@ohcamil
Oh! Camil
Posts
17196
Last update
2015-02-03 02:42:08

    Whoa, those things are Australian? Who would have guessed? Get bent, Australia. If an Australian ever tells you it’s not so bad living there, don’t listen: that is a human skin suit filled with thousands of spiders, and it is trying to trick you.

    Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_21770_9-insane-animal-scenes-you-wont-believe-arent-photoshopped_p2.html#ixzz3LT9xAwUo (via ohcamil)

    DAMN! How did they discover our secret!! We’ve been reckless with our disguises!!

    (via headforhippieland)

    It's it's not snakes, it's spiders, and if it's not spiders, it's, like, drop bears.

    Whoa, those things are Australian? Who would have guessed? Get bent, Australia. If an Australian ever tells you it's not so bad living there, don't listen: that is a human skin suit filled with thousands of spiders, and it is trying to trick you.

    Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_21770_9-insane-animal-scenes-you-wont-believe-arent-photoshopped_p2.html#ixzz3LT9xAwUo

    The Princess is everything Luke wants to be. She is socially conscious, whereas he is thrown into things; intellectually, she is a strong leader, and he is just a kid.

    - George Lucas

    People often talk about how Han influenced Luke, but we should also look at how Leia influenced Luke.

    (via apolla-savre)

    I’ve always really liked this idea—that they’re the exact same age, but their different lives have given them very different levels of maturity, and Luke is envious, but fascinated, and idolizes her a bit.

    (via another-skywalker)

    This has always seemed pretty obvious to me.  I'm glad that other people see it, too.

    What about our fans? Are they privileged? Let me tell you about Anders. He was one of two male love interests in Dragon Age II, and the only one of the two that would actually make his intentions known to the player without the player expressing interest first. If you were nice to him, he would make a pass at you, and you could turn him down, and that would be the end of it. And some fans REALLY did not like that. Some of them asked for a gay toggle; because in a game where there’s mature themes, slavery, death, and none of which we offer toggles for, encountering a gay character? OOH, beyond the pale. They didn’t want to be exposed to homosexuality. And this one fan on our forums posted that he felt too much attention had been spent on women and gays and not enough on straight male gamers. For all of whom he personally spoke, of course. ‘It’s ridiculous that I even have to use a term like Straight Male Gamers, when in the past I would only have to say fans.’ The purpose of the romances in Dragon Age II was to give each type of fan an equal content. Two romances whether you’re male or female, straight or gay. How upsetting for this particular Straight Male Gamer to realize he wasn’t being catered to. This was not equality to him, but an imbalance; an imbalance of the natural order. He did not want equality, he’s not interested in equality. To him, from his perspective, equality means he’s getting less. Less options? Actually, no, the number of options we had in that game was actually the same number of options that he would have received earlier. What was his issue was the idea that there was attention being spent on other groups, which SHOULD have rightly gone to him. Do ALL straight male gamers feel exactly the same as he does? Absolutely not. In the thread where this came up in fact, there was quite a few guys who came in and identified themselves as straight male gamers and said ‘I actually don’t have an issue with that, as long as I receive an experience I enjoy, I think other people should be able to enjoy that too.’ But if you think that Straight Male Gamer Dude is an outlier among our fanbase, you were not paying attention. This is Anita Sarkeesian, she’s the author of the Feminist Frequency, a blog which examines tropes in the depiction of women in popular culture. You’ve probably all heard about this, it’s a matter of public record, she announced a Kickstarter to start a web series to look at the tropes in video games and she was subjected to a campaign of vicious abuse and harassment by male gamers. Why? Well, because she represents to these guys the loss of their coveted place in the gaming audience. Never mind that well all know Goddamn well that they’re still at the top of the totem pole. What they see themselves losing is sole proprietorship over their domain. That’s what it is. Everything that is changing about the gaming industry to accommodate these players, to them, is diluting the purity of gaming which has belonged solely to them. That’s what this is all about. And here’s the thing, I’m pretty certain that our industry fears the scrutiny of those guys way more than the scrutiny of everyone else. Because those are the guys that scream at the top of their lungs, they spend their time on every internet forum, they spend their time making Metacritic reviews. Infuriate them, and you become a target. It’s so much easier to say “Well, that’s what our fans are like. There’s nothing we can do.” And that’s bullshit. They didn’t set the tone, did they? We set the tone. What we put out there, what we permit, whether it’s on our forums, whether it’s on Xbox Live, the things that we permit we are in effect condoning. What happened to Anita, we the industry, are partly responsible for. We’re in part to blame. And if the idea of moral responsibility doesn’t phase you, consider the idea that the time will probably soon come that this will also amount to legal responsibility.

