Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

March 28 2017

15:52

Man With Autism Was Called ‘Stupid’, So He Studied Law, Sued The Gym And WON

culturenlifestyle:

One day, 30-year-old Ketan Aggarwal asked a spin class instructor at the local Virgin Active gym to change the music. After being laughed at and called ‘stupid’ multiple times by the gym employee, the London resident decided to file an official complaint. 

Keep reading

15:38
15:38
15:32
7937 d2c8 500

thegreatkoga:

Whoops I’ve fallen into botw hell and I refuse to leave

15:25

bpdpoc:

I’m a social vampire u gotta invite me into ur conversation or I cannot enter

15:25

mikkeneko:

neshtasplace:

jemeryl:

I have bipolar mood disorder and I get worried that I’m too reliant on my medication especially if the dosage goes up

Then I realized

NEUROTYPICAL PEOPLE ARE JUST AS RELIANT on the neurochemicals in my medication, it’s just that their bodies produce it and mine doesn’t, it’s not that I’m a bad person and idk this realization seems to have really helped me understand and not feel so bad about it?

Exactly!

#if you can’t make your own neurotransmitters storebought is fine  

15:24
7938 d153 500

skyywalkerfen:

goingsolo2016:

wrathofthegiraffe:

ithelpstodream:

Thank you, Ewan McGregor!

Pay attention though because this is important, this reaction. People like Piers do it all the time. 

He’s low-key claiming that his right to freedom of speech is being attacked. It’s one of the most popular strawman arguments to throw out in this modern reality. 

Did Ewan McGregor once say that Piers isn’t allowed his opinion? No. did he say he SHOULDN’T be allowed his opinion? No. He said he didn’t want to talk to him. That is not stopping someone from having an opinion in any way.

But, “they want to take my right to speak freely,” is WWAAAAAYYYYYY easier to fight against then, “no one wants to talk to me because I’m a repugnant human being.”

Everyone has the right to speak freely. They also have the right to be ignored because everyone else realizes they’re an asshole.

THIS.  SO VERY VERY MUCH.

15:23
7939 5827 500
15:21
7940 b1ca 500
15:20

isthismadness:

waywardwondersmith:

simplyredqueen:

Dear Hollywood:

There are anime shows/manga series that you can adapt and cast with white people. For instance: Full Metal Alchemist, Attack on Titan, Black Butler, Baccano, Cowboy Bebop, Helsing, Rose of Versailles, Princess Tutu and an anime that’s airing right now (and I love it!) called ACCA 13. All of these take place outside of Japan and have predominatly white characters. Adapt them.

Anime/manga like Death Note and Ghost in the Shell are deeply ingrained in Japanese culture. You can’t adapt them with a white cast and expect them to still have the same meaning. Do better.

PS. One more worth mentioning: Soul Eater. Which, y’know, actually takes place in America. You’d still have to get a racially diverse cast for it since the characters come from all over (which seems to be too much to expect from y’all as it is but prove me wrong) but, if you’re going to adapt any of them, you might as well go for the one that’s set in Nevada.

(No please don’t tell them about Hellsing)

15:16
6867 6885

whovian-on-ice:

victor + makkachin

15:16

francisperfectionbonnefoy:

keruwolframio:

thekidsfrom2005:

sansaspark:

People who don’t know anything about the french revolution aside from “the peasants wanted bread so they started a war and the king and queen got their heads cut off” should just not share their ignorant opinions about Marie Antoinette and the monarchy and the role they played in the revolution

Marie Antoinette wasn’t the materialistic empty-headed blonde bimbo that a lot of people think she was. She was, first and foremost, a young girl. She (along with Louis) was still a teenager when she was crowned queen, and anyway she knew she was too young to rule (“Oh God protect us, we are too young to reign” —when Louis XV died). On top of everything, she was lonely at French Court. In Austria, she had tons of siblings she could play with but in Versailles all she had were three aunts that were much older than her (and gave her pretty bad advice at one point). Plus in her first few years, she and Louis were still strangers so they didn’t talk much (that changed later on but that’s besides the point). SO, she was a) a 14 year old girl, b) a complete stranger to france and its culture, and c) alone and virtually friendless for some time. Not to mention, her so-called “friends” (her three aunts) gave her really sucky advice about ignoring Louis XV’s current mistress and upsetting both her father-in-law and a lot of the French Court—all because her aunts had some personal issues with Madame du Barry. And on top of everything, France was already in a tricky spot and she was pressured by her mother to have an heir and also make sure the French were not angered by Catherine the Great of Russia partitioning Poland and handing it out to Austria and Prussia. Imagine dealing with all that shit as a teenager. 

