Tagged with #music
really sick of seeing so much hate directed towards the police on here. look, we get it, you prefer sting’s solo work, i like it too alright? that doesnt mean ‘every little thing she does is magic’ and ‘can’t stand losing you’ arent awesome jams. ‘roxanne’ and ‘don’t stand so close to me’ are classic, don’t even get me started on ‘spirits in the material world’. just stop ok?
Tagged with #TURN
Asked by Anonymous
I have no objection to people calling Mary a Loyalist. If asked, I think that’s what she’d call herself, and not just because she thought it was the safest answer. She admires her Loyalist father-in-law, presumably comes from a Loyalist family herself, and when she learned what Abe was up to, she seemed sincerely horrified not only by the danger he was putting them in but also by what she called his treason.
That said, you are right that she puts her family far above politics. She may have thought her husband was committing treason, but that didn’t stop her from covering for him. I don’t think she did it because she loves Abe (and I can’t really blame her for that tbh), but he is the father of her child, and her welfare and social standing are inextricably linked with his, so she cleaned up Abe’s mess for little Thomas’s sake and for her own.
Tl;dr: I think she does put her family above everything else regardless of politics, but I don’t think that necessarily means she has no opinions on the war and doesn’t favor one side over the other.
Tagged with #seriously #doctor who
Asked by bakerstreetbat
see, if you’d actually specified that you wanted this answered privately, i would’ve done it! but as you decided to vague-threaten me instead, NOPE.
a) i write for a living. SURPRISE. i write things and people give me money to do it. these are, of course, not the same amounts of money they give steven moffat to write things, but SHOCKINGLY, trying to advance a career in britain where people give you money to write for a living is quite difficult when you aren’t a straight white cis upper middle class man. like, oh, say. steven moffat. THIS DOESN’T EVEN MATTER THOUGH, BECAUSE, I DON’T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THIS, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT SOMETHING YOU CAN’T DO PERSONALLY. I KNOW RIGHT YOUR WORLD IS ROCKED.
b) i can’t write a perfect mini series. (or, as we call them here ‘full tv shows’.) no one can do that. but critcising a man whose writing has been consistently pointed out to harbour racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, dodgy disability politics, and, oh, i dunno, an over-reliance on the same tired plot devices over and over and over again feels pretty necessary to me. why do moffat stans always act as if this is THE FIRST TIME EVER that they have ever seen criticism of him. i don’t have to watch anything he writes, there isn’t a gun to my head. but i do, sometimes, and i am permitted to not like them. the ‘say something nice or don’t say anything at all’ that you were taught as a child is not actually very applicable to adult life, sorry. i’m not in any of his fandoms~~~~ you’re not the boss of me
c) HERE IS SOME CONTEXT I DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO GET OR BE AWARE OF, CANADIAN/AMERICAN ANGLOPHILE WHOSE OPINION IS LESS THAN DOGSHIT TO ME. the bbc pours a staggering amount of money into doctor who. staggering. steven moffat’s pay cheque must be massive. and here are the two reasons why you can really fuck off: number one, do you know how the bbc is funded??? SPOILER ALERT I BET NOT. by the tv license fee, which households pay individually, and also by various amounts of public money which come from, SECOND SPOILER ALERT, TAXES. guess who pays steven moffat’s wages and for doctor who in general? IS IT ME, AND BY EXTENSION, THE BRITISH PUBLIC??? YES. YES IT IS. SO I CAN FUCKING WELL GET ANNOYED ABOUT WHAT THE BBC IS USING MY MONEY TO DO.
which leads me into: number two!! now, why am i really mad about this? because people have been telling the bbc consistently and for some time now that they want a better representation of britain on their television. there have been high profile campaigns asking for better representation of people of colour not only on screen but as directors, writers, and showrunners. pleas for more shows by and about women. pleas for better depictions of working class life. people are demanding television that represents britain, with shows like this being specifically headhunted and funded, and IT’S NOT HAPPENING. shows like the hour, which dealt with race and class and gender issues, get cancelled.
i don’t give a fuck about your fandoms, or your opinions. this is bigger than that. this is about what a publicly funded institution is choosing to do with my money, and the person it has chosen to run its flagship drama. the bbc is supposed to belong to everyone, and there is not a shred of me in steven moffat. i care about this in the wider context of british life and the role of the bbc, and the extent to which i care about the opinion of a canadian anglophile on this issue is NIL.
Tagged with #Attack on Titan #SNK #real shit
In case you ever want to smell like “over protection” “rage” or “windex”
Tagged with #black butler
Tagged with #this is my life
political position: i would wee on steven moffat’s doorstep
Tagged with #feminism #gaming #geek culture
It’s time to flush your stereotypes down the drain.
Congratulations, gamer girls—you’re officially at the top of the food chain when it comes to games. A new study released by the Entertainment Software Association has revealed that adult women now occupy the largest demographic in the gaming industry. Women over 18 made up a whopping 36 percent of the gaming population, followed by adult men at 35 percent.
Tagged with #religion #classics geekery #don't be a history major
|If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also |
This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.
THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you.
I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.
For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place - suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”
All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.
Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however hecould not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?
Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry.
luxettenebris I thought I might leave this here for you.