    BioWare EA Writer David Gaider speaking on sexism and sexuality in video games. (via lolitsgabe)

    Holy shit, I couldn’t have said this better myself.

    (via absquatulate)

    'If we take into account its original context, the quotation is more applicable to the aggressors in the 9/11 tragedy than to those honored by the memorial,' said Helen Morales, a classics professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. 'So my first reaction is that the quotation is shockingly inappropriate for the U.S. victims of the 9/11 attack.'

    There’s a big quote from the Aeneid on the wall of the 9/11 memorial and I would bet money that whoever picked it out saw it in a book of quotations and never actually read Virigil. (via joshreads)

    I think it’s an interesting question to ask:  *are* institutions required to preserve historical context?  Is a memorial to the dead an institution?  I’m not sure yet how I feel about this.

    (via ohcamil)

    I’m not sure that “required” is the right word. I mean, the 9/11 Memorial Comission Board Of Trustees (or whoever is actually in charge, I just made that up) can put whatever they want on the wall. But the question is, whats the purpose of putting any kind of text up there in the first place? Specifically, what’s the purpose of using a quotation from a classic work of literature, rather than just writing “YOU SHALL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN” or some other sentiment that isn’t particularly different from the intended effect but doesn’t have to be credited to anyone?

    The quotation in question is 10 words long. It’s evocative, sure, but just by itself, the phrasing doesn’t strike me as particularly spine-chilling or unique. Call me a philistine or hard-hearted, but it’s not Virgil’s most memorable turn of phrase. To me, a huge part of the reason someone would use that specific phrase, and then cite where it came from, is to gain some of the cultural power of an ancient text: “Look, the emotions stirred by this event are so world-historically profound that we must dip into a 2,000-year-old poem to adequately express them.” If that’s what you’re doing, then you don’t get to ignore the context of the story that you pull it from; that’s having it both ways. You can’t both say “this sentence has special power because it comes from the Aeneid” but then also say “it doesn’t really matter what exactly this sentence is doing within the Aeneid’s story and cultural context.” It becomes just fetishization of text and history for their own sakes. It’s like when people open the Bible for inspiration and seize on one-sentence fragments, which I realize is something a lot of people do, so maye the problem is that I’m a cranky snob, sigh.

    (via joshreads)

    Good points.  Well, IDK about the cranky snob part, ha ha, but the rest of what say makes a lot of sense to me.

