absolute fucking favorite
yooo everybody. my mom and i were goofing around and found this seriously FUCKED UP site. all your information, (phone number, nam, address even) is available for 2.99. like everything. please watch this video on how to remove it. (im not sure if it’s there for minors, but if you’ve ever owned/rented a house you’re definitely there. it’s worth checking it out to make sure.)
video on how to remove information. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPFLagxnDsA
fucked up website: http://www.spokeo.com/
also, if you’ve lived in more than one place/state it has you multiple times, remove all of your profile things. (it had my mom 4 times, all over our state. even from when she lived in a house 9 years ago.)
SIGNAL BOOST THIS SHIT
YES THERE ARE MINORS ON HERE ALSO I JUST CHECKED ME AND IT HAS MY ~PERSONAL~ INFO ON THERE
This is very concerning. I just spent the last ten minutes removing my entire family (including my 14-year-old sister) from the site.
Cool Mom Tech has a guide on how to take your information off the site if for some reason you can’t watch the above video.
Just to inform everyone, it’s American only, but it’s real. I’ve found 3 of my friends already with this sight and the only reason I knew it was them was because I happen to have their address. PLEASE CONFIRM IF YOU ARE ON THIS SITE AND IF YOU ARE, REMOVE YOURSELF. NOW.
I’m screaming internally because I just searched up a handful of my friends who live in America.. and found every single one of them without fail. This is scary.
For my American followers
This is creepy as hell and completely legit. Please take the time to remove yourself from this list.
I just googled it and yeah. Now I can see a real meaning behind the saying ‘don’t give out personal info on the internet’..though in these times it’s difficult not to
THIS IS SCARY SHIT. This could be how my ex has been getting my information for a long time… ITS DANGEROUS. I JUST CHECKED IT OUT AND ITS REAL. IM ON THERE, MY FAMILY IS ON THERE. THIS IS NOT OKAY.
I GIVE ZERO SHITS IF YOU AREN’T FROM AMERICA YOU ARE FUCKING SIGNAL BOOSTING THIS THIS IS SO IMPORTANT THIS IS HOW STALKERS OPERATE OH MY GOD SIGNAL BOOST
That Green Lantern one will do, thanks. :)
The last one, omg <3
i love rings like this
Kinda glad they moved the reblog button now… But I WANT THE ONE RING OKAY?!
These are the nerdiest most beautiful rings on the planet!!!!!
The TARDIS rings though oh my god!
This post is missing one tho…
but people who get all ‘think of the children!’ when you mention putting queer characters in kids shows piss me off so much
because I am thinking of the children
the queer children who are living in a world that tells them they are wrong at every turn, that denies their existence and refuses to allow them a happy ending
I’m thinking of those children
my friend left her window open in her bedroom and came back to find this
look at his self-satisfied little face, the cheeky shit
if there was a post to describe australia, this is it
you mean to tell me this isn’t even a pet bird?
that in australia, you have wild birds that just fly from house to house with the express purpose of fucking shit up?
fucking HELL australia, what is wrong with you?
wake up australia
That’s what birds do
They fly around and fuck shit up
Do you have some kind of mysterious nice birds in your weird foreign country
Do birds in America and England fly into your house and make the bed and tidy up the living room a little bit
It’s cold here, so they just bounce off the windows and lie there and twitch spasmodically while you look for the shovel.
Basically hurling themselves at windows is the worst thing birds do
yeah man a kookaburra literally flew into a classroom at my high school and just sat his smug ass down on top of the desk for a good 20 minutes
why has nobody mentioned the fact that in australia there are 3-4 months a year where everybody just accepts that they’re going to get attacked by magpies. It is literally called “swooping season” and these birds will fly down to peck your fucking face, and people get their eyes ripped out and shit, it’s fucking brutal.
My teacher had to go to hospital and have surgery because of swooping season. It was in the parking lot of school and all the kids would do a mad dash towards the car as the magpies tried to kill us.
no but when you’re 12 years old and riding your bike like mad on the way home from school with an icecream bucket on your head with like branches and shit sticking out if it to scare them off and none of this is considered strange
what the actual fuck australia
John Barrowman was up for the role of Will in Will & Grace but didn’t get it because he was “too straight” and the role went to Eric McCormack. Barrowman actually is gay, while McCormack is straight
in what universe is John Barrowman too straight for anything ever
I love it when straight people make the criteria for queerness and then disqualify us based on their own fucked up perceptions.
