La Vida es Rara

19 notes

http://dragonsigma.tumblr.com/post/96012819782/deathlysparrow-tumblrs-relationship-with

deathlysparrow:

Tumblr’s relationship with “healthy relationships” is very unhealthy.

If I see one more “character x is bad for character y, but you all just conveniently ignore that because you want them to fuck” I will do nothing worse than write an angry post about it, but you can be…

Here, here. I mean, author tracts being voiced by a fictional character can be a thing, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that that’s the default relationship between an author’s opinions and those of their characters. I certainly don’t think that’s true of Sherlock, which doesn’t really get more partisan than having John be a Guardian reader.

96,644 notes

The internet just changed: Net Neutrality is dead.

donc-desole:

nerdfaceangst:

nerdfaceangst:

cthulhu:

chairhiro:

feigenbaumsworld:

image

Last Wednesday, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler announced a proposal for new rules that would allow for a “ fast lane” of Internet traffic for content providers who are willing (and able) to pay a fee. [1] The proposal reverses the FCC’s previous commitment to net neutrality and open internet and allows ISP’s like Comcast or Verizon to slow down and censor services that don’t pay the toll.

We have to be totally honest, this situation is seriously grim. But there is still hope. The FCC already knows that the Internet community wants net neutrality, but they think they can put their spin on these new rules and sneak them through. If we can prove them wrong right now with a massive public outcry, we can literally save the Internet once again.

We need to stop the FCC now. Big business groups are already ramping up lobbying efforts with the FCC in swarms since Wednesday’s announcement in support of censoring the open Internet and to ensure this dangerous proposal moves forward. [2]

This is a critical moment. In the last few weeks more than 65,000 people have taken action with us. Can you help us get to 80,000 by the end of the day today?

[1] Gautham Nagesh. “FCC to Propose New ‘Net Neutrality’ Rules”.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304518704579519963416350296

[2] Edward Wyatt. Edward Wyatt. “Lobbying Efforts Intensify After F.C.C. Tries 3rd Time on Net Neutrality” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/business/lobbying-efforts-intensify-after-fcc-tries-3rd-time-on-net-neutrality.html?hpw&rref=politics

 

we’re almost 3/4 of the way there!! c’mon guys, every bit counts!

will it ever stop

fucking signal boost

IF YOU ARE NOT SIGNAL BOOSTING THIS YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

IF THE U.S. FALLS TO THIS IT WILL OPEN OTHER DANGEROUS DOORS INTERNATIONALLY.

Last one, SIGNAL BOOST!!!

(via umiko-hitara)

Filed under signal boost

22 notes

sakuradrops141 asked: "Sherlock takes care of Mary during the six months when John isn’t speaking to her. He makes sure she’s happy and eating properly and taking care of herself and making all of her doctor’s appointments and sometimes Janine has to intervene so Mary can get some quiet time :)" An actual post from an actual Mary Stan. In which Sherlock apparently develops Stockholm Syndrome for his almost killer.

macdicilla:

incurablylazydevil:

like i know that hating on headcanons is a pretty shitty thing to do but i swear i threw up in my mouth a little when reading this, god this is fucked up

Ooh, but imagine the possibility of this dark and sinister fic… Someone could play with the ideas of why he tried to defend her in the “she saved my life” speech, even though she was trying to kill him.

I don’t feel any particular urge to hate on headcanons in general - one man’s fluff’s another man’s angst and so on. I have to admit, this does seem like quite an interesting darkfic premise. It sounds kind of like Misery in reverse - Mary maims Sherlock because he interfered with the happy ending she tried to set up and suddenly he’s her biggest fan. Where would it end though? Maybe the Stockholm syndrome could end up running so deep that Sherlock harms John under Mary’s direction.