    Groundbreaking Thinkers are charming, enthusiastic persons. They really bubble over with energy and like to take centre stage. They love variety both professionally and privately. Groundbreaking Thinkers tackle changes consistently with their optimism and firm belief in their own abilities; they are always on the look-out for improvement possibilities. Their excellent communication skills are of great advantage to them here. They approach the world with curiosity and openness and master new situations with a great deal of talent for improvising and with resourcefulness. Their spare time is taken up with a large number of hobbies; most Groundbreaking Thinkers like to travel in order to gather as many different impressions as possible. This personality type is unbeatable at discovering new possibilities. In their work, Groundbreaking Thinkers highly rate challenges and diversified tasks. They cannot stand routine and too detailed work. They love to astound others with bold ideas for an original, new project and then leave it up to the others to implement them. Hierarchies, rules and regulations arouse their opposition and they love outsmarting the system. It is vital to them that they enjoy their work; if this is the case, they quickly become pure workaholics. Their creativity best takes effect when they work independently; but they are very good at motivating others and infecting them with their optimistic nature. Conceptual or advisory activities appeal especially to Groundbreaking Thinkers. It can happen that some people feel somewhat duped by their flexible, spontaneous nature. Their sociability and enterprise ensure that Groundbreaking Thinkers always have a large circle of friends and acquaintances in which activity plays an important role. As they are mostly in a good mood, they are popular and very welcome guests. Grumbling and peevishness are unknown to them. However, they do tend to be a little erratic and unstable when it comes to obligations and this makes them appear to be unreliable to some. Groundbreaking Thinkers are very critical and demanding when it comes to picking a partner because they look for the ideal relationship and have a very concrete picture of this ideal relationship. Mutual aims in life are very important to them. They do not like compromising and would rather remain alone. For the partner, it is often a challenge to have a long-term relationship with a Groundbreaking Thinker. Groundbreaking Thinkers need a lot of space and diversity or otherwise they become bored and feel cramped. Types who are rather more traditionalistic often have problems with the willingness of Groundbreaking Thinkers to take risks and their often crazy, spontaneous actions. However, if one can summon up sufficient flexibility and tolerance for them, one will never be bored in their presence and will always have a loyal and faithful partner. Adjectives that describe your type extroverted, theoretical, logical, spontaneous, rational, innovative, intellectual, open, independent, curious, enterprising, analytical, clever, enthusiastic, venturesome, inventive, energetic, sociable, optimistic, non-conformist, creative, freedom-loving, charming, able to get enthusiastic, self-confident, communicative, capricious, inconsistent, outgoing

    My Personality Type: The Groundbreaking Thinker ______________ This is MOSTLY accurate. I'm glad to see it says "capricious" and "inconsistent" instead of "spontaneous" because even though they're more negative words, they're also more accurate. I am not very spontaneous at all but I AM inconsistent. How much of that is personality and how much of that is physiology the world may never know, but it's true.

    'If we take into account its original context, the quotation is more applicable to the aggressors in the 9/11 tragedy than to those honored by the memorial,' said Helen Morales, a classics professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. 'So my first reaction is that the quotation is shockingly inappropriate for the U.S. victims of the 9/11 attack.'

    There’s a big quote from the Aeneid on the wall of the 9/11 memorial and I would bet money that whoever picked it out saw it in a book of quotations and never actually read Virigil. (via joshreads)

    I think it's an interesting question to ask:  *are* institutions required to preserve historical context?  Is a memorial to the dead an institution?  I'm not sure yet how I feel about this.

    Being a critical fan means that you love a famous human being, knowing fully well they are flawed and can make mistakes due to their privilege-blindness or outright ignorance (whether knowingly or unknowingly practicing misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, racism, etc.). When they fuck up, it is your duty as a critical fan to make them better, call them out and educate them. Your job is not to create excuses and adamantly defend their mistakes because they are so fierce in your eyes.

    Janet Mock (via trans-ient)

    I don't know if I would agree that it's your job to "call them out".  I don't think it's necessarily your "job" to call anyone out.  I do think it's important to acknowledge when your favorites do or say something awful or hold awful attitudes and to separate yourself from it. 

    You know those girls everyone loves to shit all over? The ones who really fucking love something? Those girls, man. They take all that energy, all that circulating fire in their veins, and instead of letting it destroy them, they choose to love, ferociously. Be it a band, or a book, or a series of films. They do it to keep themselves sane, and yet we mock them for it. Teenage girls find a buoy for themselves in the sea of emotional ruin, and they hold on tighter than anyone else.

    Segment of “Why I Fucking Love Teenage Girls (A Personal Essay from an Almost Adult)” (via harrycmon)

    I know I've said this before but I find it endlessly bewildering how much hate teenage girls get for being teenage girls.  Intellectually I understand where it comes from:  misogyny, paternalism, the patriarchy, and other unpleasant social structures, but I don't think I'll ever be able to feel it in my heart without wondering WHY?

    The worst is when I see teenage girls do it to each other.  I see it a lot here on Tumblr and just about everywhere else, too.  I see it a lot with "fandom" which is one of the reasons I have so much disdain for the whole concept of "fandom".  It's all well and good to like what you like and believe that what you like is superior to what other people like - it really is okay, I swear, to have a good opinion of your own opinion - but the shitting on other people for simply having different taste in music or movies or TV or whatever really isn't cool.

