20 10 / 2014

mallelis:

The Internet: A Glossary

I love you = we are both on the Internet, and we agree about something

shut it all down = I’m going to stay right here and not leave the Internet and keep reading this

#FF = here is a list of people I am hoping will eventually notice and follow me back

threw shade = I am a straight person who learned about the phrase “threw shade” in the last eight months

THIS = I have no insight to add

I can’t even = I am having, at most, one feeling

shots fired = I have never heard a gun go off in real life; here is a mildly provocative article about food

this is everything = this is one thing, maybe two things at best

(via The Toast, because that’s where I wrote it)

This is both hilarious and a legitimately important piece of satire, as is common with Mallory Ortberg’s work.

17 10 / 2014

curlicuecal:

curlicuecal:

Let’s all take a moment to bask in Hussie’s trolling mastery, because I dearly love this man:

-5 months of twitter silence

-(x) Horse gif!

-(x) omg the horse gif was a secret code, update on the 8th?!?

-(x) Hahaha, why would you ever believe the fan conspiracy theories?  …clearly he was talking about SBaHJ.

-(x) THE CHAMOMILE WAS THE CODE, update on the 17th, this is not a drill!1!!

-(x) *updates on the 16th*

*everything crashes*

*curtain*

the surprising, Caliborn-esque plot-twist:

-(x) *un-updates on the 17th*

16 10 / 2014

beat-bro:

Potential Homestuck ending #99: UPD8 (the only one that is likely to actually happen, if only metaphorically).

(via sumomomochi)

16 10 / 2014

curlicuecal:

Let’s all take a moment to bask in Hussie’s trolling mastery, because I dearly love this man:

-5 months of twitter silence

-(x) Horse gif!

-(x) omg the horse gif was a secret code, update on the 8th?!?

-(x) Hahaha, why would you ever believe the fan conspiracy theories?  …clearly he was talking about SBaHJ.

-(x) THE CHAMOMILE WAS THE CODE, update on the 17th, this is not a drill!1!!

-(x) *updates on the 16th*

*everything crashes*

*curtain*

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Andrew Hussie is the fandom-trolling creator we deserve and I could not be happier about it.

16 10 / 2014

ohnoproblems:

natellite:

"the raven" only its about macklemore. thanks for following my blog

once inside a thrift shop dreary, while i browsed there, weak and weary,

over many a quaint and curious greatcoat of forgotten bore—

while I nodded, puissance sapping, suddenly there came a yapping,

as of some one whitely rapping, rapping at my bargain store—

“‘tis some visitor,” i muttered, “rapping at my bargain store—

only this and macklemore.”

(via thedildoassassin)

15 10 / 2014

levianity:

shakespearesiphone:

yep that’s exactly how it went

I’m a piece of shit

"Romeo And Juliet" Act I scene I

bro

(via marykatewiles)

14 10 / 2014

14 10 / 2014

nakedly:

you are not fat
you have fat 
you also have fingernails 
you are not fingernail 

This kind of statement tends to rub me the wrong way, just speaking personally.

1) It’s silly. ‘Fat’ is part of your body like fingernails are part of your body, yes. But it’s also a general descriptor of size/shape (in contrast to ‘thin’). Someone saying ‘I’m fat’ is not saying they are literally *made of fat*, sheesh.

2) It seems to be motivated by a resistance to the word ‘fat’ because it’s seen as insulting. I personally am all about reclaiming fat as a neutral descriptor so ‘don’t say fat! Don’t call me/yourself/anyone FAT, that would be terrible!’ arguments aren’t for me.

3) It, perhaps unintentionally, echoes a common theme in weight loss mantras which is that ‘every fat person has a thin person inside them’. I find the suggestion that parts of my body aren’t really part of my body, but rather are like an ugly overcoat that I should despise and try to destroy? To be…troubling. In a number of ways.

(via meltingdoll)

13 10 / 2014

absolutepx:

stfueverything:

dbvictoria:

With all the heat Anita Sarkeesian gets for her Tropes series, you’d think it was a new topic, but Gene Siskel & Roger Ebert had a discussion on a similar theme when they were talking about the influx of slasher movies on their show in 1980.

(x)

34 years later and this is STILL relevant

Anita gets heat about her Tropes videos because she either willfully or ignorantly misrepresents the games she covers to make her points. The conversation about violence and agency is one we should have, but we won’t be getting anywhere as long as we use a fraud like Anita as a jumping off point.

Mmmm. Couple of things here.

1. A significant percentage - a very high percentage - of the ‘heat’ Anita Sarkeesian gets for her TvWiVG series has nothing to do with her arguments being invalid, and everything to do with her being a woman and critiquing video games from a feminist perspective.

