Tumbleweed

the-internet-has-ruined-my-life:

FUCK I DIDN’T EVEN REALIZE THIS WAS FORESHADOWING UNTIL THIS MOMENT RIGHT NOW FUCK

talkdowntowhitepeople:

do you want to know something?? I always wondered what the hell kind of hairstyle the Ancient Egyptians were trying to portray with depictions like these

image

image

and this

image

until I did my hair this morning and 

oh

image

welp

image

you can take the noses off our statues but until you find a way to take Egypt out of Africa we’re still going to find ourselves

jcatgrl:

taejira:

Forget the Myers-Briggs fucking personality assessment. I am dead tired of hearing if someone is an INFP or an ESLQ or whatever. I want to know if someone is melancholic or choleric. Bring back the four humors. I wanna see “Kaley, 16, phlegmatic” when I go to someone’s blog. Who is with me. Lets make this happen

here's a test i found. go wild, y'all. (im choleric.)

Your temperament is sanguine. The sanguine temperament is fundamentally spontaneous and pleasure-seeking; sanguine people are sociable and charismatic. They tend to enjoy social gatherings, making new friends and tend to be boisterous. They are usually quite creative and often daydream. However, some alone time is crucial for those of this temperament. Sanguine can also mean sensitive, compassionate and thoughtful. Sanguine personalities generally struggle with following tasks all the way through, are chronically late, and tend to be forgetful and sometimes a little sarcastic. Often, when they pursue a new hobby, they lose interest as soon as it ceases to be engaging or fun. They are very much people persons. They are talkative and not shy. Sanguines generally have an almost shameless nature, certain that what they are doing is right. They have no lack of confidence.

kurgs:

skeletongrazed:

skeletongrazed:

what’s the difference between a dirty bus stop and a lobster with breast implants ?

one’s a crusty bus station and one’s a busty crustacean

#i’ve told this joke a million times and it NEVER fails
What do we say to the god of death?
Persephone: knock knock
Hades: who's there?
Persephone: it's September hope you're ready to bang like a screen door in a hurricane
me: *owns 264 unread books*
me: *buys 17 new books*
me: *rereads harry potter*
dcu:

comicsalliance:

WHY SO SERIOUS: WARNER BROS. REPORTEDLY ORDERS ‘NO JOKES’ IN NEW DC COMICS MOVIES
By Matt D. Wilson
Comics fans have become well acquainted with the notion that sometimes, creative people learn the wrong things from successes. It’s why certain comics have been dominated for going on 30 years by a “dark” and “mature” sensibility that often comes off as grim, self-serious and overcooked.
Well, get ready for that way of thinking to make its way to movie theaters very soon. According to a report at Hitfix, Warner Bros. has a strict rule for its upcoming DC Comics movies: “No jokes.”
What’s particularly surprising is that the rule — which itself is kind of a joke, when you think about it — is that it stems from a failure more than it does a success, at least, according to Hitfix writer Drew McWeeny’s thinking.
READ MORE

So is anyone else ready to watch the joy and fun be sucked out of their favorite characters on the big screen? Or do you like the initiative WB is taking because frivolity is for babies?
I guess you can see my position from reading the question.

WHY THE FUCK

dcu:

comicsalliance:

WHY SO SERIOUS: WARNER BROS. REPORTEDLY ORDERS ‘NO JOKES’ IN NEW DC COMICS MOVIES

By Matt D. Wilson

Comics fans have become well acquainted with the notion that sometimes, creative people learn the wrong things from successes. It’s why certain comics have been dominated for going on 30 years by a “dark” and “mature” sensibility that often comes off as grim, self-serious and overcooked.

Well, get ready for that way of thinking to make its way to movie theaters very soon. According to a report at Hitfix, Warner Bros. has a strict rule for its upcoming DC Comics movies: “No jokes.”

What’s particularly surprising is that the rule — which itself is kind of a joke, when you think about it — is that it stems from a failure more than it does a success, at least, according to Hitfix writer Drew McWeeny’s thinking.


READ MORE

So is anyone else ready to watch the joy and fun be sucked out of their favorite characters on the big screen? Or do you like the initiative WB is taking because frivolity is for babies?

I guess you can see my position from reading the question.

