “straight” you are using. You may want to clarify it. 

Because as people who do not experience sexual and/or romantic attraction, from my perspective, aces and aros can never be straight. 

Straight people experience romantic and sexual attraction as part of Straightness, in the same way they experience “opposite”-gender sexual/romantic attraction exclusively, and identify with their birth-assigned gender.

That’s my definition of “straight,” and given the aphobic violence people have experienced, it seems to be society’s as well.

What definition are you using?

(Also this felt like it turned out circular in phrasing and I used too many big words and sentences because I’m tired; if someone wants to try to make this cognitively accessible that would be great)

This one boy in my math class insisted that there are 27 letters in the alphabet. He ended up with 27 because he was counting ‘and’ as a letter. I am a senior in high school.

I think ’&’ used to be considered a letter

The Andsign has NEVER been part of the fucking alphabet.   Jesus, the brats on tumblr…

First of all, don’t call me a brat. That is rude, especially coming from a fellow Fannibal.

Second of all, it used to be considered a letter. I was on mobile earlier and couldn’t link to sources properly, hence i said “I think”. Now that I’m on my laptop, here we go:

–

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/feb/15/from-a-to-ampersand

ampersand

Until as recently as the early 1900s, “&” was considered a letter of the alphabet and listed after Z in 27th position. To avoid confusion with the word “and”, anyone reciting the alphabet would add “per se” (“by itself”) to its name, so that the alphabet ended “X, Y, Z and per se &”. This final “and per se and” eventually ran together, and the “ampersand” was born.

–

https://99designs.com/designer-blog/2015/04/03/history-of-ampersands-typography/

“ In a twist on the traditional story, the logogram ‘&’ came way before the word it now represents, ‘ampersand’. It was once the 27th letter of the alphabet, derived from the Roman word for and: ‘et’. When ancient Roman scribes were scribbling away in Roman Cursive around the 1st century AD, they had a tendency to connect to two letters into a ligature.

…

The word ampersand evolved by a process called mondegreen — when a new word comes from the common mistaken pronunciation of something else. British schoolchildren in the 1800s would recite the alphabet, concluding with “X, Y, Z, and per say &.” They inserted the “per say” so to indicate ‘&’ was by itself rather than ending the string of letters with a hanging conjunction.

Clearly it wasn’t a perfect solution, as over time the children slurred the words together to create the word ampersand. Over time, it was dropped from the alphabet, like many fascinating characters before it. But it was added to dictionaries starting in 1837.”

–

http://blog.dictionary.com/ampersand/

“The word “ampersand” came many years later when “&” was actually part of the English alphabet. In the early 1800s, school children reciting their ABCs concluded the alphabet with the &. It would have been confusing to say “X, Y, Z, and.” Rather, the students said, “and per se and.” “Per se” means “by itself,” so the students were essentially saying, “X, Y, Z, and by itself and.” Over time, “and per se and” was slurred together into the word we use today:ampersand. When a word comes about from a mistaken pronunciation, it’s called a mondegreen.“

–

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/06/where-the-ampersand-symbol-and-name-came-from/

“The name for the symbol, “ampersand”, didn’t commonly come into use until the 19th century, from “and per se and”, meaning more or less: “and [the symbol] by itself is and”.  Classically, when the English alphabet was spoken, “per se” commonly preceded any letter of the alphabet that could be used as a word by itself, such as “A” and “I”, as well “O”, which at one point could be used as a standalone word.  Further, the ampersand symbol used to appear at the end of the English alphabet: … X, Y, Z, &. Hence, when spoken: “… X, Y, Z, and per se and”. “

—

Conclusion:

1. Sometimes people know things you don’t.

2. Try to learn something new everyday.

3. Don’t be rude.

what a beautiful, beautiful response :3

do the fucking research before you tell somebody they’re wrong on the internet, or you will look remarkably foolish when they explain why they’re not

this post is gonna pick up a zillion notes and the poor op just wanted to talk about a boy in their math class rip

sweet honey glazed hell on rye shut the fuck up get a fucking tattoo if you want a tattoo. tattoos dont have to have a deep meaning or significance if you don’t want just get the fucking tattoo. who cares who fucking cares. life is meaningless. we all die.

here i fixed your bullshit post

I’m about 90% sure the economy is never gonna “improve” 

this is capitalism in it’s final form

this is it honey 

except, you know, those companies that do a charitable thing for every thing they sell

that’s kinda new and interesting. benevolent capitalism

lmao

Pay attention, class: This is what it looks like when one is unwilling to consider new information.