Why can I say that with confidence? Because a vast majority of it started before she ever made any arguments. Literally as soon as she proposed her thesis (there are some tropes in video games that seem to be negative towards women, I’d like to research and discuss this, care to donate a few dollars to make that happen?) came the deluge of ‘Anita doesn’t care about video games’ and ‘Anita just has an agenda’ and ‘Anita is trying to scam people and will never make these videos’ and the death threats and the rape threats and the doxxing and the attempts to report her to YouTube as ‘hate speech’ or to Kickstarter as a ‘terrorist’ and that one game where the entire point was that the player virtually ‘punched’ a picture of her until ‘she’ was battered and bloody, remember that?

All that didn’t start because they disagreed with her portrayal of stripper death in Hitman: Absolution (in a videos two years later). This started because of the idea of her critiquing video games from a feminist perspective AT ALL.

The original point of the gif set + text, which I think you may have missed, is the absurdity of this overreaction to the *idea* of the same exact kind of scrutiny that other types of media have been under for decades.

2. Given the ugly nature of so much of this Anita Sarkeesian “criticism”, I have been hesitant to seek out a lot of critiques of her videos; I’m not interested in watching a video that defends rape and death threats, for example.

Much of the criticism that I’ve encountered in passing has tended towards the strawman (debunking something that Anita didn’t say/sometimes actively has stated isn’t true herself), or the weirdly nitpick-y (this one example, from the 27 games she cited, from one of the six half-hour videos she made, is more nuanced that she presented/is justified by the narrative! THEREFORE SHE IS A LYING LIAR!), or sometimes just outright ridiculous (here is a tweet that Anita Sarkeesian definitely posted about how she used the Kickstarter money to buy shoes. Yes, it’s 200 characters longer than a tweet is allowed to be, but shhh).

THAT SAID I am not a gamer and have obviously not played most of the games she discusses. I would be really interested in some non-awful discussion of errors or omissions in her critiques, if you could point me in their direction.

3. I’m struggling with how to put this gently.

Consider Anita Sarkeesian’s videos. Agree with her points or no, she is calm, reasoned, and almost academic in the structure of her arguments. She makes no angry accusations, uses no hyperbole in the service of rhetoric, has no rallying cry more radical than ‘we can and should do better’. She is, frankly, as gentle and *nice* of a critic as one could hope to see.

Consider the overwhelmingly rage-filled, violent responses she has received to her patient, thoughtful videos. Consider the huge amount of harassment Anita has received, the abuse and threats (the bomb threats! Multiple bomb threats!).

(Also consider that Brianna Wu makes the third woman in less than two months to be driven from her home due to creditable threats against her safety. All three incidents stemmed from the women in question, in one fashion or another, angering ‘the gamer community’ and receiving deeply disturbing threats of violence in retaliation.)

And then? Look back at what you wrote. Because what I got from it, and I’d argue a third party could reasonably get from it, is “Sure cultural criticism of video games should happen from someone, someday - but not from Anita. Anita deserves the ‘heat’ she’s getting."

And then, finally, ask yourself. Why. The FUCK. Would ANYONE. Want to attempt this kind of ‘critique’ of video games after seeing what Anita went through?

I think it’s incredibly disingenuous to claim to support video game critique in the abstract, while at the same time appearing to be blithely unconcerned with (or even willing to justify?) the torrent of abuse and harassment faced by a woman who has attempted to actually provide this kind of critique.

13 10 / 2014

June 1987, Madonna was rushed to the Cedars Sinai hospital for an X-ray after her then-husbandSean Penn hit her across the head with a baseball bat. At the time, they had been having a heart-to-heart talk about reconciling.


Madonna did not make an official complaint because Penn was about to serve a short jail term for attacking a film extra and violating the probation he’d been given for punching a fan. It was a decision she would come to regret. In the late afternoon of December 28, 1988, Penn scaled the wall surrounding the Malibu house and found Madonna alone in the master bedroom.

According to a report filed by Madonna with the Malibu sheriff’s office, the two began to quarrel. Penn told her he owned her “lock, stock and barrel”. When she told him she was leaving the house, he tried to bind her hands with an electric cord. Screaming and afraid, Madonna fled from the bedroom. Penn chased her into the living room, caught her and bound her to a chair with heavy twine. Then he threatened to shave her hair. Penn was “drinking liquor straight from the bottle” and the abuse went on for nine hours, during which he smacked and forced Madonna to perform a “degrading sex act” on him.

He went out to buy more alcohol, leaving Madonna bound and gagged. Some hours later, he returned and continued his attacks, then finally untied her. Madonna then fled the house and ran to her car. Penn ran after her and was banging on the windows of her Thunderbird while she spoke to police on her mobile phone. Fifteen minutes later, she staggered into the sheriff’s office.

(Source: madonnax, via arabellesicardi)