    Too many other people want to hate on you just for being a teenage girl.  Don't let them poison you into thinking that they've got a point.

    Don’t waste your time explaining who you are to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.

    Lecrae (via yesdarlingido)

    I was just telling a friend this morning that the reason I think it's funny to refer to myself as "mean" and talk about how horrible is that I'm not.  While I'm certainly capable of doing the occasional mean thing out of carelessness or spite (I am human, after all) I am not in any way a Mean Person.  One hundred percent of the people who have ever called me a mean person were people who were behaving in hateful, harmful, horrible ways and were angry that I was calling them out on it.  Funny how a certain type of person defines "mean" as "won't let me get away with being an ass". 

    This type of leopard's spots NEVER change and arguing with them will get you nowhere but more miserable.

    I feel this is a good opportunity to mention yet again that it was when I stopped putting up with people's shit and stopped being their friend the moment it was clear that they were only ever going to cause me pain that I got MORE and BETTER friends because the people worth having in your life don't want to be around assholes either.

    What we see through social media is a generation of ignorant social activists. Young men and women all too willing to care about and defend something they don’t truly understand and refuse to educate themselves further on because they assume the limited information they receive has been vetted by someone more knowledgeable than themselves. This happens on both sides of the fence, with both conservatives and liberals. I’ve seen arguably intelligent young men and women stand up at banquets and rallies, demanding answers about things like healthcare, DOMA, federal military actions. Asking questions about things they’ve seen on Facebook, on twitter, things that they’ve taken little to no time to research for themselves, and they look like fools. No matter their age, they paint themselves with a red mark that announces ‘I’m not mature enough to be here, to discuss these issues’. But even so, it isn’t truly about age. It’s about social awareness. You are not discounted until you make a mistake. Say the wrong thing or quote the wrong statistic. Until then, your legitimacy remains intact. Tumblr is like this. I’ve seen people furious over gay rights legislation that doesn’t actually exist. Wars that haven’t happened. Most recently text posts with tens of thousands of notes alleging that China and Russia are going to go to war with the US over Syria. Blogs relaying damaging misinformation written by individuals who can’t seem to be bothered to read a newspaper or use google properly. This is a crippling trend, and no one sees it. These people get untold attention and affirmation until one person with a large enough follower count points out the flaw in their argument. Corrects the mistake, and shifts the tide. But this doesn’t fix the thousands of people who liked and reblogged the original post. The damage is done. If there is one thing I’ve learned from working on political campaigns, very little is more damaging than an activist who argues only one side of the story without recognizing the existence of the other; because your opinion, no matter how solid and seemingly factually based, is invalid the second your audience realizes they know more than you. And the result of all of this is a generation of young activists who don’t understand why they aren’t being taken seriously.

    a recent conversation with a colleague regarding social media (via onawingandaswear)

    Its only later when you reach your early 20s and think you’re all “sophisticated” that you suddenly decide “Hey, the people who made these shows must’ve been out of it, yo. I mean its so fucking trippy they must’ve been taking something.” All of which is A, an insult to the imagination of the creators and B, patent bullshit because if the creators have been taking acid then these shows wouldn’t be made at all.

    -Charlie Brooker, Screenwipe Series 5 Episode 5.

    Because the whole annoying “DIS SHOW MUST’VE BEEN A RESULT OF DRUGS” argument have popped up on the dashboard and annoying some folks, an argument which is bogus and lazy to be honest.

    (via panicmodealpha)

    I do understand people being defensive of a song and its original form, but I have to say - I love the re-working of “Time Of The Season” into “Rhyme Or Reason” on Eminem’s new album …. I love the energy, the invention; the way that Eminem constantly uses words and phrases from the original song as springboards to take off into all sorts of different areas - sometimes inverting the sentiments completely, always weaving complex patterns with fantastic wordplay (and often in a way that’s very funny) - and always full of life! I love “There’s no rhyme and no reason for nothing” being in sound so close to “It’s the time of the season for loving” while being at the same time pretty much the total antithesis of the original phrase in meaning. It absolutely mirrors the song while at the same time sending it tumbling into a different universe! It has become a TOTALLY different work of art, rather than being, for instance, a limp cover. And that’s its strength. It doesn’t in any way threaten the original song or the original record! Rod x

    Rod Argent (via Facebook)

    High five Rod Argent.  