Pretty sure most people know that the “let them eat cake” myth is already debunked, but that leads me to my next point—she had, and has, the image of being an apathetic, money-guzzling queen when in reality she was extremely compassionate and generous. This is from Marie Antoinette and the Decline of the French Monarchy:

“The first occurred when her carriage passed the scene of an accident. She insisted her driver stop, then tended to the wounded man herself while her attendants went for help. She refused to leave until he was safely on his way to a doctor.”

and also…

“A peasant was accidentally fatally wounded during one of Louis Auguste’s hunts and Marie Antoinette had him taken to his home in her own carriage, and when he died, she made her his wife and children were compensated.”

That “let them eat cake” phrase being attributed to her and making her seem cruel and indifferent to the starving poor is complete crap but it’s just part of the revolutionary propaganda that blamed her for the country’s inability to govern their subjects properly and justly. Which brings me to my next point…

The peasant’s weren’t actually the direct cause of the revolution. Revolts by the starving peasants were actually considered harmless just right before the official breakout of the French Revolution. And even during the revolution, it wasn’t the peasants that led that bloody and poorly planned revolution. It was middle class white men from the third estate who basically wanted to pay less taxes so they could have more money for themselves. As if they gave a shit about the starving peasants. The bourgeoisie were made of lawyers, bankers, merchants… in other words, they had enough money. They were educated, so they were the ones who led the French Revolution. Not the peasants. That’s why the Revolution shouldn’t be romanticized as some noble attempt to give the peasants food again—the leaders of the revolution had their own ambitions in mind. Once the educated and persuasive bourgeoisie rallied the support of the peasants, that’s when the peasants actually posed a threat to the monarchy (see: the women’s march on Versailles). 

Revolutionaries were REALLY fond of pointing fingers, and Marie got the brunt of it. They called her Madame Deficit and blamed her for France’s financial crisis, but Marie’s role in the financial crisis wasn’t… actually …that big?? She did spend a lot of money, but the main cause of the crisis was the aid they sent to the American Revolution, taxes that the CLERGY set on the third estate, the ancien regime in general, the previous king’s lavish spending, along the king before that (Louis XIV) digging France into debt with war costs. So in perspective, Marie buying lots of dresses and perfumes isn’t that big of a deal, coupled with the fact that she didn’t have an idea what the hell was going on with the economy anyway!! Is it really fair to blame an woman who was kept in the dark about the country’s financial troubles over continuous, conscious mistakes made over the reigns of the past two French kings??

tl;dr Marie deserves all the sympathy in the world and the historians who condemn her probably only researched the French Revolution as a whole and not Marie specifically. Marie was an ordinary teenager girl despite her position and she wasn’t ready for the pressures put on her both when she was a princess and as a queen, and she was in no way deserving of death, nor was her husband. The people who are at fault, morally and/or otherwise, are the clergy, the selfish bourgeoisie, and also the incompetency of the people behind the king (financial advisors & etc). Not Marie.

Just also think its important to note that the same woman everyone portrays as self centred accidentally step on he foot of her executioner moments before her death and gave her sincerest apologies to the man who was about to chop off her head

France, as pretty much all Europe at the time, was a clusterfuck.
The revolution needed to happen, but of course it wasn’t a true popular revolution.
The bourgeoisie used the unhappy masses for their own profit and gain of power, yet it brought some really great social advances.
It’s a shame people had to die, and it’s abhorrent to spread lies about someone still to this day when we know better, but still, the revolution was necessary and it’s impact on shaping class and rights consciousness​ was key to European history.

HMMMMmmmMMmmmm this psot started out well and then lost itself in modernization of stuff, as per usual on this site, and regrettable presentism.

So, while it is true all that had been said at the start, especially on how actually heavily unlucky Marie Antoinette was in the circumstances she had been thrown into politically and her young age she had to face stuff at, the whole part about the bourgeoisie exploiting it reeks to me of a heavy confusion between what middle class is now and what it was back then.

The peasant’s weren’t actually the direct cause of the revolution. Revolts by the starving peasants were actually considered harmless just right before the official breakout of the French Revolution. 

