back to top
( 1449 ) 1 day ago - Reblog
reply

 sanctaphrax- said: Laundry sucks, laundry should be banned :( I liked this because I sympathise, not because I’m like your laundry pain :)

It’s 2014, why don’t we have self cleaning fabric yet?! D:

i-am-a-mushroom:

i-am-a-mushroom:

i-am-a-mushroom:

i-am-a-mushroom:

My shrimp is so weird like when I touch it, it changes colors and kinda spasms sometimes idk

like it was kinda pinkish and then it turned red and now its yellow

and it has a stripe that wasn’t there before

its weird

image

clarification

MY PET SHRIMP

image

further clarafication

image

SHRIMP

IN

A

FISH TANK

image

( 139995 ) 1 day ago - Reblog

i fucking hate tumble dryers

like, i paid a pound for this shit

why the fuck are my clothes still wet

fuck you tumble dryer

you fucked up my day

hope you’re happy

official-potate-hoe:

talk dirty to me

image

( 1626 ) 4 days ago - Reblog
221books:

bakerstreetbabes:

lyndsayfaye:

The Daily Mail, a news organization synonymous with rigorous fact checking that rivals the journalistic integrity evidenced by newspapermen during Jack the Ripper’s heyday, this morning “revealed” the Ripper to be one Aaron Kosminsky, a Polish Jew with serious mental health issues who ended his life in an asylum.  I have to comment on this article partly because it’s kind of in my wheelhouse (I’m the author of the fictional but heavily researched Dust and Shadow: An Account of the Ripper Killings by Dr. John H. Watson), but mainly because I find the article itself to be of interest when it comes to sciencing, and how to science, and ways we should do science good.
Aaron Kosminsky, first of all, is a compelling choice when it comes to Ripper suspects, let’s make no bones about that.  He was an immigrant fleeing the anti-Semitic pogroms taking place in his homeland, a series of brutally violent instances of organized plunder and rape and pillaging and general barbarism against the Ashkenazi.  When these folks arrived in the UK, they were about as popular with the locals as smallpox, and were thus forced to live in neighborhoods like Whitechapel.  It’s a solid conjecture that Kosminkski had, let’s call it a non-idyllic childhood, waaaay more pillaging and and such than you’d see in your average Hallmark film, and these upsets may have exacerbated his mental illness.
Regarding the article, though: Ripperologist Russell Edwards bought a shawl in 2007 associated with the Ripper killings:
It was March 2007, in an auction house in Bury St. Edmunds, that I first saw the blood-soaked shawl…It was said to have been found next to the body of one of the Ripper’s victims, Catherine Eddowes, and soaked in her blood. There was no evidence for its provenance, although after the auction I obtained a letter from its previous owner who claimed his ancestor had been a police officer present at the murder scene and had taken it from there.
OK, I’m just gonna stop you right there.
So we have a shawl, which may or may not be from the crime scene of Catherine Eddowes.  This shawl, which might have been at the crime scene, or might have been in New Zealand, or on Caprica, was swiped by a naughty police officer instead of being reported. Carry on, sir:
Incredibly, it was stowed without ever being washed and was handed down from David’s great-grandmother, Mary Simpson, to his mother, Eliza Smith, and then his mother, Eliza Mills, later Hayes.
That IS incredible, now you mention it, but then again who hasn’t found that extra special pizza slice at the back of the fridge?  And if it was meant to be a Ripper relic, then why would you wash the thing? 
The Shawl Which May Have Been At The Crime Scene But Might Also Alternatively Have Been In Abu Dhabi At The Time had traces of DNA on it, according to Dr. Jari Louhelainen, a doctor with standards so high that he prefers to publish his work in the Daily Mail than in scientific journals.  This gentleman, for I assume him to be a gentleman, found traces of blood and semen on the shawl (since he apparently works on cold cases for Interpol when he’s bored, we can probably lend a skeptical but open-minded ear when he says the dark stains were “not just blood, but consistent with arterial blood spatter caused by slashing”).  Eddowes died of hemorrhage from the left common carotid artery.  Well and good. Here is a contemporary illustration of her:

