Posts tagged rant
Posts tagged rant
Unser kürzlich eingeführtes, neues Eintragsformular macht das Erstellen von Fotoserien einfacher als bisher. Wenn ihr einen Fotoeintrag erstellt, könnt ihr Bilder direkt von URL-Adressen einbinden (achtet mal auf das Wort “URL” unten im Fotobereich), sie per Drag&Drop von eurem Computer in den…
I miss the custom layouts :-( And I hate the bugs in the reblogging process. Sometimes my browser crashes, or the dash needs a long time to reload or even jumps back at the top with the newest posts and I have to waste a lot of time to scoll back.
The changes are things that don’t interest me. Maybe the tumblr stuff should have looked at the missing-e features to see what features many users missed.
lemme lay it out for you all
if you are so desperate and so unhinged that you somehow decide that impersonating someone the celebrity you’re terrifyingly obsessed with knows well in order to “gain their trust” and meet them
you need help
you need to be taken to a professional…
I’ve been meaning to post something about The Big Bang Theory for a while now but it’s taken me ‘till now to really understand what it is about the show that makes me uncomfortable. I’m not exactly a believer in the whole “only write about the things you like, don’t trash the things you don’t” trend which seems to be plaguing comments sections in negative articles lately, but I wanted to be able to really examine why I don’t like TBBT rather than just slagging it off. My main questions being - Why don’t I like this anymore? Why do I feel uncomfortable watching it? And why do I get so annoyed when I see people sing its praises online? The thing which really sparked this post was seeing a raft of comments on Facebook, below the last round of voting in Television Without Pity’s Tubey Awards, claiming The Big Bang Theory to be “the best comedy on TV”. This made me angry so instead of posting an impulsive comment calling out their bad taste which I’d probably regret later, I decided to really analyse why seeing comments like that made me so mad when previously, although I didn’t really love the show, I’d never considered myself as disliking The Big Bang Theory.
Hell, I even have season one on dvd, it’s sitting right between Battlestar Galactica and Bored To Death in my alphabetised collection.
And here, I think, is where my problem with The Big Bang Theory lies…
THAT. I made it through maybe ten minutes of the pilot, then I had to turn it off. I just couldn’t watch it - it makes fun of everyone, in a bad way, not in a good way. The blonde is - of course! - pretty but stupid. The nerds are - of course! - socially incompetent. You know what, whatever. Not good enough for me. Shouldn’t be good enough for my friends, but if they read it differently, then, sigh, so be it. To each their own, as long as no one gets hurt - and I would if I watched that, the grade school trauma sits deep. So far away from it I stay.
I do read it diffrently :-) but maybe because I’m not a nerd. (I’m way to stupid and mentaly slow to be a nerd and was never percieved by others as one.) I’m a geek and fan. I was considered a “strange one” because of that - but TBBT never makes me side with penny or seeing her as “normal”. She isn’t normal either. She’s the shallow jock who might think Jersy Shore is the best since sliced bread. I sometimes laugh at them all and somtimes I laugh with them all. (And since last season I’m mostly bored beacuse it feels like they don’t know what to do with the characters anymore.) I do the same when watching Community!
BTW my grade school trauma makes me despise “dramas” like Game of Thrones, The Borgias, Tudors, Gossip Girl or films like Cruel Intentions. Intrigues make me feel sick. … Plus the Borgias made me zapp away after 5 min because of severe wooden acting and dialogue, The Tudors is very far from the historical truth and GoT felt very silly, boring and problematic and I had to stop watching/reading if I didn’t want to die of either boredom, laughing or disgust. I don’t underestand why all my friends think it’s “intelligent drama” - but as I said, I’m of average intelligence and maybe I’m just to dump to “get it”. Or I’m viewing it through a lense of different life experiences and with a different set of “tastes & preferences”.
Darn, I wanted to call L. tonight and now I spent too much time writing this ranty answer trying to get across my view in a foreign language that I don’t speak well enough to really express what i mean.
I feel like our society forces those who have female-sexed (whether they are female-identified or not) bodies to constantly justify their interests and choices.
For example, I have been playing WoW for 5 years, only one year less than my brother. But unlike him, every time I bring up to anyone (even my own parents) that I play WoW, I get all of these questions:
- Oh, did you start playing because of a boyfriend?
- Oh, why are you interested in that game? Because it is like Lord of the Rings?
- But I bet you don’t really like it as much as your brother, right?
For a long time, I thought this was just the downside of being a so-called “girl gamer.” It was frustrating to be playing alongside my brother and have people berate me with questions while they just let him like it for the sake of liking it. But that’s male privilege at work, I suppose.