Bolded for emphasis.
A very well-researched article on the invention of whiteness in England, by Shakespearean scholar, professor and author Gary Taylor. I question a few of the assertions about gender, but the documentation is solid and very illuminating.
Like any other words, “white” in the modern, racial sense, was invented. And it is possible to pinpoint the first popular appearance of the idea that the English are “white people” in a piece of London street theatre, in 1613.
Drama was the only mass media in the England of that time. The largest print run for a book allowed by law was less than the number of spectators for a single performance at the Globe. Urban pageants and commercial plays reached a much larger and more varied population than books. So it was here, in drama, that new words and new meanings were popularised - as we know from Shakespeare.
But it wasn’t Shakespeare who decided that the English were “white”, despite his racist caricatures of oversexed black males (Aaron, Morocco, Othello, and - almost certainly - Caliban). For one thing, Shakespeare himself was not white. The only full-colour portrait with any claim to authenticity, the funeral monument in Stratford-upon-Avon, reveals a very brown bard: his family obviously did not idealise whiteness. More important, Shakespeare did not contrast the black men in his plays with “white men”. Instead, he routinely contrasted black men with white women.
The idea of a white woman seems blatantly racial to us, 400 years later. But when Shakespeare and his predecessors praised a lady for her white hand, white neck or white breasts, that colour coding was gender (and class) specific. In all ethnic groups, women are paler than men: statistically, globally, women have less melatonin in their skin, less haemoglobin in their blood, and less body hair. Like other bodily features that tend to differentiate the sexes, the relative pallor of women was, in Elizabethan England, fetishised, exaggerated and faked. Elizabeth I - like many other well-to-do women in classical, medieval and Renaissance Europe - painted her face white.
But while whiteness was gendered, it was not racialised. Elizabethan male idols did not wear white makeup or wigs, did not avoid sunburning and did not want to be called white. Applied to men, “white” described a corpse or a coward. Or a eunuch: the hormonal changes caused by castration made the skin of a eunuch as soft and white as an aristocrat’s pampered indoor trophy wife. To call a man “white” was to impugn his masculinity.
So when Iago tells Brabantio that Othello has run off with Desdemona, and that “an old black ram is tupping your white ewe”, Shakespeare and his character are being simultaneously racist (“black ram”) and misogynist (“white ewe”). We tend to see only the racism, because we assume that Iago considers himself as “white” as Desdemona. But he doesn’t. Neither Iago, nor any other man in the play, describes himself as white.
There are no white men in Othello . There were no white men in Shakespeare’s acting company. There were no black men in that company either, and no women. When the King’s Men performed Othello, one of the male actors blacked up to play the Moor of Venice, and one of the male actors whited up to play the “whore of Venice”. None of the actors thought of black, or white, as their own natural, biological, “racial” colour. White was a colour that actors put on when they wanted to assume a different - and inferior - identity.
You can see the same bias against whiteness in Titus Andronicus. The black “barbarous Moor” Aaron derides Chiron and Demetrius for their cowardice, and specifically associates their timidity with their skin tone: “Ye white-limed walls, ye alehouse painted signs.” The words “white-limed” and “painted” both indicate that the characters’/ actors’ pale complexions are not natural, but the result of makeup (“painting”). Obviously, the stupid rapists Chiron and Demetrius do not represent an idealised “white race”. The play calls them “barbarous Goths”, and Goths were associated with uncivilised regions in the far north. The tragedy shows the classic Roman civilisation idealised by the Renaissance crumbling under the attack of two demographic extremes: southern black barbarians like Aaron (associated with Islam), and northern white barbarians like Chiron and Demetrius (associated with the Goths).
If Shakespeare, his fellow male actors and the men in his audiences did not regard themselves as white, how did they imagine themselves? The paired and rejected extremes of black and white in Shakespeare’s plays put the male writer/actor/spectator in a position celebrated by the male authorities of classical and Renaissance culture: in the middle. The “via media” was the declared justification for the English church, rejecting the Charybdis of Catholicism and the Scylla of Puritanism. Proverbially, “the merry mean” (or simply “the mean”) is best, “the middle way of measure is ever golden”, and man should “observe the golden mean”.
Note the colour attributed to that ideal state. It is not white. It is golden. “Golden” may be used figuratively, but so could “white”, and the choice is hardly random. The phrase “golden mean” is ubiquitous in English literature from the middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th century. Classical, medieval and Renaissance art often used gold to represent idealised human or divine figures. In the golden age, men lived in a golden world, under a golden sun. The “golden mean” was the preferred stance of authority, centrally positioned to evaluate the extremes represented by effeminacy and savagery, white and black.