204,519 notes

chakrabot:

slitheringink:

artofcarmen:

fyeahwhovians:

raygender:

themediafix:

Breaking news: The D.C. Appeals Court just killed Net Neutrality.This could be the end of the Internet as we know it. But it doesn’t have to be. Tell the FCC to restore Net Neutrality: http://bit.ly/1iOOjoe

they want to make the internet like tv. with channels and paying to get to specific websites and things. net neutrality = not doing that

This impacts every internet user. Please signal boost the hell out of this and sign the petition if you are American

I do not reblog things like this very often, but this affects me both personally and my business as a freelance artist.
In the economy here; cash is already strapped as it is. You bet your ass companies would suck the ever living life out of misc. art sites.
I don’t want it to ever come down to me choosing between groceries or purchasing a new tier package via comcast to be able to access tumblr or DeviantArt (let alone not guaranteeing I’ll even be seen by my customer base since they may not want to pay out their asses either). It doesn’t seem important to most, but I do 90% of my business online entirely.
Please sign up, fight for this and share it with your followers/friends/family and urge them to give them hell as well.

Not writing related, but this is incredibly important. While we pay for service via ISPs, the internet has been a relatively free space where everyone, no matter their income level, is able to connect, access a wealth of information, and express themselves. The Internet has become a major part of our culture as human beings and the notion that ISPs might be able to limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more is utterly sickening. A lot of us are cash strapped as is, and I’d rather not be limited even more by someone else’s greed. Net Neutrality is essential and I hope you guys will understand why it needs to remain.
-Morgan
P.S. Signal boost this if you’re able.

“ limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more”
 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more
 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more
 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more
 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more
DO YOU WANT THIS? NO?? CLICK THE LINK. REBLOG.

chakrabot:

slitheringink:

artofcarmen:

fyeahwhovians:

raygender:

themediafix:

Breaking news: The D.C. Appeals Court just killed Net Neutrality.

This could be the end of the Internet as we know it. But it doesn’t have to be. 

Tell the FCC to restore Net Neutrality: http://bit.ly/1iOOjoe

they want to make the internet like tv. with channels and paying to get to specific websites and things. net neutrality = not doing that

This impacts every internet user. Please signal boost the hell out of this and sign the petition if you are American

I do not reblog things like this very often, but this affects me both personally and my business as a freelance artist.

In the economy here; cash is already strapped as it is. You bet your ass companies would suck the ever living life out of misc. art sites.

I don’t want it to ever come down to me choosing between groceries or purchasing a new tier package via comcast to be able to access tumblr or DeviantArt (let alone not guaranteeing I’ll even be seen by my customer base since they may not want to pay out their asses either). It doesn’t seem important to most, but I do 90% of my business online entirely.

Please sign up, fight for this and share it with your followers/friends/family and urge them to give them hell as well.

Not writing related, but this is incredibly important. While we pay for service via ISPs, the internet has been a relatively free space where everyone, no matter their income level, is able to connect, access a wealth of information, and express themselves. The Internet has become a major part of our culture as human beings and the notion that ISPs might be able to limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more is utterly sickening. A lot of us are cash strapped as is, and I’d rather not be limited even more by someone else’s greed. Net Neutrality is essential and I hope you guys will understand why it needs to remain.

-Morgan

P.S. Signal boost this if you’re able.

“ limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more”

 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more

 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more

 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more

 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more

DO YOU WANT THIS? NO?? CLICK THE LINK. REBLOG.

(via closet-sherlockian)

Filed under signal boost

110 notes

excessively-irish-courfeyrac:

If the Johnlockers are so hell-bent on “queer representation,” then why don’t they focus on canononically queer characters like Irene Adler? Or the heavily queer-coded Jim Moriarty? Or the, as far as we know, asexual Sherlock?

Speaking as a queer person myself, I’d rather not Jim and Irene be the only options to choose from, given that they are, in some ways, pretty regressive with regards to the depiction of their sexuality. Irene sadly falls into the whole “lesbian-who-falls-for-a-man” characterisation, which is one of the oldest and most tired writing tricks from the gay stereotype playbook. She doesn’t do anything to subvert or repurpose that trope either. She does nothing but perpetuate the myth that lesbians are only lesbians until the “right” man comes along. She explicitly says that she’s gay and yet the episode shows that she falls for Sherlock. This doesn’t lead to her considering the possibility that she may be bi or pan.

