Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.

Tangled Webs

"Take pride in your pain. You are stronger than those who have none." - Lois Lowry
Jul 30 '14

winchesterson:

perplexingly:

geosaurus:

perplexingly:

Imagine dragons sleeping the same way giraffes do

image

Yessss! I wanna draw sleeping dragons tooo

Maybe they sleep like camels…image

or cats…

image

or…. uh… snakes?

image

Yeeeeaaaaah

Or maybe they sleep on trees

image

There is nothing about this post I don’t love

Jul 30 '14
minuiko:

New Lark and Rosethorn bookmarks :)

minuiko:

New Lark and Rosethorn bookmarks :)

Jul 30 '14

jahanzebjz:

Racism is not ended by being nice. Nice is an attitude. You could be nice to your slave. Racism is not an attitude; racism is about power. 

Jul 30 '14
Jul 29 '14

beatlesboobsandbulges:

My dad just said: at your age you’ll probably wanna try a lot of things. Boys, girls, being a girl, being a boy, being punk or goth or spunky. And im okay with that. As long as you don’t come home and tell me youre a republican

Jul 29 '14

Word vomit: things i am thinking about food politics right now

andhowsocute:

(most of this has totally been said before by other people, but I need to put it together in my own words)

eating is how you be alive. you put things in your body to nourish yourself and survive and live and exist. and that’s so damn core and essential and personal and all of those things. and you shouldn’t ever have to… there’s no wrong way to do it. there’s no better way to do it. there are just ways to do it that work for you and your culture and your budget. ”If food is keeping someone, somewhere alive, then it is real enough.” (this post is really important)