WHY THE FUCK

Ancient Egypt was not a mixed society.
Ancient Egypt was PITCHED BLACK until the 7th century AD, when Indo Aryans called Arabs invaded from Central Asia.
For 99 percent of Egyptian history, Egypt was as BLACK as Nigeria, as BLACK as Congo, and as BLACK as Senegal.
King Tut was a dark skinned black man,
Queen Tiye was a beautiful and EXTREMELY dark skinned woman.
Hatshepsut was also very very very dark skinned.
Even during the Ptolemaic period of Kemet, the Egyptians were primarily African.
The fact that the most advanced civilization of human history was composed primarily of Black People is the most annoying and frustrating thing to white supremacist historians today.

castorochiaro:

Guardians of the Galaxy was such a fantastic movie!”

image

"There were a lot of issues with GotG that should be addressed and Marvel should work on improving with future movies."

image

dethbysquirl:

weresquirrel:

transiences:andywooo:animeasuka:wafflesforstephanie:yosb:





welcome to harvard: linguistics 101

Is this reality?

Abso-fucking-lutely.

yo the word fucking is actually really interesting because it’s one of american english’s only infixes

YES THIS IS ACTUALLY REALLY COOL MY AP ENGLISH TEACHER WENT ON A 5-MINUTE RANT ABOUT “FUCK” AND HOW IT’S THE ONLY WORD YOU CAN INSERT INTO OTHER WORDS 
I JUST HAVE A LOT OF FEELINGS ABOUT THE WORD “FUCK” OKAY

This is actually really cool because technically “fuck” can’t even be an infix, as it’s a meaningful free morpheme and those can’t be used as grammatical morphemes (also in English infixes only exist in fossilized form) but the use of “fuck” for inflectional word formation is actually fascinating
As I see it, the more and more frequent use of a word as a suffix implies that it’s undergoing semantic bleaching
Soon, possibly not during our generation’s or our children’s or grandchildren’s lifespan, the word “fuck” may eventually lose its meaning and become a grammatical intensifying suffix or possibly the only actual inflix in the English language
and if you don’t think that’s at least kinda cool then I feel sorry for you son because linguistics is an amazing field of study and gdi I love the English language

Reblogging again for the commentary from the wonderful weresquirrel

dethbysquirl:

weresquirrel:

transiences:andywooo:animeasuka:wafflesforstephanie:yosb:

welcome to harvard: linguistics 101

Is this reality?

Abso-fucking-lutely.

yo the word fucking is actually really interesting because it’s one of american english’s only infixes

YES THIS IS ACTUALLY REALLY COOL MY AP ENGLISH TEACHER WENT ON A 5-MINUTE RANT ABOUT “FUCK” AND HOW IT’S THE ONLY WORD YOU CAN INSERT INTO OTHER WORDS 

I JUST HAVE A LOT OF FEELINGS ABOUT THE WORD “FUCK” OKAY

This is actually really cool because technically “fuck” can’t even be an infix, as it’s a meaningful free morpheme and those can’t be used as grammatical morphemes (also in English infixes only exist in fossilized form) but the use of “fuck” for inflectional word formation is actually fascinating

As I see it, the more and more frequent use of a word as a suffix implies that it’s undergoing semantic bleaching

Soon, possibly not during our generation’s or our children’s or grandchildren’s lifespan, the word “fuck” may eventually lose its meaning and become a grammatical intensifying suffix or possibly the only actual inflix in the English language

and if you don’t think that’s at least kinda cool then I feel sorry for you son because linguistics is an amazing field of study and gdi I love the English language

Reblogging again for the commentary from the wonderful weresquirrel

reallynotgood:

disgusting

What an asshole

marionjravenwood:

glossoblogia:

besturlonhere:

sharsharkan:

besturlonhere:

besturlonhere:

exciting news: you will now be blinded immediately before being killed by the united states military 

It is a non-lethal green laser that dazzles the target so their ability to shoot or fight back is greatly reduced because they cannot look at the source of the light. 