Even though Jim said he was only playing gay to get Sherlock’s attention, let’s assume that it wasn’t just an act since he continues to flirt with Sherlock after revealing the con to him. I don’t say this as a Jim hater, but you can’t deny he’s cut from the cloth of effeminate villainy. I’m not saying that no queer character can be a villain, but they have to be fleshed out and go beyond stereotypes. Jim does combine the Depraved Homosexual and Sissy Villain tropes, but the way I look at it is that these actually end up becoming incidental to his character when we see how Sherlock responds. Usually, your typical alpha-male, heteronormative protagonist finds the idea of an effeminate man flirting with him threatening, but Sherlock is completely unfazed by Jim’s overtures, so at least the writers are taking a new approach to an old stereotype. Still kind of regressive, but at least they’re trying to do something different with it.

There’s more than one way to be queer. You don’t have to be as obvious as Jim or direct about it as Irene. Sherlock doesn’t have to say he’s gay for the audience to infer it from his words and actions. Think back to ASiP. The people who know him well - Angelo and Mrs. Hudson - assume he’s gay and he doesn’t correct them. When John asks him if he has a girlfriend he answers without really thinking, but the moment a boyfriend is mentioned, he’s on the defensive, ready to jump down John’s throat at the slightest whiff of a negative attitude. By that point in the story the audience has been made to see that Sherlock is very self-centred, so he’s hardly going to criticise John for the sake of doing the right thing, therefore it stands to reason that he has a personal stake in the matter. That definitely felt authentic to me. I’ve been super-defensive with people about being gay even when I know the people concerned don’t have a problem. I think if we were meant to have read him as asexual then he would have voiced equal disinterest in having a girlfriend or a boyfriend.

Maybe certain queer viewers identify more strongly with Sherlock than with Jim or Irene. Who are you to say we have to stick to a specific set of characters marked “designated queers” in order to see ourselves? Why shouldn’t we be striving for more?

8 notes

Anonymous asked: (1) Okay I keep seeing people getting really angry about johnlock lately and I want to bring up a point I haven't seen made yet. Where was Mary's maid of honor speech? Every wedding I've been to there's been a maid of honor speech. Hell, I gave one at my sister's wedding. So why didn't anybody tell John to love Mary as much as they do? Because it didn't matter. Nobody had a break down about professing how much they cared about Mary in front of friends and family because she doesn't really matter

johnsconsultingboyfriend:

(2) What mattered was showing that Sherlock cared enough about John to tell an entire wedding party how he feels.

————————-

Fucking YES thank you so much for bringing this up. This is exactly it. We were told that TSoT was going to feature a wedding, but at the end of the day, we never saw John and Mary get married, we saw Sherlock make vows to them (let’s be honest, it was mostly to John because everything he said then was to/about John) and that was the “wedding” we witnessed. 

Traditionally in British weddings the chief bridesmaid (who gets called “the matron of honour” if she’s married) doesn’t give a speech. Usually it’s just the father of the bride, the groom and the best man. But the point still stands. We never see who gives Mary away or if she had a friend who offered to do the father of the bride speech for her. Hell, we don’t even hear John’s speech. Since Anglican weddings have a set liturgy, the groom’s speech is usually the time for him to make a more personalised declaration of love in front of everyone. (The church might be a wee bit more flexible about personal vows nowadays but I’ve only ever gone to Catholic wedding services so I’d have to check). Regardless, we don’t hear squat about any of that at the church or the reception.

37 notes

maps-with-stars:

John’s entire proposal is basically “Mary I really like you because you were there when I was sad because my flatmate died. I really loved him so it was rough. Thanks for being his replacement. Will you marry me?”

Truly an offer no woman could refuse.