as a newly-vegetarian teenager, i was like “people should be vegetarian, it is moral to be vegetarian, it is right to be vegetarian.” and then i learned all of these various exceptions, like “oh, well if you’re poor and you don’t have a lot of choice about what things you can eat, and you just need to survive, then you’re allowed to eat meat. you can get an exception to the moral rule.” and also “if you’re a person of color, and meat is a part of your cultural diet, then okay you get an exception, you’re allowed to morally eat meat.” but that whole framework is super fucked up (and neoliberal and white supremacist). people don’t need a “good reason” to be “allowed” to eat meat. whatever reason they have, regardless of whether they’ve ~run it by me first,~ is a good reason. and also whatever reason people have to be vegetarian or vegan is a good reason for them.* people should eat what they want to / need to / can manage to eat.
[*for the record, i’m still vegetarian, and i don’t have any plans to change that - either in the direction of becoming an omnivore, or the direction of becoming a vegan. and my reason is “cause i feel like it.” realizing that my politics surrounding a dietary choice were shitty doesn’t mean that the dietary choice is shitty. a lot of people conflate those, like “yeah, i was a moralistic vegan once, but then i realized that was silly and naive. now i have made the much Better and Wiser choice to resume eating meat.” like, nope. replacing your moralistic veganism with moralistic post-veganism is not helping. the problem wasn’t that you were vegan, it was that you were moralistic. and if you want to point out where you went wrong so that other vegans won’t make the same mistake, you better know what your mistake was and be able to articulate which part was actually a mistake. you know?]
the first critiques of consumer politics** that I heard amounted to “aw, look at the lil bb! you think you’re saving the world, but actually your pathetic ass isn’t doing jack shit!” like somehow the blame came down on individuals for naively believing that consumer politics would work, instead of on neoliberalism for teaching us that buying the “right” things is the way to enact change. i spent a while not listening to critiques of consumer politics because they seemed to be more about “alright little do-gooder, come join me over here on the jaded couch” than “hey, this tactic is actually playing into their hand. let’s think outside the box about our strategies for resistance.” so like. okay. i’m trying to talk about this stuff in a way that takes the latter form. 
[**basically the idea of “voting with your dollar”]
consumer politics can get corporations to change their marketing, but not their practices. like, being a “discriminating shopper” will teach them how to stroke your ethics, but it cannot corral them into being ethical
let’s take “organic.” i previously assumed (was taught) that i should buy organic food (in part) because if enough people did it, then food producers would switch over to organic practices in response to the higher demand. i had this image of Big Bad Factory Farmers looking at their numbers like “i don’t know what to say bob, it’s really clear here. the consumers have spoken, and it seems like we have no choice. we’ve got to switch over to organic.” Like these companies would cripple under the weight of our boycott and be forced to have souls in order to stay afloat. As it turns out, what happens irl is more like “hey bob, looks like they want ‘organic.’ lol k. let’s buy up some organic product lines and bill ourselves as hippies” (see also: the Hain Celestial Group, one of the biggest and most corporate food conglomerates ever. look at how they’re trying to pitch themselves. with the little leaf in the logo and everything). If we try to get them to see that ethical practices are profitable, what we’re ending up with is “agribusiness masquerading as ethical” - not the hoped-for “agribusiness slinking sadly away into the shadows and ceding the market back to family farms or w/e.” It’s always gonna be easier for them to extend their reach/marketing/etc. to trick us into still paying them, than to actually do what we’re asking of them to earn our trust for real. the bottom line is, we can’t beat them by playing their game. 
this is why it often feels like such a minefield to try to be an ethical consumer. you’re always finding out left and right that x brand you trusted is actually owned by a huge conglomerate, and y brand you trusted was a co-plaintiff with Hobby Lobby. that’s not cause you’re foolish or naive - it’s cause capitalism is really, really sophisticated and manipulative. 
on top of just not being an effective way to force corporations to stop using fucked-up practices, “voting with your dollar” also doesn’t exempt you from being implicated in those practices. i definitely used to think that, since i was vegetarian, i had personally atoned for any culpability that i had in factory farming. a lot of moralistic vegans would challenge that, arguing that i’d actually need to be vegan to fully atone for my culpability (because milk production sends male calves to slaughter, etc). there are plenty of ways to pick that argument apart, as i’m sure you’ve read all over if you ever read things about food politics. one of peoples’ favorite games right now seems to be “ha ha vegans, i got you! you say you’re living without animal products, but i found these five ways in which your lifestyle isn’t as ~vegan~ as you claim.” but i really don’t find that game useful either.
the point i’m trying to make here is that even if it were possible for a person to stop eating anything that at all relied on exploitation, they still wouldn’t get to say “cool, my hands are clean!” cause nope. you’re still implicated in it even if you don’t personally buy the thing. you’re particularly implicated if you benefit from capitalism, white supremacy, and US imperialism, which help keep the wheels of factory farming and exploitative labor practices and environmental degradation turning. the idea that you could ever use your consumer choices to “opt out” of your responsibility for the violence that occurs on this planet is just what neoliberalism wants you to think. cause the more you see yourself as a consumer first and a community member second, the more neoliberalism wins. 
i have zero desire to minimize the violence of producing [animal products, bananas, coffee, sugar, etc.] I am not at all taking the position of “I mean, sucks for those people/animals/etc, but like, your needs take precedence. You getting what you want is the most important.” Nope. What i am saying is “refusing to buy these products is never going to stop these terribly violent and not okay things from happening. so let’s get together and talk about what WILL stop them. and in the mean time, eat what you want/need/can.”
i definitely don’t want to silence conversations about the violence that goes into producing our food. i actually want to open those spaces up to more people. in order to do that, we can’t frame them like “look how violently x is produced. you should obvs stop eating it if you give a damn.” that automatically shuts out all of the people are like “welp i’m never going to stop eating that thing, so bye.” as i’ve already said, stopping the violence is not about whether or not you eat the thing. i want to see conversations where people who eat x and people who don’t eat x jointly try to figure out what they can do to minimize the violence of producing x. cause the reality is, most people are not gonna stop eating x. and i want as many people as possible in these conversations. if we shut out most of the population by telling them (explicitly or implicitly***) that they can’t even sit at the table unless they change their diet, then we’re shooting ourselves in the foot in terms of movement-building
[***In the US, we get told what to eat all day every day. we’re supposed to eat what’s “healthy” but also what’s “ethical” but also what’s “tasty” but also what’s “cheap.” the default messaging about food is that we’re doing it wrong (obvs, cause if we thought we were doing okay, we wouldn’t be as susceptible to marketing!) and like, the most visible people talking about violence in food production (e.g. PETA) explicitly equate “let me educate you about this violence” with “if you have a heart, you will stop eating this food.” 
so in all of this context, if you try to educate about the violence while being technically “neutral” about peoples’ food choices, you’re still playing into all the other fifteen times today when someone said their food choices were wrong. if you want to actually be neutral about peoples’ food choices in a world where that is so not the norm, then you have to be explicit in the other direction (like, explicitly saying that you do not believe people need to stop eating x). And given how often marketing says “all are welcome! we won’t judge you! (except we’ll totally judge you)”… it’s going to take some serious effort to build the trust of people-who-eat-x, that they can really work against the violence of x, and that they really won’t be expected to stop eating it. I want to see us get to work on that trust. like, yesterday.] 

the funny thing is, i am saying a lot of the same things as like, Lierre Keith (who is the worst, and a raging trans misogynist) but making an opposite conclusion. She basically says “Your consumer politics are a myth and you suck. You’re never gonna be enough." And I’m saying "You’re allowed to feed yourself. You’re enough. Let’s go after the systems of oppression that facilitate this violence, k?”

This is really important.

Bolded for emphasis.

Jul 29 '14

0fficermako:

love yourself as much as you love your favorite character

Jul 27 '14

sincerely-jack-the-ripper:

flameraven:

andythanfiction:

liquid-pickle:

baw-bee:

sophieonpage:

thegoddamazon:

I present the most badass gifset on Tumblr.

Legitimately turned on by this

This is the best thing.

Oh my god

I don’t even know this fandom and this is cool.