Isn’t Blinding a combatant a war crime?

yeah but this only dazzles them ;)

giving them the ole razzle dazzle has been weaponized into a war crime by the u.s. government

Uh. Wow, government.
DH has a green laser pointer. It’s just the size of any ol’ laser pointer, but, duh, green. So - not big.
I forgot how he got it. He used to use it to make one of our cats go nuts chasing it, because she was a weird little thing and would go “ha, no, amateurs” when the red laser pointer was brought out for her to chase. He pulled out the green one once and she went NUTS, so we played with it.
Now, I’m a 34yo woman. DH is 33. I haven’t actually seen that pointer in a few years (not to mention it’s boxed up with the rest of our shit right now). But I mention my age so you’ll know that I am no 10yo, and if my husband has to give me The Rules before he hands me something, it’s a big fucking deal. DH is an astrophysicist. I don’t question him on this stuff.
Before I touched it, he (totally without any condescension) said “You have to make 100% sure that this light doesn’t get in her eyes or anyone else’s. It can permanently blind her or you or whoever.”
Also, you ever done that thing where you take a red laser pointer on a cloudy night and shine it upwards to see if you can see the dot on a cloud? Another part of The Rules: “Don’t take this outside, don’t ever shine it upward. This green light is different and can actually hit the EYES OF A PILOT FLYING A PLANE AND EITHER INTERRUPT THEIR SIGHT LONG ENOUGH TO CAUSE THEM TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT OR BLIND THEM PERMANENTLY OR SEMI-PERMANENTLY.”
So! To round up: I can blind people with a little bitty green laser pointer, even from 30,000 feet in the fucking air.
DAZZLE?
I don’t think so.

marionjravenwood:

glossoblogia:

besturlonhere:

sharsharkan:

besturlonhere:

besturlonhere:

exciting news: you will now be blinded immediately before being killed by the united states military 

It is a non-lethal green laser that dazzles the target so their ability to shoot or fight back is greatly reduced because they cannot look at the source of the light. 

Isn’t Blinding a combatant a war crime?

yeah but this only dazzles them ;)

giving them the ole razzle dazzle has been weaponized into a war crime by the u.s. government

Uh. Wow, government.

DH has a green laser pointer. It’s just the size of any ol’ laser pointer, but, duh, green. So - not big.

I forgot how he got it. He used to use it to make one of our cats go nuts chasing it, because she was a weird little thing and would go “ha, no, amateurs” when the red laser pointer was brought out for her to chase. He pulled out the green one once and she went NUTS, so we played with it.

Now, I’m a 34yo woman. DH is 33. I haven’t actually seen that pointer in a few years (not to mention it’s boxed up with the rest of our shit right now). But I mention my age so you’ll know that I am no 10yo, and if my husband has to give me The Rules before he hands me something, it’s a big fucking deal. DH is an astrophysicist. I don’t question him on this stuff.

Before I touched it, he (totally without any condescension) said “You have to make 100% sure that this light doesn’t get in her eyes or anyone else’s. It can permanently blind her or you or whoever.”

Also, you ever done that thing where you take a red laser pointer on a cloudy night and shine it upwards to see if you can see the dot on a cloud? Another part of The Rules: “Don’t take this outside, don’t ever shine it upward. This green light is different and can actually hit the EYES OF A PILOT FLYING A PLANE AND EITHER INTERRUPT THEIR SIGHT LONG ENOUGH TO CAUSE THEM TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT OR BLIND THEM PERMANENTLY OR SEMI-PERMANENTLY.”

So! To round up: I can blind people with a little bitty green laser pointer, even from 30,000 feet in the fucking air.

DAZZLE?

I don’t think so.

itistimetodisappear:

nefertsukia:

kohane88:

nefertsukia:

This description irritates me. And most of the comments utterly piss me off. I DON’T THINK 15YR OLD ASTRID WAS A TOMBOY AT ALL. She dressed feminine, and had her gentle moments, especially as seen in GOTNF. Why can’t a woman be strong, dedicated, great sportswoman, a warrior, without people thinking this immediately sacrifices her femininity? Why can’t she want to grow up and be MORE womanly and aware of her womanhood at 20 than she was at 15? But it’s not like she NEVER was feminine. She was, but she grew from being a teenage girl into a young woman. Also I don’t see how being ambitious and powerful is a male-only quality. Get those gender roles out of your head, people. What annoys me the most is that, in the comments, people say Astrid was “blanded out” so she couldfit the “wife role” for Hiccup. I wonder if we watched the same movie.