34 notes

writeallwrongs:

"I’m not misogynistic" they say "I just hate Mary because she shot Sherlock and lied to John"

"I love John" they say "It’s so cute when he shoots that cabbie for Sherlock"

"I love Sherlock" they say "It’s so cute when he lies to John for two years"

"I hate Mary" they say "because murder is murder no matter who she’s married to"

"but it’s okay if it’s John and Sherlock holding the gun" they say

Don’t you think you’re oversimplifying these acts by divorcing them from their contexts? We need to understand the characters’ motivations to see why people will condone John and Sherlock’s actions but not Mary’s.

John shot the cabbie to defend Sherlock’s life. He may not have known the cabbie’s exact methods of murder, but he knew Sherlock was alone with a known serial killer and no-means of self-defence. He had to act immediately. I can see why people might want to romanticise it a bit because it’s John doing something heroic for Sherlock at such an early stage in their relationship. Trying to avoid going through a court case isn’t exactly kosher, but the implication is that a trial would ultimately be necessary because the court’s would find in John’s favour.

Might as well tackle Sherlock shooting CAM as well while we’re at it. Now, CAM wasn’t immediately endangering anyone’s life. However, he was threatening to expose Mary. Sherlock recognised this and was afraid that John would shoot CAM in order to protect Mary, so he took it upon himself to kill CAM before John could. It was murder, very few people would argue with that, but it was also act of sacrifice. This was Sherlock giving up his freedom, for most if not all of the rest of his life, to pre-emptively save John from himself.

Now that I’ve dealt with the killing, I’ll move on to the lying.I don’t think there’s anyone who’s saying that the necessary deception needed to make The Fall work was cute. However, I think people do recognise what a huge undertaking it was for Sherlock to fake his own death and then take it upon himself to almost single-handedly dismantle Moriarty’s network and expose himself to the risk of torture and death. While he was also saving the lives of Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson, saving John’s life was his primary motivation.

Mary’s lie to John was motivated out of nothing but pure self-interest. If John had found out about her past, he wouldn’t have killed her, but he probably would have left her. She deceived him and denied him vital information that would have heavily influenced his decision to form a relationship with her. Everything she has told him about herself has been a complete and utter falsehood.

Mary shot Sherlock because he threatened to expose her lie, and possibly because she perceived his and John’s closeness as a threat to her marriage in and of itself. Sherlock wasn’t threatening her, in fact he was offering to help her.

This is why people will defend John and Sherlock, but not Mary. John and Sherlock were acting in each other’s interests. Mary, on the other hand, has always been out for no one but herself. Her selfishness goes far beyond what the average person considers a reasonable sense of self-preservation. She’s killed people for money, and freely admitted that she shot Sherlock because she didn’t want John to leave her.

None of this has anything to do with Mary’s gender. If John had married a man who lied to him about his identity in the same way that Mary did and then went on to shoot Sherlock, I’d refuse to defend that character too. Moreover, how can you hope to accurately discern that someone is a misogynist if you only know their opinion on one female character? Misogyny doesn’t necessarily have to be wholly pervasive to a person’s sense of judgement, but wouldn’t you need to know more about someone’s opinions in order to establish a pattern?

46 notes

Anonymous asked: Gosh, theorists and critics will come up with ridiculous nicknames and terms for everything TJLC related. "The apostles of Johnlock" or such.

piningjohn:

we will literally be known as “those who were fucking right” 

Can I just attach myself to this post so I can stake my claim when the time comes?

10 notes

piningjohn:

Tbh in terms of narrative ambiguity the Mary/Snape analogy would work better but it was obvious that Snape would have a redemption arc and that Mary won’t 

Here, here. To me, what really separates Snape from Mary is that Snape was capable of sacrifice. He chose to act in someone else’s interest besides his own.

Also, I’m curious as to what you would have preferred for a redemption arc for Snape instead of Lily being his motivation. I don’t mean this in a sarky way, I genuinely want to know. I get that doing it for someone you love isn’t the most ideologically pure of heel-face-turns, but I suppose most people can relate to it more than a straight-up Damascene conversion.