🔥 Popular | Latest

Definitely, Facebook, and Fall: Autumn Today 11 38 AM Sorry, I'm not really looking for a relationship, but I saw your name and really wanted to use this pickup line. You can call me Winter because I wont come until Autumn is finished. Alright, you can unmatch me now. LOL thanks for that The pleasure is all mine... well, I guess that pickup line says the opposite, but you get the general idea As long as it at least made you're day little better too, it was worth it Do you mind if l post it on Facebook? I'll crop your name & pic It was rly that impressive Yeah, that's fine. Word My Tinder game definitely peaked there. It was by far the best pickup line AND autumn joke I've ever heard My friend commented "ironic bc Washington just completely skipped autumn this year" Imfao I said "yeah story of my fuckin life" I'll make it up next and we can skip me until you ee come twice. Damn look at you You're on a roll What can I say, you bring out the colors in me Autumn Oh my god I'd rather you bring them out in me Well, there's a chance Autumn might come early for next year. I think that's all I got. I've heard the anticipation is the best part though Anymore and I wouldn't want you to fall for me. Hey now get too cocky here, I just like pickup lines I had to switch to "fall" for that one. Feel like an idiot That was too clever even for me It's alright, I'll leaf quietly I'm in disbeleaf Damn I can't think of anything else I'm trying Well, this went better than I thought it would actually. I thought you would have autumnatically unmatched me. АННН LMAO Don't trees me like that Whew, what a re-leaf There's no season for you to be acting this way Yeah, I'm burnt out. "autumnatically That was a pretty damn good one This has probably been greatest match I've ever gotten. I gotta say, I agree Mind if I post this on the internet for internet points? Do it, I did If I could send you screenshots of people's reactions I totally would (Update) It’s that time of year
Save
Beautiful, Crime, and Girls: Princess Qajar. A symbol of beauty in Persia. 13 young men killed themselves because she rejected them. bigsleevescollects: kyojinofbraveos: sighs….. Internet is back at it, again….. When someone says harem to people, these kind of paintings come up in people’s mind. L.F. Comerre. (1850 - 1916) But, people who drew these paintings, they are called orientalists, have never seen a harem because NO STRANGER WERE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE HAREM UNLESS THEY WANT TO LOSE THEIR HEAD. So they painted what they dreamt of, since they were grown up with Western beauty concepts, they painted Harem girls as what their culture accepted beautiful. BUT, at 19th century Persia, the Western beauty standards were not dominant. So of course, they had their own beauty standards and their own concept of beauty. The more masculine a woman was, more beautiful she was accepted. The opposite was also true for men. Women with heavy brows and faint mustaches considered so attractive that they were sometimes painted on or augmented with mascara and young beardless men with slim waists and delicate features. In 19th century portraits of lovers, the genders are barely distinguishable, identified only by their headgear. Young men without beards were the idols of beauty that time. Sexual mores and erotic sensibilities of 19th century Iran permitted homosexuality between these young men and older men. BUT, after Iran started to be more modern, aka more Westernized, this beauty standards were lost. West beauty standards started to be more dominant and homosexuality was no longer permitted. Today, it is a crime to be homosexual at Iran. This book, women with mustaches and men without beards, is about the beauty standards of Persia at Qajar dynasty. If you are interested, you can buy it and read. HERE is an interview with the author, Afsaneh Najmabadi. At that time, Qajar princess was considered beautiful. Today, uncultured internet memers are making fun of her.  Shame @ all of you. EDIT: That’s not Pricess Qajar ffs….. Qajar is the name of dynasty, not the princess…. Her name is  Zahra Khanom Tadj es-Saltaneh, she was the daughter of the King of Persia in the early 19th century. Not to forget that she had a university education.

bigsleevescollects: kyojinofbraveos: sighs….. Internet is back at it, again….. When someone says harem to people, these kind of paintings c...