Next the dynamic crimesolving duo claims that they tracked down descendants of Kosminski and Eddowes, some of whom shall remain nameless due to privacy concerns, checked their pedigrees, and proved conclusively due to a bad as hell super-sciencing technique that Dr. Louhelainen himself invented for science, called “vacuuming,” that Kosminski’s semen and Eddowes’s blood were on the Shawl That Might Have Been From The Planet Krypton.
(Pause for slow clap for dudes who win at science.)
Let’s list a few things we don’t know here, shall we?
—Where the shawl came from.  Period.  At all.  From the forests of Endor, to George McFly’s 1955 locker tucked in with his gym shorts, WE DON’T KNOW.
—What the bloody hell vacuuming is. (This was not published in a science journal, again).
—Whether the blood on the shawl was sprayed there on the identical night, at approximately the same time, as Eddowes was murdered. Because trust me, there was a lot of jizz flying around Whitechapel.  Whitechapel was in a “cloudy with strong chance of jizz showers” weather pattern all year round.
—Whose semen it was.  The article claims that Kosminky was at the time living with two brothers, and mitochrondrial DNA for any of those men would have been a positive.  What we know is that somewhere, this one time, a man jizzed on a shawl.
—Whose shawl it was.  If the shawl belonged to Kosminski and he was wearing it on the night of September 29th-30th and that was Eddowes’s blood that  sprayed him when her throat was cut (this was the cause of death—her other injuries were inflicted postmortem) and he indulged in ritualized sexual release, yeah, that’s pretty compelling evidence.
If The Shawl Which Might Have Been Found Near Eddowes’s Corpse Or Else Dunno Maybe Papua New Guinea belonged to Eddowes, on the other hand, then we have a classic case of sordid but entirely circumstantial evidence—the trout in the milk, as Sherlock Holmes once quotes.  If it was Eddowes’s shawl, then OF COURSE it got blood on it, and anyone’s semen found on the artifact at any time throughout its long history as a wanking aid would have been suspected.
Curiously, Russell Edwards says “I reasoned that it made no sense for Eddowes to have owned the expensive shawl herself.”
There’s so much ridiculous here that I almost can’t, but here goes:
—just because it was expensive for you doesn’t mean it was expensive for her
—people bought secondhand clothes and traded them with the speed of greased lightning
Additionally, there were Michaelmas daisies decorating the jizz Swiffer, another aspect Edwards thinks points to Kosminsky.  Catherine Eddowes, at the time of her death, was wearing a dark green chintz skirt with three flounces, patterned with Michaelmas daisies, and that doesn’t mean it was her shawl since the patterns match, because I know how to science, but damn, dude.

Again, Kosminsky was a compelling suspect.  He once attacked his sister with a knife, was prone to “self-abuse” (read: wanking), lived in the prime geographic area, and died incarcerated at Leavesden Asylum for Imbeciles, which might —if he was the Ripper—explain why the murders stopped.  But let’s try to do the best sciencing we can when it comes to the deaths of these innocent women.  They were already used as fodder to sell newspapers during the Victorian Era—let’s just try to be certain we aren’t leaping back on that bandwagon.
Read more about Aaron Kosminsky.
Read more about Catherine Eddowes including autopsy report and photographs (graphic).
Read more about the fact that night was a double murder, not addressed by Edwards.
Link to my Ripper novel, Dust and Shadow, if you’d prefer the case to be solved by Sherlock Holmes.

Science: harder than wanting a thing to be true.
( 4610 ) 1 week ago - Reblog

everyone else during fresher’s week

me

( 367461 ) 1 week ago - Reblog
enlightenight asked : I have recently stated how it was not normal to call Severus Snape a hero or romanticize him was wrong because he literally stole Lily's photograph (that she sent to Sirius) and kind of applied mobbing on Harry and many other kids and he is kind of creepy and people a little attacked me because just because they are creepy it doesn't mean we can't romanticize them etc etc. What do you think about it?

mythandrists:

I think you’re absolutely on the right side of this argument, and here’s what we say to Snape lovers:

We all accept the following to be true, right?

  • Stalking is wrong.
  • Emotional abuse is wrong.
  • Cruelty to children and animals is wrong.
  • Blaming someone for their parents’ actions is wrong.
  • Racial discrimination is wrong.
  • Murder (the killing of civilians when you have no self-defence excuse) is wrong.

We’re good so far, yeah? If you saw someone doing those things in real life, you’d stop them or call the cops, right? I just want to make sure we’re all on the same page here. Morally, those things are wrong (and illegal). So, moving out of hypothetical moral discourse and into the realm of things Snape actually did in the Harry Potter books and/or movies:

