plumslices:

Can we have a day without like…..information

(via whoaheytheresatan)

transgenderer:

if i had one frivolous wish it would be to force everyone to call the knight in chess a “horsey”, but not erase the memory that it’s called a knight

(via whoaheytheresatan)

anotherspnfangirl:

I know a lot of young teens who don’t understand this. :/

queenlokibeth:

Yeah bruh it’s not the actual gap ffs people, it’s the age gap RELATIVE TO THE PEOPLE’S AGES

Let’s see some examples:

3 year gap between a 15 and 18 year old: BAD. ILLEGAL. FUCKED UP.

3 year gap between a 30 and 33 year old: they’re practically the same age

10 year gap between a 25 and 35 year old: hmm kinda weird, might let it slide, but no.

10 year gap between a 60 and 70 year old: yeah trust me you’re good.

9 year gap between a 20 and a 29 year old: let me put this into perspective, person A could be in their second year of college and person b graduated 7 years before. That’s weird and they’re at INFINITELY different stages in life.

9 year gap between a 46 year old and a 55 year old: they’re both middle aged, they’re both at the same stage in life, they’ve probably both have had some sense of stability for a while now and probably no wildly violent life changes like high school/college/first job/first partner have happened in a while. It’s FINE.

beau–brummell:

I’ve already seen discourse on Twitter about Keanu Reeves and his girlfriend bc apparently, 46 ISN’T age appropriate for a 55 year old man or something and I’m starting to think some people don’t understand the discussion about age gap relationships….it’s not about age gaps themselves, it’s about adults dating people who aren’t adults (usually teenagers). But also, 46 and 55 is age appropriate jfc

(via whoaheytheresatan)

Anonymous asked:

hey do you think you could expand a bit on separating the art from the artist? clearly you’ve done it with jk rowling but what are your thoughts on it as a general idea?

fanonical:

Okay, but you’re not going to like the answer.

Here’s the truth: you can’t separate the art from the artist. Not entirely. HP Lovecraft was an incredibly talented, but much more incredibly racist man. It would nice to say you don’t agree with his views but you can enjoy his works without that leaking in but…. well, I’m afraid that would be misunderstanding his books entirely.

Consider, for a second, that Lovecraft’s works were horror stories about extradimensional creatures having mutant children with humans; they were about invasions from distant aliens; they were about the purity of quaint, white, American towns being tainted. Now consider how this may have all been influenced by the fact that he just simply despised anybody who wasn’t white. Consider how his opinions on “mixing the races” might feed into this; consider why being unable to maintain the “purity” of white Americans was the scariest thing of all to him.

This extends to Rowling too.

I would love to say we can just acknowledge that she is an awful, racist, antisemitic, transphobic person and then say “but at least her books are good,” because, well, they are, aren’t they? I would say so, for sure. But to suggest that one can separate her from them is…. ridiculous, and it’s an insult to fans, can know and do better.

Consider why an antisemitic woman wrote about a species of goblins who live among us, but who for the most part keep to themselves and are maybe a little discriminated against on an individual level, but also hold all the cards, all the money, run the banks.

Consider why a racist woman would write about a species of slaves who loved being enslaved, who enjoyed working for no pay, and cleaning up after humans, with the only small caveat of that they didn’t want to be beaten. Imagine that only the most radical of their species wanted to be free, and he still spent the rest of his life working for no pay and helping out a little white boy and his friends wherever he could. Consider why the only person in the story who thought they should be free, that they should have rights, was treated as an overzealous joke, who was acting against the wishes of those slaves who really LOVE being enslaved. Consider that Rowling went on to say that she kind of considers that girl to be black, now.

Consider why JK Rowling, an open and proud transphobe, wrote Rita Skeeter as having a large square jaw, thick “manly” hands, and dressing incredibly gaudily with the most obvious fake nails and fake teeth and fake hair and fake everything. Consider why a woman who tweets about how trans women are “foxes pretending to be hens to get in the hen house” might write this Rita Skeeter character to then illegally transform her body in order to spy on children.

Harry Potter is full of Rowling’s bigotry, start to finish. Not even tangentially, like, “oh the goblins are bad, Rita Skeeter is bad, the house elves are bad, but most of it’s good!” because the deeper you dig and the longer you think the more you realise the entire story is based on her prejudices.

Harry Potter pretends to be an aracial story about found family, but if that were true, why are Harry’s distant ancestors important to who he is today even in the seventh book? Why does Harry have to live with his cousin and aunt and uncle? Because magic inherently prefers blood ties. Whilst Rowling was writing a story that seemed to say, “your heritage is not that important and doesn’t make you better than others” she was still writing a story about a boy who got all of his money through his bloodline, who was protected by living with his bloodline, no matter how evil, who was uniquely able to stop Voldemort because his bloodline passed down the invisibility cloak for generations and generations. Any step Harry takes he is compared to his perfect parents who were exactly like him — he looks just like his father, but he has his mother’s eyes, you know! — consider WHY a woman who is racist might’ve written a story like this. A story that on its surface, condemns a blood caste, but still in every step it takes, validates the idea that blood is thicker than water, and your geneological origin is what makes you special.

You can enjoy Harry Pottwr, of course you can. There are fantastic parts. I love a small group of teenagers deciding to become anarchist rebels and train to fight against fascism in secret. I love the murder mystery plots, I love how the series tells kids that it’s a good thing to be brave, and a good thing to fight injustice, and a good thing to challenge the government. But I cannot separate it from its author because it is such a product of its author. All of the structures of the world, the way things work in the universe, are drenched in Rowling’s beliefs, her bigotries. Of course they are: she made them.

Again. This doesn’t mean you cannot enjoy it. But I think we are past the day where we can pretend that disavowing a bigoted author is enough, and that that somehow separates the text from its bigotry. I think we are past the day where we can pretend that Harry Potter isn’t a deeply, inherently bigoted piece of media. Even the bits we love. I think we are beyond the day where we can truthfully pretend to separate it from her, because she is present through all of it. We MUST recognise its flaws. We MUST admit that she is in every part of it.

dankmemeuniversity:

(via shhimnotreallyhere)