Save
Fashion, Feminism, and Fucking: GOOD MORNING A WOMAN A CREWMAN duckbunny: quirkquartz: socialistexan: jazzchordravepiano: wetwareproblem: amayakumiko: thetrekkiehasthephonebox: spocks–cock: Christopher: A woman? Kirk: A crewman. OH LOOK AT THAT THE 1960S AND SHE’S IN COMMAND GOLD FUCKERS. She’s not in Medical blue, a caretaking, feminine role.   Those in Gold were either OFFICERS, NAVIGATORS, PILOTS, TACTICAL OFFICERS, or WEAPONS SPECIALISTS.   This is the Kirk everyone likes to forget. Y’all, if you care about feminism, then you ought to care about the history and context of the miniskirt. The 60s were an era of rebellion against the 50s, and the skirts were part of it. They were literally cutting edge fashion, and a statement that women made against the more housewifey style of skirt from the decade before. It was Grace Lee Whitney herself who suggested to Roddenberry that they wear them, and Nichelle Nichols has said she never had a problem with them. They are a product of their time yes, but the women chose to wear them because of the context of that time.  Also some men in Starfleet ware miniskirts and dresses: And some of the women wear pants: They’re given the power of choice, regardless of gender or sex. Shit ‘-’ None of this even clicked to me - Thats fucking glorious :D Picard in that dress is so good. Look at him! He looks formal and serious and dignified! He looks like he’s captain of his ship and he’s got some important business to do. And he’s in a dress and tights. And it’s not a joke. It’s not a joke about a man in a dress! It’s just, you know, a man who is wearing a dress, and that’s normal and appropriate. It’s part of the uniform. It fits him. It’s totally unremarkable and that is so rare and I’m so happy.
Save
Fire, Logic, and Moms: marzipanandminutiae reading letters from 1818 is wild "it's that time of the year when I get colds for no apparent reason again" have some Clairitin hon marzipanandminutiae But also we're not becoming allergic to everything nowadays like certain white moms fear. Allergies have always existed. They were just talked about differently Like "oh clams always turn my stomach-". Or "what a pity he was taken from us at age 5" rosslynpaladin "Well we didn't have all this fancy chronic illness stuff in the Olden Days, what did people do then??" They died, Ashleigh rowantheexplorer This is a picture tracking bullet holes on Allied planes that encountered Nazi anti-aircraft fire in WW2 At first, the military wanted to reinforce those areas, because obviously that's where the ground crews observed the most damage on returning planes. Until Hungarian-born Jewish mathematician Abraham Wald pointed out that this was the damage on the planes that made it home, and the Allies should armor the areas where there are no dots at all, because those are the places where the planes won't survive when hit. This phenomenon is called survivorship bias, a logic error where you focus on things that survived when you should really be looking at things that didn't. We have higher rates of mental illness now? Maybe that's because we've stopped killing people for being "possessed" or "witches." Higher rate of allergies? Anaphylaxis kills, and does so really fast if you don't know what's happening. Higher claims of rape? Maybe victims are less afraid of coming forward. These problems were all happening before, but now we've reinforced the medical and social structures needed to help these people survive. And we still have a long way to go. Source: marzipanandminutiae 80,557 notes Survivorship bias
Save
Being Alone, Amazon, and Bad: CW CNN @CNN Follow European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1C 8:00 PM -2 Feb 2019 924 Retweets 1,321 Likes SULLDHONHS Sophia Chang Follow @sophchang "European settlers killed 56 million indigenous people over about 100 years..." 56 million. It took a long time for me to process that figure CNN @CNN European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1c 9:45 AM -3 Feb 2019 1,872 Retweets 2,388 Likes Follow @RadRoopa Replying to @sophchang And to think, the world population in 1900 was only 1.5 billion compared to today's 7.5 billion I don't know what the world pop was like in 1500 but 56 millions would've been a HUGE percentage of that. That astronomical number is definitely hard to process 9:25 PM - 3 Feb 2019 Follow @RadRoopa Replying to @RadRoopa @sophchang I just looked it up and the world pop in 1600 was about 570 million. They wiped out TEN PERCENT of the world's population. That's the equivalent of 750 million ppl today. Whoa 9:50 PM - 3 Feb 2019 evergreennightmare: red-stick-progressive: aossidhboyee: red-stick-progressive: burdenbasket: gahdamnpunk: This is insane holy fuck, this is A LOT Also that figure is way too low, modern population estimates might be as much as twice that. There were between 25 and 40 million in central Mexico alone, almost as many people in the North Amazon, almost as many in the Andes, and almost as many in the American South. All saw 80 to 99 percent population loss in the period of 2 to 3 generations. The Greater Mississippi River Basin had a population somewhere between 5 and 12 million, the Eastern Woodlands had about as many, about as many in the Central Amazon, and almost as many on the American West Coast and North West Coast respectively. All of which saw 85 to 99 percent population losses in 2 or three generations after the others. Multiple factions if European interests killed all the natives they could and destroyed all the culture and history they could. They were not limited by gender, language, religion, culture, ethnic group, nationality, geography, or time period; just every single person they could. That’s not even genocide, it’s apocalypse. Why are you all omitting the well known fact that it was not purposeful genocide but simply new microbes introduced that no one knew about at that time. Cuz that’s not true. Tw genocide, tw violence When Columbus realized the pigs they brought were getting the Islanders sick he arranged to loose as many as