Well, I never realized this phenomena occurred in other aspects of society until I tried to join the metal community. Whenever I would mention to anyone that I like a particular metal band (Amon Amarth, for example), I would get a slew of questions trying to make me justify my interest in their music. I either had to like them because I like Vikings, or because I think Johan is hot, or again because a boyfriend introduced me to their music. When I told people that none of these were the case, they looked at me like I must be lying. I couldn’t just like them because I like the music. There had to be some sort of justification for it.
So, again, my brother and I both love the Avengers. We saw it five times in the theaters, and have had countless discussions about it. So, from day one he has been oohing and ahhing over Scarlett, and I just laughed about it, because, you know, it’s obvious why a straight guy would like Scarlett. I didn’t even see the need to ask! However, it’s equally obvious why anyone who is attracted to males would like Tom or Chris. But when I finally mentioned that to him, he got really uncomfortable and berated me with questions wanting an explanation. No matter how many times he made comments that Jane and Darcy should hook up during Thor, the second I said the same thing about Loki and Tony he forced me to justify myself. I couldn’t just be attracted to it because I am attracted to it. I had to explain, because female sexuality always requires justification.
Now that I have started to keep my eyes out for it, I have started noticing it more and more, even in the spheres usually allotted to female-identified individuals. If one of these people gets a tattoo, she must be doing it to be rebellious or attract someone. If she likes One Direction she must like them because she thinks they are hot, and Rihanna because she wants to be her. No matter how she dresses, people are always going to ask questions as to why. It’s never accepted that she might do something because she wants to do it.
And this leads me to my important point: Lokeans. It is no secret to the heathen community that many Lokeans are female-identified and/or female-bodied. Among those who are female-bodied, we also have many who identify as male or are GNC. I also know many Lokeans who are transwomen, and I don’t want to leave them out of this discussion, either. So let me amend my earlier statement and say that all of this applies in some degree to those who are non-straight, non-cismale. This is for anyone whose body and sexuality have been othered by society in some way.
So, the Lokeans seem to be the only group in the heathen community where non-cismales are actually in the majority. Unsurprisingly, Lokeans are also the ones who are constantly forced to justify themselves.
Almost every cismale Asatru blog on this site is loaded with pictures of Vikings and Scandinavian metal, yet rarely does anyone suggest that “he is Asatru because he likes Vikings!” But the second a person is Lokean, it is automatically assumed that he/she/ze must be doing it because they like Tom Hiddleston, Supernatural, or some other fandom related thing. Then people start claiming that the Lokean isn’t as valid due to that person’s reason for finding this community, whether or not it is true. I am not talking about people who conflate the Marvel and myth versions or blatantly use Marvel Loki as a stand-in for their God (that’s a discussion for another time), but I’m talking about every Lokean who happens to like Marvel.
I have seen plenty of straight, cismale heathens on tumblr who like the Thor comics, and nearly all of them seem to like some pop culture adaptation of the myths/traditions. But I have never seen anyone asking them to justify themselves outside of a direct argument about Lokeans.
I think it goes back to the notion that the cismale can do something just to do it, but everyone else must have some kind of justification for it. When their justification doesn’t hold up, those people are undermined or cast out from the community.
Some of this comes from the assumption of the non-cismale as the other. There is an underlying strain in society that suggests that the cismale is the standard and everyone else the “odd bodies” who must constantly justify their places in the world. The straight cismale can do something for the sake of it, but the other must supply a reason so their worth can be judged and a decision reached as to whether or not they are permitted into the community.
When it occurs in the WoW community or in a fandom, it’s simply annoying, but when it occurs in a religion it’s downright disgusting.
I’ve repeatedly noticed that cis-men very often throw in which actress they find very hot when talking about movies and you, as a woman, apparently are supposed to nod or say nothing. If you mention once or twice that actor xy is good looking they get annoyed and won’t shut up for days that you are “constantly drooling over that actor” and that you mentioned him a 1000-times in their presence. *headdesks*
This Lokean = Marvel-Loki-fangirl logic was funny at first but and you expect people to get over it. But now it’s simply insulting.
I haven’t finished reading so I’m not sure how credible the source is, but this is incredibly interesting so far!! It’s exploring the lack of intermediate species in the fossil record, no “links” between separate species, as well as the advancement of organisms from basal cells.
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic (gradual) evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid”
I feel as though this guy has no idea how fossils are even made, because if he did, he’d understand that the vast majority of dead living things rarely become fossils. Many many many habitats do not make suitable places for fossilization to occur, such as forests and other acidic areas that would dissolve bones before they could be fossilized. And finding singled-celled organisms in fossils - well that’s your miracle. When a fossil is found, it’s terribly lucky, and even then, it is usually incomplete, no thanks to scavengers of the time, erosion, land movement, etc.
