Confession: I miss trip-hop.

ineffably-crowley:

sparkafterdark:

glumshoe:

sparkafterdark:

tenaflyviper:

He is, however, perfectly willing to fuck with time and reality.
And also steal your infants.

He didn’t steal anything. She literally asked him to take the baby. Don’t make him the bad guy just because she was a shitty sister.

I think you are severely misinformed as to how baby ownership works.
It was not her baby to give.
David Bowie is unquestionably the villain.

Which do you think existed first, modern custody legislature, or the goblin king? 
The girl was entrusted by her parents with the care and custody of the child. By the laws governing the goblin king and his transactions, the girl was the current rightful owner of the child and made a deal with the king to take the child. Perhaps you’re not familiar with english folklore. Fae have rules, they’re tricksters, they can be sneaky, but they never break the rules.

Slammin’ it down in the Labyrinth fandom tonight, kids.

ineffably-crowley:

sparkafterdark:

glumshoe:

sparkafterdark:

tenaflyviper:

He is, however, perfectly willing to fuck with time and reality.

And also steal your infants.

He didn’t steal anything. She literally asked him to take the baby. Don’t make him the bad guy just because she was a shitty sister.

I think you are severely misinformed as to how baby ownership works.

It was not her baby to give.

David Bowie is unquestionably the villain.

Which do you think existed first, modern custody legislature, or the goblin king? 

The girl was entrusted by her parents with the care and custody of the child. By the laws governing the goblin king and his transactions, the girl was the current rightful owner of the child and made a deal with the king to take the child. Perhaps you’re not familiar with english folklore. Fae have rules, they’re tricksters, they can be sneaky, but they never break the rules.

Slammin’ it down in the Labyrinth fandom tonight, kids.

lemonschedule:

odins-nose:

Oh

Literally oh

pemwin:

ladybowtheboo:

asobita-i:

Reblog for the last one

it’s a game show where everyone eats the furniture in a room and tries to see which is made of chocolate

So basically you’re telling me this is the best fucking game ever created

onyxdragonlady:

laterovaries:

This will always be my favorite gifset. Ever.

Am I the only one that wants to see Sunrise…Yeah okay. 

kinkstertime:

This whole bit is made all the funnier by knowing that all of the guards were just random extras who weren’t told what was going to happen only that they weren’t allowed laugh at any cost as they wouldn’t be payed if they did.

parkingstrange:

unamusedsloth:

Unnecessary Explosions.

I did not know I needed this

This really just needs it’s own Tumblr.

america-wakiewakie:

Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It’s Not a Democracy | PolicyMic 
The news: A new scientific study from Princeton researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page has finally put some science behind the recently popular argument that the United States isn’t a democracy any more. And they’ve found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.
An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance or the military.
For their study, Gilens and Page compiled data from roughly 1,800 different policy initiatives in the years between 1981 and 2002. They then compared those policy changes with the expressed opinion of the United State public. Comparing the preferences of the average American at the 50th percentile of income to what those Americans at the 90th percentile preferred, as well as the opinions of major lobbying or business groups, the researchers found out that the government followed the directives set forth by the latter two much more often.
It’s beyond alarming. As Gilens and Page write, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter.
That might explain why mandatory background checks on gun sales supported by 83% to 91% of Americans aren’t in place, or why Congress has taken no action on greenhouse gas emissions even when such legislation is supported by the vast majority of citizens.
This problem has been steadily escalating for four decades. While there are some limitations to their data set, economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez constructed income statistics based on IRS data that go back to 1913. They found that the gap between the ultra-wealthy and the rest of us is much bigger than you would think…
(Read Full Text)


Can you see how surprised I am? No?

america-wakiewakie:

Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It’s Not a Democracy | PolicyMic 

The news: A new scientific study from Princeton researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page has finally put some science behind the recently popular argument that the United States isn’t a democracy any more. And they’ve found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.

An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance or the military.

For their study, Gilens and Page compiled data from roughly 1,800 different policy initiatives in the years between 1981 and 2002. They then compared those policy changes with the expressed opinion of the United State public. Comparing the preferences of the average American at the 50th percentile of income to what those Americans at the 90th percentile preferred, as well as the opinions of major lobbying or business groups, the researchers found out that the government followed the directives set forth by the latter two much more often.

It’s beyond alarming. As Gilens and Page write, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter.

That might explain why mandatory background checks on gun sales supported by 83% to 91% of Americans aren’t in place, or why Congress has taken no action on greenhouse gas emissions even when such legislation is supported by the vast majority of citizens.

This problem has been steadily escalating for four decades. While there are some limitations to their data set, economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez constructed income statistics based on IRS data that go back to 1913. They found that the gap between the ultra-wealthy and the rest of us is much bigger than you would think…

(Read Full Text)

Can you see how surprised I am? No?

thisfeliciaday:

It’s so funny that I stumbled upon this article this morning, because I woke up irrationally livid at Facebook anyway. Why? Because for a while now, I feel like FB has been closing me in a box, and unless I play by their rules, I am losing access to the people who want to be reached by me.  

I have almost a million followers on FB. But I reach a very small percentage of people with every post on average. And this isn’t by my fans’ choice. Not a day goes by when I don’t see comments like, ‘Hey why am I not getting your updates anymore?” I’m helpless to explain exactly why, but I have a good inkling.

In order to scale with the number of people we collect on our accounts, FB has had to implement technology to filter our feeds. Because they’ve learned that “social” media is just that, and we can’t just dump people when we get bored with them or want to move on in life. So the FB algorithm filters my content based on how many likes people make on the things I share. (Because closing people into interest pockets makes it easier to make money on them, I get it.)

So how do I, as an individual, fight this type of “downgrading” of certain types of content I share? Well, I could cater to the algorithm more. I could do this by sharing things I know will be popular!

Easiest way to do that? Share pictures of my face, my body and things based on my appearance. 

This sucks.

Yes, I guess this is human nature to give feedback on our appearances, that’s why we’re swimming in a world of selfies. But because our new virtual statuses are built on this type of feedback, it is training us to output things that will be popular, and that, in turn, tells women that achieving high statuses online means sharing things about their looks. To the detriment of anything else. Or else get buried and excised from the people around you. In a sense, we’re hostage to the algorithm.

Who thinks this is a good thing?!

And I think this is more than just about my own online engagement, it’s about FB specifically. I see way less of this on other platforms, this filtering of “everything but the most reinforced” content. FB is training people to feed the algorithmic machine with things that will please the most mainstream. Reinforcing the median taste level. I think this methodology is marginalizing people who think out of the box, closing them in enclaves of people who only like exactly what they like. Trapping us in our own echo chambers of reinforcement, where we’re not influencing or being influenced by opposing thoughts. And in addition, we’re being tricked into believing that our small worlds are much bigger than they really are in the grand scheme of things.

Neither of these things is helping anyone’s reality.

I don’t think it’s healthy. Or good for us as a society. I think the internet is an amazing place, where you can connect with people who are like you, and be accepted when you don’t feel accepted in real life, but the drive to make money and clean up the platform to scale properly is not helping us, it’s taking the good things about what the internet can do to the opposite extreme. 

Don’t look for my account to share more selfies than usual, or pictures of me in cute outfits. That’s not my style. Look for me to share the exact same stuff I always do.

Unfortunately, you might have to go way out of your way to look at all.