Nobody in their right mind ever suggested that peasants were the direct cause of the revolution. I am not confident how ridiculously ahistorical textbooks are in the USA, but here there is a pretty much defined idea that people don’t make revolutions for other people but for their own earning. 

It is labelled as a bourgeois/political revolution. Also confusing revolution, revolts and riots is a bit embarassing, just saying.

Still, it is important to remember that France was at the time of the revolution still a country with a very high agricolture percentage and that the Third Estate (which included paesants, of all levels, because not all paesants were the same, and bourgeois ) made up 98% of the population. While the interests of these two groups not always collided, it is important to notice they were part of the same group and had some deep in common needs: eg, the privileges of first and second estate to fricking end, because while some of them were starving and some were simply not living as well as they could due to the taxes, they were anyway in a system where the 2% of the population was filthy rich spent a bunch of money coming from their sacrifices and paid no taxes, while also having preferrential treatment in juridical matters.

And even during the revolution, it wasn’t the peasants that led that bloody and poorly planned revolution.

AGAIN, there is a big diffeence between revolution and riots, but.. may I remind you of the August of burned castles? Or how paesants required the properity titles in order to burn them and becoming the actual landowners?

Also, supposing with bloody you mean the terror, that’s more or less ridiculous, given the extreme ends of the French Revolution had more to do with how it was organized in the middle than how it was born, so it has very little to do with your discussion. The “bloody” parts were a consequence of an historical and social inability to build a system that was too modern, it was not provoked by the “greed of the bourgeois ” (also LOL on a site that gets shrieking about a difference of 10 to 20 cents in some paychecks do I have to explain why the fact the most money-burning part of the country does not pay taxes is a rightful reason of anger for those that had to suffer the consequences?) (or to explain that there are middle ways between being rich and starving?).

It was middle class white men…. 

White?

Because…. like you think the paesants were… black? asians? Idk, enlighten me, baby.

It was middle class white men from the third estate who basically wanted to pay less taxes so they could have more money for themselves.

CHE STRONZI EH! okay so:

a) You are confusing a lot what middle class was then and what it is now, at the time it was mostly being able to survive and maybe afford to put your kids through studies and have an house enough warm not to DIE

b) They didn’t want to pay less taxes simply as now people wants to pay less taxes, they wanted:

1. the nobles and the clergy (1,2 estates) to ALSO PAY THEM

2. they wanted their taxes money to be used for real stuff and not for useless expenses like BALLS or “OH WOULDNT IT BE NICE TO HAVE IN VERSAILLES A PETIT TRIANON WITH BUNNIES AND PUMPKINS LIKE IT WAS THE COUNTRYSIDE??”

c) the “you just want to pay less taxes” is an argument often used from filthy rich people to condemn people who is uneducated economically and struggles to arrive at the end of the month and therefore has problem with paying taxes and can’t understand taxes are used for societal services - AT THE TIME, taxes were not *actually* used for societal services, but for the king to do the fuck he wanted with them.

d) You know when was the LAST TIME the General estates were called before 1789? 1614, bitch. 1614. In a society without election that was the closest thing to have your voice heard. Imagine not having any voice in political decisions for 175 years. Tell me you won’t be fricking angry.

As if they gave a shit about the starving peasants. The bourgeoisie were made of lawyers, bankers, merchants… in other words, they had enough money. They were educated, so they were the ones who led the French Revolution.

A) nobody thinks they did the revolution solely because they were KIND to paesants, but then again, where did you study history?

B) Some… actually did care. There was a philosophical thing in that time called ENLIGHTMENT which supported the idea of ALL MEN BEING EQUAL which was fucking cool and revolutionary !!!111 And that led to *DRUMROLLS* The declaration of the rights of men and citizeeeen. I knowwww, amazing, some people cared about theoretica ideaologies and they actually gave a shit about ideology and what was moraly right. And those people DARED TO BE EDUCATED. WILD. It’s almost like if you have no access to education and are starving, you don’t have the luxury of caring for anything else but surviving, while people who actually has the possibility can care and bring forward new views because they have the possibility of DOING things without dying.

C) nice hate for the educated there. absolutely not conservative of you.

D) you think a lawyer or merchant of the time had the same economical prosperity of a lawyer or merchant of nowadays? because you may want to reread the letters between Robespierre and David.