This guy also seems to have no grasp of what makes an organism a separate species from another, and often times that line is hazy. Usually a species is separate from others due to its inability to breed with another species successfully (hybrids being sterile, or some other form of blocked reproduction). Often, different species are recognized by the common man by looking different from each other. Unfortunately, that really isn’t a good basis to go on, since most dog breeds are very different from each other, but each breed can reproduce with each other. Since most fossils are just the skeletal remains of the animal, and this guy is apparently looking for the slight changes Darwin saw in his finches, he may never be satisfied with what the fossil record will be able to show.
Darwin only ever used the fossil record to back up his claim, to show that it wasn’t just the species of the Galapagos changing, it applies to all species. But everything about the living world changes and evolves over time, and the aspect to which you except to see change is relative. Even DNA evolves, with each new generation or every couple of generations, the collective DNA of a single species could evolve. The evolution of DNA is what drives the phenotypic evolution we see in species, and that’s what takes so long. Slight changes in phenotype, as previously brushed upon, also do not equate to a new species. Darwin based his theory of evolution and natural selection on living specimens as he watched them, as a population, change with the demands of their changing environment.
And might I add that the examples of this “lack of intermediate species” is kind of pathetic. He’s looking for transitional species between fish and amphibians, and, unbeknownst to him, there exists plenty, right in our fossil record. There are fish with lobe-fins, fish with lungs, that are alive today. There are fossils of fish with toes and amphibian-looking heads. He’s looking for transitions from reptiles to birds - well look no further than the fossil record, showing plenty of paleo-birds with teeth and claws on their wings. The fossil record shows the transition from land, hoofed carnivores to whales.
Seriously, if you don’t understand how fossils are formed, how evolution even works, what Darwin was talking about, or what makes a species a species, then don’t try arguing its nonexistence, just because the fossil record isn’t as large as you’d like. Digging those things up is rarely a fruitful endeavor. And no, selecting the scientific journals that cater to your argument doesn’t count. Intelligent Design was thrown away as a suitable Science lesson because it does not follow the rules of science. The number one rule of nature is that nothing is Teleological, meaning that nothing is done with purpose, it just happened that way in a random way. Only humans and other very intelligent species do things for a reason.
Source: A Bio major
yes, i found lots wrong with his argument… most of which (and a lot more, i’m not as clever as you haha) you’ve explained here! i don’t understand why he claimed there are… no transitional forms at all? there might not be many for terrestrial animals, because of the fossil record itself, but for amphibians and fish there are many. and even in ancient fossils there is the development of organs such as eyes, which… kind of defies his argument.
still interesting to read, though.
All these “there are no linking fossils” etc. creationists arguments make me cringe every time. I’m not an atheist but there is loads of evidence for evolution. All their “debunking” makes me want to wack them over the head with my big hardcover edition of Physical Geology - them and those geographic-pole-shift-apocalypse-zeta wackos.
I meet your douchebaggery with some more comic book porn. You’re an embarrassment to our religion and a complete cunt. How dare you mock people for their interests when they are trying to learn about our religion? You bring shame to the Gods and our ancestors.
Believe it or not, the Havamal teaches us to be hospitable to guests and to respect our kin. IT DOES NOT TELL US WE CAN’T MASTURBATE TO HOT GUYS.
The Christianity tag would be happy to have your homophobia and sexual-negativity, I am sure.
Do people still get a hissy fit about this?
There is a meme making the atheist community Facebook rounds featuring a picture of stereotypical ‘God’ which says, “Sorry Colorado. I had other things to do”.
Dear Atheists Who Think This is Poignant and Tragic-But-True:
Fuck you with broken glass.
You are using tragedy, murder, and the very…
holy actual fuck
I’m getting sick and tired of this shit!!!! People are trolling with photoshoped pics from this scene since 2010 and I guess they will do so until 2015 *headdesk*
2015 - still 3 years for Mattel to invent the hoverboard
Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (via this-is-beauty)
“Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”
I personally disagree. Atheism as in non-religion (not having a religion), which is the modern idea of it, is a belief system in itself. The reasons for believing that can be disagreement with unjustified religious beliefs, but it’s not “nothing more” than that in my eyes. Many atheists are anti-religion as well, but certainly not all. There are actually quite a few atheists I know who keep very much to themselves. And atheism as in the specific belief that god(s) don’t exist (the true meaning) doesn’t exclude being very spiritual or thinking that religion is a wonderful thing.
Many people view atheism as simply opposition to Christianity. While it may be for some the reason why they are atheist, atheism isn’t an attack on religion, and it isn’t an attack on Christianity. Any atheist who is against religion’s existence (i.e. actually anti-religion) and yells at people for simply believing in god(s) is shoving their beliefs down other people’s throats. And for many who do this, the whole reason why they’re so anti-religion is because they’ve had religious people (often Christians) shoving their religious beliefs down their throats. It’s a great hypocrisy.