  • Snape called Lily a Mudblood, which in the HP verse is a pretty serious racial slur. It’s like using the ‘n’ word or the ‘f’ word (not the ‘fuck’ word) in our society. It’s nasty.
  • Snape treated Hermione terribly and heavily implied that it was because she was Muggle-born. Again, racial discrimination. A teacher in the real-life school I went to was fired for that.
  • Snape was in a position of power over Harry and treated him (and many other Gryffindors) exceedingly poorly. He was rude, condescending, unfair in his enforcement of the rules, manipulative, and probably other things besides. This counts as emotional abuse. If someone in a position of power over you treats you the way Snape treated Harry, even if he saves your life, you are being emotionally abused.
  • On that same note, Snape was a grown man who acted like a five-year-old throwing a tantrum at Harry and his friends.
  • Snape was Neville Longbottom’s worst fear. JKR treats it lightly in the books, but the fact remains that a thirteen-year-old boy was so afraid of Snape that he couldn’t speak to him, and that the thought of him stepping out of a wardrobe was almost too much for Neville to handle. No adult should ever terrify a child like this. It’s emotional abuse, and it’s abuse of power.
  • Snape mistreated Harry because of actions James had taken. Not only is it childish to hold onto this grudge, it’s just plain wrong to treat someone badly because you disliked their parents. This is the same prejudice the Dursleys held against Harry. If you believe that the Dursleys had no excuse for their behaviour, how can you believe that Snape does have one?
  • Snape killed many innocent people just because they were Muggle-born.

I want to address this last point before I move on. Now, you can argue that the cost of a few lives for Snape to get close to Voldemort and help carry out Dumbledore’s grand plan for the war was worth it - and if that was the only crime that Snape had committed, I might be persuaded to see him as morally grey; you might be able to convince me that he was only being a vile person because he had to be. But if you look at the rest of this list, you’ll realise that really, Snape deeply enjoyed being a vile person.

So now you see that Snape was terrible to Harry, Hermione, Neville, and even Lily just because he enjoyed doing it, and you see that he did much worse to complete strangers who had committed no crime.

And that’s just the short list.

Great, now let’s talk about why Snily is one of the worst ships that anyone could ever ship.

  • Snape was cruel to Petunia when they were children, even though Lily was trying very hard to maintain a relationship with her sister despite their differences.
  • Snape tried to manipulate Lily into loving him and only him, and putting aside all of her other relationships.
  • Snape did not respect Lily’s beliefs and opinions.
  • After Lily started dating James, Snape started referring to her as a Mudblood - indicating that his friendship and his “love” were not unconditional.
  • Snape willingly became a Death Eater, a member of a group who hunted people like Lily for fun, and at the time he saw absolutely nothing wrong with that.
  • After Lily’s death, Snape left her son in his crib. He left a crying, helpless infant all alone in a wrecked house in a thunderstorm while there were rogue Death Eaters on the loose. He essentially left Harry to die.
  • And then he cut the two people she loved most out of her photograph and pretended that they had never existed, that he was the only person who mattered in her life.
  • And then, as mentioned above, he abused Harry emotionally and became the bane of his existence for years.

Snape did not love Lily. You don’t call someone you love a racial slur. You don’t insist that the person you love choose you over her other friends. If the person you love has a son she gave her life for, you don’t treat him badly just because you feel like it.

Yes, even if that love is unrequited.

What Snape felt for Lily was not love; it was possessiveness. He wanted her to be his. He wanted her to leave James for him. He wanted her to pick sides for him. He wanted to hold her close and smother her and never let her go. Snape didn’t love Lily; he loved himself. He was a narcissistic, bitter, emotionally abusive creep who couldn’t deal with the fact that his first crush ended up marrying someone else.

"But wait!" you say, white-knuckling your desk and probably wishing you had a wand to hex me with for saying such things about your baby. "He had an abusive childhood! He was lonely! He was sad! He was greasy and no one loved him! Doesn’t that excuse everything?”

Keep your shirt on. No, it doesn’t excuse anything.

People are responsible for their own actions. Tom Riddle’s dad didn’t love him either, and does that excuse him committing genocide? No? So why should Snape’s acne problem excuse him participating in genocide and attempting to make his supposed “true love“‘s child into someone just as bitter and miserable as he was? Look, Snape wasn’t just a little creepy. He was a murderer. He was as abusive as Dolores Umbridge. He was as self-centered as Voldemort. Harry was abused as a child, and he didn’t turn out to be a complete monster, so why does Snape get a free pass?

IN CONCLUSION

Romanticisting Snape is not only incredibly stupid and short-sighted, it’s dangerous. Putting men like this into fiction and presenting them as “good guys” or morally grey or brave or deserving of sympathy encourages the boys who read these books to behave like Snape, and it encourages the straight girls/gay boys who read these books to accept the existence of these men in real life and to want to date them. Which you don’t ever, ever want to do.

If you ever meet a Snape in real life, run the other way, and don’t give him your sympathy.

tl;dr Having a sad backstory does not automatically make you sympathetic. Doing one good thing does not automatically make you a beacon of bravery and justice. Fuck you, Snivellus.

( 8159 ) 1 week ago - Reblog
This is my duck Spike.