To find racial whiteness in English theatre we have to fast forward to the generation after Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s last work for the stage, The Two Noble Kinsmen (co-written with John Fletcher), probably opened the London season at the Blackfriars theatre in September 1613. A few weeks later, on October 29, London spent a record-breaking amount of money on a pageant to inaugurate its new mayor: one of the founding members of the East India Company. That same autumn, four East India Company ships returned to London, carrying more than 1m lbs (450 tonnes) of (fantastically profitable) pepper.
The celebratory pageant, called The Triumphs of Truth , was written by the playwright Thomas Middleton, 16 years younger that Shakespeare. In the middle of The Triumphs of Truth , “a strange ship” appears, carrying “a king of the Moors, his queen, and two attendants of their own colour”. The black king addresses the London crowd: “I see amazement set upon the faces/ Of these white people, wond’rings and strange gazes./ Is it at me? Does my complexion draw/ So many Christian eyes that never saw/ A king so black before?”
A socially and morally undifferentiated crowd of English men and women is here characterised as “white people”, their individual and collective white identity asserted by a black stranger. From the perspective of his alien blackness, they are all “white”.
This first occurrence in a popular text of a positive sense of collective English whiteness contradicts a lot of our assumptions about the history of racism. Shakespeare was a racist, but he didn’t think he was white. Middleton thought he was white, but he wasn’t a racist. Middleton’s Black King is the first unequivocally positive representation of a black speaker in the entire surviving corpus of English dramatic texts. He is not lustful, not jealous, not a liar, not a murderer; he does not belong to the police line-up of violent black men arraigned in the preceding decades by dramatists such as George Peele, Thomas Dekker and Shakespeare. He is not called ugly or foul. Middleton’s Black King is - as the African American scholar Eldred Jones noted decades ago - less “shallow” than the black figures in other pageants. Moreover, Middleton’s Black King stands beside his Black Queen, who also speaks. This is the first positive portrayal of a black marriage in English literature. Indeed, it is the first portrayal of black monogamy. (And still one of the few.)
The notion that Anglo-saxons were “white” did not originate on slave plantations in the American colonies. The modern racial sense of the word entered the London popular vocabulary in 1613. There were few English colonists at all in 1613, and no slave plantations. English whiteness was not originally defined in contrast to the blackness of African slaves, but in contrast to the blackness of civilised monarchs in India, south-east Asia, and the spice islands. The Great White Bard was not white at all. And racial whiteness is not a biological fact, but a historical invention.
· Gary Taylor is the author of Buying Whiteness: Race, Culture, and Identity from Columbus to Hip-Hop , published by Palgrave Macmillan.
This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.
THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you.
we’re doing this rn in theology class but im gonna be That Person and ask for a source because this sounds legit but if im gonna talk about this im gonna need to cite something
ok found a few sources for this actually so Yes this seems like a solid reading of the quote
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cbidwell/DCAS/third.htm (about a third of the way down)
I need someone to preach this. I’ll have to use it in some spoken word at church.
Jesus said slap that hoe back.
Yay, sources! I heard this a while ago but didn’t have any evidence to go on. I’m so glad. That passage isn’t about being nice to your oppressors, turning the other cheek isn’t an act of passivity. It’s about turning the tables and taking back dignity. It’s about shaming those who would oppress. People don’t seem to get that Jesus wasn’t a ‘bear your yoke quietly’ kind of guy. He was an agitator and a radical, and these kind of readings inspire me so much to fight, not just people on the street but people in the church who would have us accept their toxic teachings and ask for more.
Yeah, shit like this? Just proves how much those in power deliberately warp shit to their benefit. They twist any sort of resistance to the status quo to be utterly useless and then sneak it into everything as subtle propaganda. Like how “violence is never the answer” and “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” are the twisted versions that deprive folks of justice. No revolution was truly 100% bloodless, tho history can be rewritten to erase that fact, or skew it to serve as fear-mongering bullshit.
I will reblog ever time it’s on my dash. This is important.
okay woWIE YOU GUYS REALLY NEED TO WATCH THIS BECAUSE PANTENE DID A COMMERCIAL ABOUT HOW SHIT LABELS AGAINST WOMEN ARE AND ITS JUST SO GREAT WOWIE