Reason #999 why the cartoon will always be ONE MILLION PERCENT better than that travesty of a movie. They did so much research and put so much detail in you don’t even notice.

Bonus trivia: Toph got a unique martial arts style to match her distinct version of Earthbending (Southern Praying Mantis style, I think) which the creators found out later was (according to legend) invented by a blind woman. Totally a coincidence, but still so fucking cool.

(If you don’t watch the show, Toph is both blind from birth and the best damn Earthbender in the world. Also, GO WATCH THE SHOW.)

I will never forgive Netflix from removing this show from their online database.

(Source: ashagreyjoyed)

Jul 27 '14
roachpatrol:

jetgreguar:

allrightcallmefred:

fredscience:

The Doorway Effect: Why your brain won’t let you remember what you were doing before you came in here
I work in a lab, and the way our lab is set up, there are two adjacent rooms, connected by both an outer hallway and an inner doorway. I do most of my work on one side, but every time I walk over to the other side to grab a reagent or a box of tips, I completely forget what I was after. This leads to a lot of me standing with one hand on the freezer door and grumbling, “What the hell was I doing?” It got to where all I had to say was “Every damn time” and my labmate would laugh. Finally, when I explained to our new labmate why I was standing next to his bench with a glazed look in my eyes, he was able to shed some light. “Oh, yeah, that’s a well-documented phenomenon,” he said. “Doorways wipe your memory.”
Being the gung-ho new science blogger that I am, I decided to investigate. And it’s true! Well, doorways don’t literally wipe your memory. But they do encourage your brain to dump whatever it was working on before and get ready to do something new. In one study, participants played a video game in which they had to carry an object either across a room or into a new room. Then they were given a quiz. Participants who passed through a doorway had more trouble remembering what they were doing. It didn’t matter if the video game display was made smaller and less immersive, or if the participants performed the same task in an actual room—the results were similar. Returning to the room where they had begun the task didn’t help: even context didn’t serve to jog folks’ memories.
The researchers wrote that their results are consistent with what they call an “event model” of memory. They say the brain keeps some information ready to go at all times, but it can’t hold on to everything. So it takes advantage of what the researchers called an “event boundary,” like a doorway into a new room, to dump the old info and start over. Apparently my brain doesn’t care that my timer has seconds to go—if I have to go into the other room, I’m doing something new, and can’t remember that my previous task was antibody, idiot, you needed antibody.
Read more at Scientific American, or the original study.

I finally learned why I completely space when I cross to the other side of the lab, and that I’m apparently not alone.

this is actually kind of great and it’s nice to know there’s something behind that constant spacing out whenever i enter a different place

FINALLY AN EXPLANATION

roachpatrol:

jetgreguar:

allrightcallmefred:

fredscience:

The Doorway Effect: Why your brain won’t let you remember what you were doing before you came in here

I work in a lab, and the way our lab is set up, there are two adjacent rooms, connected by both an outer hallway and an inner doorway. I do most of my work on one side, but every time I walk over to the other side to grab a reagent or a box of tips, I completely forget what I was after. This leads to a lot of me standing with one hand on the freezer door and grumbling, “What the hell was I doing?” It got to where all I had to say was “Every damn time” and my labmate would laugh. Finally, when I explained to our new labmate why I was standing next to his bench with a glazed look in my eyes, he was able to shed some light. “Oh, yeah, that’s a well-documented phenomenon,” he said. “Doorways wipe your memory.”

Being the gung-ho new science blogger that I am, I decided to investigate. And it’s true! Well, doorways don’t literally wipe your memory. But they do encourage your brain to dump whatever it was working on before and get ready to do something new. In one study, participants played a video game in which they had to carry an object either across a room or into a new room. Then they were given a quiz. Participants who passed through a doorway had more trouble remembering what they were doing. It didn’t matter if the video game display was made smaller and less immersive, or if the participants performed the same task in an actual room—the results were similar. Returning to the room where they had begun the task didn’t help: even context didn’t serve to jog folks’ memories.

The researchers wrote that their results are consistent with what they call an “event model” of memory. They say the brain keeps some information ready to go at all times, but it can’t hold on to everything. So it takes advantage of what the researchers called an “event boundary,” like a doorway into a new room, to dump the old info and start over. Apparently my brain doesn’t care that my timer has seconds to go—if I have to go into the other room, I’m doing something new, and can’t remember that my previous task was antibody, idiot, you needed antibody.

Read more at Scientific American, or the original study.

I finally learned why I completely space when I cross to the other side of the lab, and that I’m apparently not alone.

this is actually kind of great and it’s nice to know there’s something behind that constant spacing out whenever i enter a different place

FINALLY AN EXPLANATION

Jul 27 '14
third-wheel-king:

jandillmann:

Knit one row a day for a year, matching the yarn color to the color of the sky that day.

WHAT??

third-wheel-king:

jandillmann:

Knit one row a day for a year, matching the yarn color to the color of the sky that day.

WHAT??