E) Revolutions are usually led from people who is educated and a bit more rich than the paesants, because, guess what, if you are uneducated often you THINK you deserve to be where you are because nobody showed you better and maybe you do a riot and then gets cannonballs shot in your guts and the riot ends there. Instead citizens and educated people have also the intellectual and economical possibilities to survive and provide a propaganda (or political newspapers) .

F) The Cahiers de doléances were a thing. MAGICAL.

“The inhabitants of the community are demanding that the French nation can not be taxed except by his consent, and that they are suppressed arbitrary taxes from which the people is oppressed, that the taxes that will be recognized necessary to be spread over all citizens without distinction .”

wild. so greedy. such money-hunger.

That’s why the Revolution shouldn’t be romanticized as some noble attempt to give the peasants food again—the leaders of the revolution had their own ambitions in mind.

… it is not? it is labelled as a bourgois revolution with a political/ideological birth and to be honest fuck you. It’s not like people can’t be angry or protest against political power and injustices until they are starving.

Then since as an LGBT person in my country they can’t kill me anymore for it, I can’t have the ambition of marriage or adoption laws? Only people who is at the verge of death can be angry at politicians?

Also the french revolution is one of the few ONES where the paesants did earn something in the end, although not for long, during the redistribution of land and the requisition of church property

This people wanted justice and justice for some of them was not paying extra taxes to finance a war while the king could throw another party as if nothing was happening. Some of those people also wanted to grant paesants food and to stand for also their rights. I am sorry this is not all black and white so it is more comfortable for your agenda to promote the idea French Revolution was bad just because it was not led by the lowest part of the population, it was still led by the lowest part that had the possibility to make a big and solid political change, because as said, paesants were not in the physical/economical/cultural condition of making a big revolution. They could not and should not be blamed or considered less revolutionaries and less part of the revolution just because their role was little due to their graves circumstances. They partecipated for what they could.

And blaming the bourgouis for doing their historical needs and, in the meantime, also helping the poorest part that couldn’t do much instead of doing it all for them freely reeks of extreme classism of a person who probably never had to pay taxes in their lives and can have all the iphones and technology they want so they have no idea between dying and being rich there is a WORLD of shades of sacrifices.

They called her Madame Deficit and blamed her for France’s financial crisis, but Marie’s role in the financial crisis wasn’t… actually …that big?? She did spend a lot of money, but the main cause of the crisis was the aid they sent to the American Revolution, taxes that the CLERGY set on the third estate, the ancien regime in general, the previous king’s lavish spending, along the king before that (Louis XIV) digging France into debt with war costs. So in perspective, Marie buying lots of dresses and perfumes isn’t that big of a deal,

I agree the historical treatment of Marie was excessive, but to be fair she was not really fond of letting go of any of her priviledges and both her and the king held onto those as long as possible, even with the vote system programmed exactly to ignore the needs of 98% of their country in order to keep their lifestyle.

And while it is true that the American war was the reason for the deficit, your comment ignores grossly the systematical economical problem which would have led anyway to a  deficit. 

Also, while citizens may understand and comprehend the expense for a war (although not approving of it), how can you justify to people who is dying or losing their houses or being sicker and sicker due to the rising price of weath that the queen really really wants to build a fake countryside into the backgarden of one of the most luxurious villa palaces ever to exist ? Like it’s more or less as if in the times of segregation the first lady decided she really wanted a ghetto small house in the backyard. Maybe only educated blackmen who were not starving would have faced her, but this wouldn’t have made their anger less reasonable.

It’s true the whole system was fucked up since more than 100 years and it’s true the expenses were big, but this doesn’t mean that the king, the queen and the court couldn’t have CUT their fucking EXPENSES. Instead they stupidly and ottusily thought they could keep going.

Marie buying lots of dresses and perfumes isn’t that big of a deal, coupled with the fact that she didn’t have an idea what the hell was going on with the economy anyway!! Is it really fair to blame an woman who was kept in the dark about the country’s financial troubles over continuous, conscious mistakes made over the reigns of the past two French kings?? 

Nobody blames the WHOLE deficit on Marie Antoinette, but she was an educated (!!!) woman too and she spent a bunch of money in dire times for a bunch of useless stuff. She had advisors and she was able to ask where the money came from. Some nobles were pretty able to see those expenses were wrong and they sided with the revolutionaries.