It’s not new information, though. It’s misinformation.

First, it’s not that new.

Did you know that there was a time in U.S. history—which is by definition recent history—when a corporation was generally intended to have some sort of public interest that they served? I mean, that’s the whole point of allowing corporations to form. Corporations are recognized by the commonwealth or state, and this recognition is not a right but a privilege, in exchange for which the state (representing the people) is allowed to ask, “So what does this do for everyone else?”

The way the economy is now is a direct result of a shift away from this thinking and to one where a corporation is an entity unto itself whose first, last, and only concern is an ever-increasing stream of profits. What you’re calling “benevolent capitalism” isn’t benevolent at all. It’s a pure profit/loss calculation designed to distract from—not even paper over or stick a band-aid on—the problems capitalism creates. And the fact that you’re here championing it as “benevolent capitalism” is a sign of how ell it’s working.

Let’s take Toms, as one example. The shoe that’s a cause. Buy a pair of trendy shoes, and a pair of trendy shoes will be given away to someone somewhere in the world who can’t afford them.

That’s not genuine benevolence. That’s selling you, the consumer, on the idea that you can be benevolent by buying shoes, that the act of purchasing these shoes is an act of charity. The reality is that their model is an inefficient means of addressing the problems on the ground that shoelessness represents, and severely disrupts the local economies of the locations selected for benevolence.

(Imagine what it does to the local shoemakers, for instance.)

The supposed act of charity is just a value add to convince you to spend your money on these shoes instead of some other shoes. It’s no different than putting a prize in a box of cereal.

Heck, you want to see how malevolent this is?

Go ask a multinational corporation that makes shoes or other garments to double the wages of their workers. They’ll tell you they can’t afford it, that it’s not possible, that consumers won’t stand for it, that you’ll drive them out of business and then no one will have wages.

But the fact that a company can give away one item for every item sold shows you what a lie this is. A one-for-one giving model represents double the cost of labor and materials for each unit that is sold for revenue. Doubling wages would only double the labor.

So why are companies willing to give their products away (and throw them away, destroy unused industry with bleach and razors to render them unsalvageable, et cetera) but they’re not willing to pay their workers more?

Because capitalism is the opposite of benevolence.

“Charity” is by definition exemplary, above and beyond, extraordinary, extra. “Charity” is not something that people are entitled to. You give people a shirt or shoes or some food and call it charity, and you’re setting up an expectation that you can and will control the stream of largesse in the future, and anything and everything you give should be considered a boon from on high.

On the other hand, once you start paying your workers a higher wage, you’re creating an expectation. You’re admitting that their labor is more valuable to you than you were previously willing to admit, and it’s hard to walk that back.

Plus, when people have enough money for their basic needs, they’re smarter and stronger and warier and more comfortable with pushing back instead of being steamrolled over. They have time and money to pursue education. They can save money up and maybe move away. They can escape from the system that depends on a steady flow of forced or near-forced labor.

So companies will do charitable “buy one, give one” and marketing “buy one, get one” even though these things by definition double the overhead per unit, but they won’t do anything that makes a lasting difference in the standard of living for the people.

Capitalism has redefined the world so that the baseline of ethics is “How much money can we make?” and every little good deed over and above that is saintly.

But there’s nothing benevolent about throwing a scrap of bread to someone who’s starving in a ditch because you ran them out of their home in the first place.

This is one of the best anti-capitalist posts on the entire site.

Ynon Kreiz, the president of Maker Studios (The New Yorker)

I am really incredibly sorry for the dumb shit adults say, kids.

(via imaginarycircus)

not only can we do it but we’ll do it in one 24 hour period

(via alltheladiesyouhate)

Here’s the thing I find really funny (and by funny I mean pathetic) about this assumption that younger, digital-savvy generations today have no attention span. The thing is, yes, we will tune into a thing for five minutes and then flip away to another channel. We will turn to our phones for entertainment during commercial breaks and if we’re not interested in what we’re looking at we’ll go look at something else. This might be interpreted as a short attention span.

The thing is, what we have right now is what a lot of us and the generations before us didn’t have: a metric fuck-ton of choices. Sure, there’s a growing market for short, self-contained forms of entertainment: short stories and webisodes and other types of serialized fiction that you can consume in small doses, while you’re on your lunch break or taking your morning train. And that’s great. I love that stuff. Again, it gives you another choice, tailor-made with modern life in mind (but not exactly new, either; plenty of popular fiction used to be serialized in magazines and newspapers).

But if creators and network executives are looking at their audience and deciding that the audience isn’t paying attention to what they’re producing because “these kids today and their attention spans,” I’ve got a news flash for them: you’re not losing their attention because they’re not capable of giving it to you. You’re losing their attention because what you’re producing isn’t good enough and they’ve got better more interesting things to do with their time. They’ve got options. You want to capture their attention? Step up your fucking game and produce something that isn’t fucking garbage.

(via captain-snark)

“weeeeh i cant afford healthy food”

here’s an idea……..

grow it…. yourself……

Gardens are a very valuable resource, and can help many in times of hunger or need – it’s absolutely true that people could benefit from gardening. There are many resources online that can help you get started.

However, depending on where people live and the limited yardspace they may have, gardening isn’t always possible. Climate affects which fruits, vegetables and herbs can be planted, as does the amount of space you have – you can’t fit a watermelon or pumpkin patch in your backyard. Sure, growing cucumbers, tomatoes, squash, strawberries, so on might not be too tricky, but are you suggesting people can live off of just those things in their diet? Not comfortably, at least, or safely for that matter – people need a wide array of food in their diet, including starches and proteins. Should I start kneading my own bread from scratch? Gathering wheat in the fields of the countryside? What if I live in a city? A suburb? Too bad… I guess I’m a shameful human being, in that case.

Speaking of cities, many people don’t have the kind of conditions ideal for a garden, and yes, there are farmer’s markets and other supplies of wholesome food, but not in every city, and not necessarily at prices everyone can afford. So if you can’t grow your own food and want fresh stuff, yes, you have to pay more for it. That’s how our system works in the US, unfortunately.

If you wanted to suggest gardening as a healthy option for those who can pursue it, awesome! Give people resources and information on how to do so, or links to affordable farmer’s markets or organic food suppliers in different cities. But I think we all know that wasn’t your intention – telling fat people and people with low income to just grow their own food instead of whining about it helps no one, and doesn’t indicate you actually care about their wellbeing.

Derogative weight loss rhetoric like this is a microaggression. If you want to criticize somebody, criticize the ones responsible for our food culture, the CEOs with all of the money and influence that bar people from access to fresh food while promoting cheaper, less healthy alternatives.

And you know what? I don’t have to go out and eat fresh cucumbers every day to have value as a human being. I’m fat, and so what? I don’t need to apologize for anything, and my diet and personal wellbeing are nobody’s business. End of story.

Why don’t you go in your backyard and, I dunno… start a garden, instead of putting people down on the internet?

^^^THIS.

Just WOW. Have you ever had a garden? Do you have any idea how hard it is to maintain one when you work 60 hour weeks? And also HAVE NO YARD because you live in a small apartment with roommates in the city?

I just cannot believe how far people will go to shame poor people who LITERALLY cannot afford to feed themselves well.

people who hate smokers are weird fam like 

1. why do you care about a decision someone makes that doesnt affect you 2. Why do you choose to ignore the concept of “addiction” and its psychological toll 3. Why do you choose to ignore the reasons behind why someone started smoking (stress, depression, anxiety) 4. why are you so judgemental and close-minded just based on what someone ingests 5. Why are you so ignorant to the point where youre literally saying “if you smoke you’re a bad person and (I QUOTE) “a disgusting moron” 6. Why are we giving idiots with no grasp on psychology, understanding, empathy, and logic internet access

Unfortunately, in some cases it’s because many smokers do not respect non-smokers.