    Conspiracy theories can be satisfying because they supply a cause more proportional to the effect of a traumatic event, but they foster a damaging distrust of institutions. The distortion of history obscures the lessons to be learned from the past.

    A surviving staff member of the Warren Commission, which concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, and Oswald alone, killed President John F. Kennedy nearly 50 years ago, speaks out against conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination.

    Read the full op-ed here. (via latimes)

    Conspiracy theories can also be satisfying because they explain WHY but sometimes there is no why and people just have to accept that.

    When men say that they “love to see the woman underneath the makeup,” they’re not saying they want to see your leg stubble and greasy bangs—they’re saying they want you to be better at hiding your maintenance routine. Because the maintenance spoils the fantasy.

    -Lindy West (via fourstorytantrum)

    Every time one of my guy friends says they prefer women without makeup I give them the hardest fucking side-eye. Like, I definitely don’t really mind either way but, I’m pretty sure some of these dudes has scarcely seen a woman without makeup.

    (via pastelmorgue)

    Way back in the 1970s Archie Comics (of all people) actually spoofed the whole "I want a NATURAL woman" BS in a six panel strip.  Betty and Veronica hear that the natural look is in and Betty's super excited because, hey! this is easy!  So she goes home and washes her face, removing all of her make up.  In the meantime Veronica stocks up on "natural look" make up.  When we see her next, Veronica is obviously made up and Betty isn't, but Archie scolds Betty for being too artificial and says she should try to look more like Veronica.  This was some little tossed off joke by the Archie staff but it's stuck with me for 40 years because, well...it's accurate.

    "You will hate Los Angeles." That’s what English people said to me when they heard I was heading west, to the land of low-fat milk and sugar-free honey. You’ll hate it, and be back in a week. Some of them, I suspect, were showing off their worldliness. They’d been to Los Angeles many times, seen through its glitter, tired of its ways. Others inflected their prediction with a sort of menacing imperative. You will hate Los Angeles, if you know what’s good for you. … I love you, I hate you: you might call it a mixed message, if the message weren’t so unmixed. You’re allowed to love Paris, up to a point, New York, more or less, Dublin and Glasgow, definitely, but loving Los Angeles is just plain wrong. Oxymoronic, in fact – if you promise to go easy on the oxy. … Los Angeles, and especially the abbreviated LA, has become a byword for the shallow, the ephemeral, the vain – and it is the duty of any right-thinking Englishman, properly cask-aged in rainwater, body dysmorphia and sarcasm, to scorn it. And it’s not just the British press who feel this way. The rest of the world, and much of America, treats Los Angeles with the same weird mixture of envy and snobbery – qualities that ought to contradict each other, but somehow never do. Well, I warn you now, I’m heading in the other direction. I’m sticking up for the beautiful city of Los Angeles. That’s right. Beautiful…

    Hugh Laurie’s Los Angeles - Telegraph

    Hugh Laurie wrote a love letter to Los Angeles - and it’s brilliant.

    (via spytap)

    I've never had any interest in Hugh Laurie, but I totally want to high five him now.

    Look, I don't care if you've been to Los Angeles, experienced it, and decided you didn't like it because it's not your kind of place.  This is something I can understand - after all, I very much DON'T love New York.  Everyone has places they like or don't like according to their own taste.

    But I do agree that for far too many people including people who not only haven't been to LA but have never visited California or indeed, even set foot in the USA, Los Angeles has become one of those places they look down their noses at because somehow they think dismissing Los Angeles as superficial based on their own superficial understanding of it, an understanding often gleaned from completely ridiculous and unreliable sources.  The scorn of these people for a perfectly decent city is stupid and ridiculous.  I can still have respect for someone whose dislike of one of my favorite places in the world is based on a genuine feeling but if you put down LA without really knowing it, well, you're a fucking idiot.