It’s sad and frustrating that those Facebook comments are an example on how masculine and feminine traits are generally viewed in society even today. When a girl exhibits what are considered to be tomboy traits such as being kickass, she would be considered a great role model that girls should follow, whereas if she acts girly and feminine such as by looking pretty, she’s considered “bland”. *Facepalm*

I know. And the fact that they brush off her so-called “transformation” as being her changing herself for Hiccup, to BE WITH HIM, irks me even more. He liked her no matter what. He now loves her, despite anything else. More importantly, they grew up together and in a relationship that matured and bloomed over time. She didn’t undergo a transformation just so he could be into her. And Hiccup himself changed, not just physically. Another funny comment was “HICCUP SHOULD RECOGNIZE HE ISNT CHIEF MATERIAL AND HAND OVER THE ROLE TO ASTRID”. Omfg. What do they think this is, a Disney film? Did they not grasp the realism of this whole franchise yet? Because that’s wrong in so many levels. Hiccup is the heir. He does have leadership qualities that people recognize. Astrid not quite so, and besides…. she has no claim to chiefdom. Gosh, people. Get a grip. She can be kickass while looking more or less feminine but that won’t make her less of a woman. It’s not like she dresses in frilly pink summer dresses. But if she did, she would STILL kick butt.




I dunno guys, I grew up self identifying as a tomboy and now I feel kinda glam. I kinda love that Astrid followed that same arc. She feels like me that way.

itistimetodisappear:

nefertsukia:

kohane88:

nefertsukia:

This description irritates me. And most of the comments utterly piss me off. I DON’T THINK 15YR OLD ASTRID WAS A TOMBOY AT ALL. She dressed feminine, and had her gentle moments, especially as seen in GOTNF. Why can’t a woman be strong, dedicated, great sportswoman, a warrior, without people thinking this immediately sacrifices her femininity? Why can’t she want to grow up and be MORE womanly and aware of her womanhood at 20 than she was at 15? But it’s not like she NEVER was feminine. She was, but she grew from being a teenage girl into a young woman. Also I don’t see how being ambitious and powerful is a male-only quality. Get those gender roles out of your head, people. What annoys me the most is that, in the comments, people say Astrid was “blanded out” so she couldfit the “wife role” for Hiccup. I wonder if we watched the same movie.

It’s sad and frustrating that those Facebook comments are an example on how masculine and feminine traits are generally viewed in society even today. When a girl exhibits what are considered to be tomboy traits such as being kickass, she would be considered a great role model that girls should follow, whereas if she acts girly and feminine such as by looking pretty, she’s considered “bland”. *Facepalm*

I know. And the fact that they brush off her so-called “transformation” as being her changing herself for Hiccup, to BE WITH HIM, irks me even more. He liked her no matter what. He now loves her, despite anything else. More importantly, they grew up together and in a relationship that matured and bloomed over time. She didn’t undergo a transformation just so he could be into her. And Hiccup himself changed, not just physically. Another funny comment was “HICCUP SHOULD RECOGNIZE HE ISNT CHIEF MATERIAL AND HAND OVER THE ROLE TO ASTRID”. Omfg. What do they think this is, a Disney film? Did they not grasp the realism of this whole franchise yet? Because that’s wrong in so many levels. Hiccup is the heir. He does have leadership qualities that people recognize. Astrid not quite so, and besides…. she has no claim to chiefdom. Gosh, people. Get a grip. She can be kickass while looking more or less feminine but that won’t make her less of a woman. It’s not like she dresses in frilly pink summer dresses. But if she did, she would STILL kick butt.

I dunno guys, I grew up self identifying as a tomboy and now I feel kinda glam. I kinda love that Astrid followed that same arc. She feels like me that way.

renjin-chan:

you can tell this is a high ranking bun, because he is wearing a crown that is also a bun

renjin-chan:

you can tell this is a high ranking bun, because he is wearing a crown that is also a bun

invaderxan:

Unless I’m mistaken, the top right is LH95. My favourite star forming region. What a lovely thing to fall asleep in… :)