I am allergic to an ingredient in commercial cigarettes. I grew up in the UK.

I was seventeen before I could take the bus. (That was when they banned smoking on buses).

I have had to get up from a park bench where I was minding my own business eating because a smoker sat next to me and lit up without asking, and refused to move.

I have every sympathy for addiction and for reasons people might take up smoking. Heck, I don’t care if you smoke.

But when I can’t wait at a bus stop because a smoker won’t walk five steps so he’s downwind of the stop…I lose all my sympathy for that person.

IOW, if you want people to respect your right to smoke, please be one of the smokers who respects other people’s right not to smoke.

Or even to be able to get where they need to go without ending up sick or worse. If somebody has a severe allergy or asthma, your smoke can endanger their life.

So, go ahead, smoke. Just please pay attention and if somebody asks you to move away or stand downwind of them…is that really too much to ask?

“1. why do you care about a decision someone makes that doesnt affect you” second hand smoke is defintiely a thing but whatever

she’s unreal

“we didn’t have phones to ignore other people all the time! we interacted and developed our social skills!”

always-a-lighthouse:

If black people symbolically saying “fuck you” to every man and women who has died in uniform offends you more than black people dying in the streets, you need to reevaluate your priorities.

What about the people that survived in uniform and died at home because they were black?

So like …we are going to ignore that the military targets the so called “minorities .”

#serious vet questions. always-a-lighthouse

Black LIVES are more important than military SENTIMENT. Why is this even a fucking debate??

So, as an ACTUAL VETERAN let me tell you what I think about this shit.

I do not appreciate AT ALL you fucking civilian assholes using my service to shit on minorities. I don’t give a fuck about the flag. That is not why I was fighting! I joined up, like most servicemembers, to go to college, and I deployed because they Army was like “Guess where you’re going! Afghanistan!” Patriotism didn’t matter a lot for me, and I never felt like I was “defending” the flag–what, are these poor as fuck Afghani sustenance farmers going to bomb America? (No. No they are not.)

You know what would really help me, as a vet? Not people pretending they care about me by using my service as a way to justify their racist beliefs. I know for a fact that you don’t actually give a shit about me, always-a-lighthouse. You don’t give a shit about my fucked up knee, my poverty, how it took me three years to learn how to be a civilian, two years to get a handle on the blinding rage I felt about literally everything, how I’m still in therapy to deal with the way the Army fucked me up. None of that matters to you because all you want is a convenient excuse to justify your racism. If you actually gave a fuck about me you’d fight to get the VA better funding or expand the GI bill so it actually covers all four years of undergrad. But you don’t. I’m not a person to you, I’m an idea, and even then, only as long as it suits you. As soon as I’m not a convenient way to blame people, I cease to exist. No wonder so many of us feel like we only matter as long as we’re fighting!

Also, I don’t think you understand how protest works. Symbolism is vitally important. When someone walks on the flag, what they’re saying is “This flag, which promises liberty and justice for all, is denying me liberty and justice. In this land of freedom, I am not free. This flag serves people who do not look like me and do not care about me, and I will not rest until all people are equal under this flag.” That’s powerful symbolism.

Don’t like it? A) Fuck you. B) They wouldn’t be desecrating the flag if there was any other way to get what they need. When you deny people justice and equality, than make it impossible for them to get it through conventional means, you guarantee that they up the ante until they find something that works. Do you not understand how people think? You aren’t going to stop the protest over people being murdered by acting like those lives are less valuable than the fucking flag. The flag doesn’t care! It’s an inanimate object! Why the fuck would you care more about a piece of cloth than human lives?!

The next time I hear you fuckboy assholes using my service and the service of the people who came home in coffins as a way to justify your racism, I will track you down and beat your head into the wall until you learn. STOP ACTING LIKE YOU GIVE A SHIT ABOUT US.

THANK YOU.