Her mother made fun of her on multiple occasions and scolded her repeatedly about not actually caring about the political and social situations around her in way less dire times. And while being killed and ridiculized by hsitory is awful, having the brain of a chicken doesn’t justify how little she cared.

The past 2 french kings did also a lot of shit, but you can’t compare the expense for a war to the expenses for DRESSES. Even if the war it’s stupid, the dress is not necessary, you cut it, dot. And even if it didn’t change much economically, if the court didn’t live as they lived, the propaganda (lol) against them wouldn’t have had much to say (in fact, a lot of the gossip about her was not believed, also when they arrived of accusing her of incest, it was generally not believed at all). And Versailles when buildt was buildt for a political reasona nd it was a huge expense but with a VERY strong political plan behind and that is also why Louis XIV was a good king albeit his expenses, because they made sense - there was debt and starvation also there, but he was able to contain some stuff, to manage other and his crazy expenses paralyzed the aristocracy and nobility which was the threat HE had to contain at the time  the petit trianon and other bullshit had no political sense, she liked them and that was it.

There is also to say in the first times nobody in France was seriously pallling a REPUBLIC, but  a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy instead of an Absolute one. If the King and the Queen had played their cards with brain (eg no runaway moments in the middle of the night to Ravenne) , they would have not only survived, but kept ther roles, just in the meantime the population would have had a CONSTITUTION. A constitution, is it really a LOT to ask?

Marie was an ordinary teenager girl despite her position and she wasn’t ready for the pressures put on her both when she was a princess and as a queen, and she was in no way deserving of death, nor was her husband.

While I agree and I am firmly against death penalty, she and her husband could have given the throne to someone else in the noble family and retire if they didn’t feel ready to reign.

Also, they were adults by the start of the revolution, being naive or young may justify the start of their reign, not how they WENT on.

The people who are at fault, morally and/or otherwise, are the clergy, the selfish bourgeoisie, and also the incompetency of the people behind the king

LOLOLOL THE SELFISH BOURGEOISIE WANTING EVERYONE TO PAY TAXES, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE WHO LEECHED OFF THEIR BACKS. HOW CRUEL. HOW SELFISH.

The incomptence of advisors is true, but being a king is not a right, simba it’s a job and you are at the fricking SERVICE of your people. These were aducated kings and queens, if they wanted they could find better advisors or made up their own fricking mind. They did what they thought granted them to keep their lifestyle intact and they didn’t give a SHIT about the starving paesants.

Why if a bourgois doesn’t care THAT much he is a selfish piece of shit but an aristocrat who doesn’t care is a poor victim too young too naive too pure for this world and didn’t know better? Are we serious? 

Do you think helping one person who is wounded during a hunting accident means you care about society? No, ti means you have the ability to emphatize with THAT ONE person you meet (just like some people have one GAY friend and the love that gay friend but still believe the only marriage is man/woman) in your life, it doesn’t mean you care about the actual reallity because that 98% of the population was getting fucked in the ass by their economical system. Helping ONE person wounded in front of you doesn’t mean you care about society issues, it means you are not a complete piece of shit. It’s a basic requirement.

The people who were at fault were also them, it was ALSO the king and ueen who didn’t do their job, it was the clergy and the nobility that held onto a rotting, consuming, economically idiotic, life-destroying system because it didn’t affect them and they were fine.

You are blaming people who felt NOT AS BAD AS OTHERS for trying to make things BETTER for THEM and for OTHERS TOO even if less, instead of blaming the head of a absolute government with no division of power who exploited their whole kingdom to keep their privilege???

AND THEY WOULD BE THE WHITE CLASS MIDDLE MAN?

THIS IS THE MOST PURITAN, CONSERVATIVE, AMERICAN WHITE (MODERN) MIDDLE CLASS SHITE I EVER READ.

I lost my shit at “middle class white men” and stopped reading the comment at that point tbh. 

14:24
6590 17e3

takentoglasgow:

this film was a masterpiece

14:23

ok what the fuck is going on in MAOS? Wasn’t Ward dead? 

14:19
6591 1b34 500

yaoionice:

aurigaearts:

Cuddly afternoon in St. Petersburg 💕

My heart is exploding ♡♡♡

14:18
6592 1576 500
12:50
3866 45aa 500
12:50
3867 455e 500
12:47

natto rice more like “throw the contents of your dumpster in a rice bowl and then eat it! fucking do it!”

12:45
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl