In which I am Blaine

Everything I'm obsessed with, compiled into a large... Thing.
*sidebar image not mine*

1 of 3212

pen-strokes-and-music-notes:

A compulation of beautifully eloquent Stucky posts.

Bless you Tumblr.

crypticmeth:

Armie Hammer as Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss

↳ “I’m 6’5”, 220, and there’s two of me.

beesandbombs:

lots of triangles

beesandbombs:

lots of triangles

lokiaintevenbovvered:

venusaurphobia:

The correct pronunciation of “colonel” is, without exaggeration, the stupidest thing on this planet

ENGLISH IS NOT MY NATIVE LANGUAGE SO AFTER SEEING THIS POST A MILLION TIMES I FINALLY GOOGLED THE PRONUNCIATION AND NOW I AM SO ANGRY

2ollux-captor-ii2-my-dance2tor:

useless-worthless-nobody:

azalea-in-time:

When you go to a haunted house, it may seem like you’re being funny by trying to scare the actors or jump out at them when you go through a second time, but guess what? ITS NOT FUNNY.

You pay us to scare you. It is your choice to go, so don’t fucking go through if you’re going to ignore the rules and get too close to the actors as a ‘joke’.

These bruises happened because over the course of 4 hours, several people ignored the instructions that CLEARLY stated that they were to wait in the front room until told otherwise. Rather than listen, they ran into the next room and slammed into me- effectively throwing me into the wall. This didn’t only happen once. It happened ten times at LEAST.

Then we had this asshole who thought that once I ‘died’ for the haunt, he could pretend to kick me to see if I’d moved. I, being used to people abusing me- jumped back and slammed my head into the concrete wall.

YOU ARE NOT FUNNY BY BEING RUDE AT A HAUNTED HOUSE. WE ARE PAID ACTORS THAT YOU CHOOSE TO COME AND SEE PERFORM. YOU PAY US TO SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF YOU, SO DONT HIT US WHEN WE DO

I feel that this is relevant considering it is October and more Haunted Houses are opening up. I know it seems funny to scare the ‘monsters’ but all you do is hurt real people. So stop.

It’s not even October but I’m still spreading this

SIGNAL BOOOOOOOOSSSSSTTTTT!!!!!!! Now

I LOVE YOUR BLOG SOOOO SO MUCH OMG COULD YOU DRAW A COMIC INVOLVING MERMAIDS AND MAYBE A DRAGON FOR ME

@consultingasshat

floccinaucinihilipilificationa:

I HAVE THE HEADCANON THAT DRAGONS THINK THAT MERMAIDS ARE SUPER COOL BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN WATER AND STUFF

image

themaefive:

axonsandsynapses:

yuletidekarkat:

dannygayhealani:

creatingaquietmind:

the speech impediment of the 21st century (by Marc Johns)

I’ll fuck you up buddy this is not a speech impediment it’s linguistic evolution!! the existence of the phrase “Aisha was like” allows the speaker to convey whatever Aisha said without making the listener assume they’re quoting Aisha directly while still maintaining the FEELING of what Aisha said.
ie, Aisha said she didn’t want to go out with me VERSUS Aisha was like, “I’d rather kiss a Wookie”.
the addition of “XYZ was like” lets the speaker be more expressive and efficient and it is a totally valid method of communicating information!!

With the way language has evolved, this is one of the few ways I can even think of to express in casual conversation what someone said. 
"So I said to Aisha," is certainly used, but if you remove the "so," which implies casual tone ("and" can be used in the same way), you get
"I said to Aisha," which is really formal in most English dialects/variations. I don’t know about all, but in New England dialects, you sound like you’re reading aloud from a novel.
"I told Aisha," is really only used when you continue to describe, not tell, what you told her. Ex: "I told Aisha that James was too punk for her" works while, "I told Aisha, ‘James is too punk for you’" crosses the line back into formalness of the "I said."
Things like “I asked” or “I answered [with]” are similar levels of casual and efficient to the “So, I said [or say, as many conversations about the past take place in present tense anyway, as if the speaker is giving a play-by-play in the moment]” but are specific to only certain situations. 
"I was like, 'Marc Johns, what is your obsession with restoring archaic speech patterns and interfering with the natural progression of English from complex to efficient?'" envelopes all of these easily and is accessible and crisp, and allows for more variations on inflection than the others.
Of course, James is probably like, “I already fucking said that.” But eh, I tried adding on.

#linguistics #a.k.a. how I learned to stop worrying and love the evolution of the English language without being a discriminatory elitist jerk (via crystalandrock)

This a million times

themaefive:

axonsandsynapses:

yuletidekarkat:

dannygayhealani:

creatingaquietmind:

the speech impediment of the 21st century (by Marc Johns)

I’ll fuck you up buddy this is not a speech impediment it’s linguistic evolution!! the existence of the phrase “Aisha was like” allows the speaker to convey whatever Aisha said without making the listener assume they’re quoting Aisha directly while still maintaining the FEELING of what Aisha said.

ie, Aisha said she didn’t want to go out with me VERSUS Aisha was like, “I’d rather kiss a Wookie”.

the addition of “XYZ was like” lets the speaker be more expressive and efficient and it is a totally valid method of communicating information!!

With the way language has evolved, this is one of the few ways I can even think of to express in casual conversation what someone said. 

"So I said to Aisha," is certainly used, but if you remove the "so," which implies casual tone ("and" can be used in the same way), you get

"I said to Aisha," which is really formal in most English dialects/variations. I don’t know about all, but in New England dialects, you sound like you’re reading aloud from a novel.

"I told Aisha," is really only used when you continue to describe, not tell, what you told her. Ex: "I told Aisha that James was too punk for her" works while, "I told Aisha, ‘James is too punk for you’" crosses the line back into formalness of the "I said."

Things like “I asked” or “I answered [with]” are similar levels of casual and efficient to the “So, I said [or say, as many conversations about the past take place in present tense anyway, as if the speaker is giving a play-by-play in the moment]” but are specific to only certain situations. 

"I was like, 'Marc Johns, what is your obsession with restoring archaic speech patterns and interfering with the natural progression of English from complex to efficient?'" envelopes all of these easily and is accessible and crisp, and allows for more variations on inflection than the others.

Of course, James is probably like, “I already fucking said that.” But eh, I tried adding on.

  (via crystalandrock)

This a million times

auriikarii:

marypussypoppins:

looks like this cat just witnessed a sick burn

Oooh

auriikarii:

marypussypoppins:

looks like this cat just witnessed a sick burn

Oooh

magapeach:

bidyke:

kimi-ni-sachi-are:

[Watch the entire video of tomska's Sex Talk here]

Male resistance to rape culture: UR DOIN IT RIGHT

 Tomska is a great person

legalmexican:

"Mexicans are taking our jobs" but y’all took thousands of Africans to do yours

Taking a stand against patriarchy is much easier if you’re well-educated, have a stable income, and live in a community where you could theoretically find an educated, employed man to marry. For poor, uneducated women, especially those who have kids, the question of whether to get married looks a lot different: It’s the choice between raising children on one or two incomes, between having someone to help with household chores and child-rearing alone while working multiple jobs.

And that’s the big difference: For a poor woman, deciding whether to get married or not will be a big part of shaping her economic future. For a wealthier woman, deciding whether to get married is a choice about independence, lifestyle, and, at times, “fighting the patriarchy.” There’s a cognitive dissonance in Ehrenreich’s straight-up dismissal of the economic benefits of marriage, because the statistics tell an awkward truth: Financially, married women tend to fare much better than unmarried women.

Emma Green | Wealthy Women Can Afford to Reject Marriage, but Poor Women Can’t (via america-wakiewakie)