It’s fine to be atheist, and it’s fine to be agnostic. I was agnostic for a long time. And I occasionally switched between agnostic and atheist. But I was always a very spiritual person. Now I believe in many gods and my religion has helped me in a multitude of ways. And I base my beliefs very much on scientific theories (which by the way, are belief systems in of themselves). And honestly, how does one decide that religious beliefs are “unjustified?” Reasonable people can have all sorts of beliefs, and reasonable people don’t shove their beliefs down other people’s throats. If the “unjustified religious belief” is actually just injustice (racism, sexism, etc.) in the name of religion, then I think that any reasonable person would make noise to oppose it.
This quote is just… inaccurate. Religion isn’t the same as astrology or alchemy or alien abductions. Religion is an umbrella term, astrology & alchemy are not. We don’t have a word for people who think they were abducted by aliens but think astrology is bunk, we don’t have a word for non-Christian (not that’s universally used to mean that). And I’m pretty sure that ‘skeptic’ applies to people who don’t believe in astrology, alchemy, Elvis-still-alive, or alien abductions. Skeptic is the same as atheist, it may even include atheist, they both cover a wide umbrella of non-belief of some sort. Atheism means “doesn’t believe in any divinity” not “doesn’t believe in the Christian God”. So the “Well there’s no word for this” is inaccurate because it’s making a false comparison.
And I just dislike that whole idea of “reasonable people [read: atheists]” contrasted against “unjustified religious beliefs” because it’s saying that people with religious beliefs are “unreasonable”. I’ve seen atheists who genuinely think that anyone who believes in any form of deity is irrational in every single way, one likened being religious to jumping off a skyscraper because you think you can fly. I’ve got a pretty good knowledge of science, know the basics of staying healthy, avoid hurting anyone, but because I’m a hard polytheist I’m no longer a “reasonable person”? Right.
I know a few people who don’t believe in any deity or follow any religion who stopped identifying as ‘atheist’ because of problems like this and worse. Which is a pretty sad situation.
Emphasis mine. I have an acquaintance who has stated that he can’t take anyone who has any sort of religious belief of any kind seriously on any topic because it means they are obviously less intelligent and capable than himself, that they’re sad little slaves, that they should remove themselves from the gene pool etc.
He then had the audacity to be confused as to why I had no interest in letting him near my vagina.
I am a skeptic but I’m also a believer. I guess I have to blame my religious education at school. We read Kierkegaard and his take on “the leap of faith” made a lot of sense to me. I know how the world came to be and how life developed, I know the mechanics of the universe - I’ve got a diploma in that shit. But there are things we can’t explain. Maybe in the future, maybe never. I’m peachy keen with people believing whatever they want (that there’s something to believe in or nothing to blieve in) as long as it makes them happy. But this need for shoving down ones opinion down another persons throat is disgusting. Same goes for thinking intelligence=/=religion.
Agressive anti-religious atheists are no better than anti-science&my-religion-has-the-ultimate-truth-believers IMHO.
To me that is an insult.
To me that is like acknowledging that heathen (or pagan) really means “Hick” or “yokl”.
I am always surprised and get kind of a LARP vibe when i read things like “our folk ways”.
Their “indignation” dumbs my customs down. They really have more in common with snake handling Christians (not to be Christian bashing ) than anything that feels “Norse”.
These people belong in a heavy metal video.
I am straight but i am also educated and my mother is not married to her brother.
I belive in active studies (of academic material), a living custom through folklore and adapting to modern society while reconstructing.
In short, i am a modern Scandinavian, NOT some “Viking warrior” with a need to preserve my “folk” (“they”, regardless of how you count, seem to be doing just fine).
I am simply a person doing my best to live according to a custom such as it presents itself through academia, scientific disciplines (history, archeology, anthropology, linguistics,etymology, semiotics and so on ) ,my own culture and folklore and some philosophical and theological speculation on my own part.
Some of them are Scandinavian. I´m willing to bet they stay clear of blóts of a more mainstream (in lack of a better term) nature.
They would be verbally (at least) and intellectually bitch slapped by pretty much any follower of the custom i´ve known.
The only threat i see to Norse culture and heritage are these circus clowns.
How can anyone take heathenry seriously with these around?
I recall a discussion on AL one time about how it was sometimes a shame Heathenry is so decentralised because there are certain individuals and groups that really do deserve loud and public outlawry. This pool of fetid scum is clearly one of them.
These idiots are the reason why I sometimes tell people somthing fluffy about wicca & celtic traditions when asked about my heathen believes. If you tell some people that you’re into germanic stuff they automatically lump you together with those guys and nazis. I even met heathens that believed you should stay away from runes because they were “spoiled” and “collected bad karma” 70 years ago.