possible ahead of them primarily into the Benne region, I believe. Cortez loaded sickened corpses into Tenochtitlan’s aqueducts, Spain deliberately targeted the priests of Mexican society first because they knew it would severely undermine the public ability to treat disease. When the post Incan city states developed a treatment for malaria, the Spanish deliberately targeted the cities producing the quinine treatment and made it illegal to sell it to non-christians. The Spanish took all the sick and forced them at sword-point to go back to their homes instead of to the sick houses or the temples throughout the new world, and forced anyone who wasn’t sick to work in the mines or the coin factories melting and pressing their cultural treasures down into Spanish coins. The English were just as bad, they started the smallpox blankets. A lot of the loss was not deliberate infections like this but it was preventable at a million different crossroads and every European culture took the opportunity to weaponize the plagues when they could. They knew what they were doing, just cuz they didn’t know what germs were doesn’t mean they have some accidental relationship with it. Alexander the great used biological warfare after all, so it’s not like you can pretend the concept was alien to them, they wrote about it. Besides they did plenty of old fashioned killing too, there were Spanish conquistadors that estimated their own personal, individual killings might have numbered over the ten thousands. They were sure they’d killed more than ten million in “New Spain” alone. They crucified people they smashed babies on the rocks, they set fire to buildings they forced women and children into and cooked their meals over the burning corpses, they loosed war dogs on people. They sold children into sex slavery to be raped by disease riddled pedos back in Europe and if taking their virginity didn’t cure the sick creeps the native children would be killed or sometimes sent back. The English were just as bad, shooting children in front of their mothers and forcing them to mop their blood with their hair. Turning human scalps into currency. Feeding babies to dogs in front of their mothers and fathers. Killing whole villages and erasing them from their maps so that historians would think God had made it empty just for the English. The Americans after them burned crops and drove several species of bison to extinction just to starve the plains tribes. They pushed the blankets too. On top of the wars of extermination and scalp hunting and concentration and laws defining natives as non-persons so that we’d never be protected by the Constitution. And even if you wanna live in some dreamy fairytale where God just made a whoopsie and then there were no natives left, nobody forced them to erase our history. The Spanish burned every document they found to erase the literacy and literary tradition of the Central and South Americans. There are essentially three Aztec documents left and some excavated pottery, and some archeological inscriptions and that’s it. The single most advanced culture in math and anatomical medicine erased probably forever. Same to the Inca, the most advanced fiber and alloy engineers and economists gone forever. Nobody made them do that. Nobody forced the American colonizers to steal political technology and act like they invented democracy or sovereignty. Nobody forced them to build their cities on top of native ones and erase them from history forever. Baltimore was built on Chesapeake, which translates roughly to “city at the top of the great water” in most Algonquin tongues. My favorite example is Cumberland in Western MD, they didn’t even reshape the roads or anything, they paved the steps and walking paths natives had used for hundreds of years and now it’s almost impossible to drive cuz the streets are too narrow or steep. The culture that built them didn’t have horses. Phoenix AZ, called Phoenix cuz the settlers literally found an old city and “brought it back to life.” Did they save any history or cultural artifacts? No. Most cities on the east coast are like this. Nobody forced them to erase that history. Colonizers are not innocent just cuz the germs did a lot of the work of the apocalypse. (tlaxcallān had a democratic form of government)
Save
News, Precious, and Target: OUL vladislava: mylistofthangs: Antique Jewish wedding rings.  These are absolutely gorgeous. Some info: Antique Jewish wedding bands are stellar examples of the artistry of jewelry making. The rings are made of a metal circle, molded to fit the would-be owner, topped with an architectural feature resembling a house. The goldsmith would then engrave something on the exterior of the “house”; engravings were also commonly hidden inside, in which case the “house” – or bezel – would slide open. The engraving would usually read Mazal Tov, or the Hebrew initials M.T. The rings’ houses varied in design from castle-like, to square, round or hexagonal. The structures were representations of either the Holy Temple or synagogues in the diaspora. Large in diameter and heavy due to the architectural features, many of the rings are practically unwearable. Morgan ponders the question as well, saying that there is no conclusive evidence, either in Jewish tradition or in the Christian documentation recording Jewish practices, of such rings ever having been worn. Trading in gold, jewels and precious stones was the trade of choice by wealthy Jewish merchants for hundreds of years. The memoir portrait of Gluckel of Hamlen, the daughter of a gold merchant of those times, depicts a wedding ring embroidered in gold thread, hanging from a necklace, which may have been the way the rings were worn after the wedding ceremony.  Jewish wedding bands are unique and although many of them are magnificent and expensive, none have stones set in them. The rings are devoid of their classical focal point due to a rabbinical ordinance barring setting gemstones in wedding bands, or engraving them with hallmarks – the latter first appearing in the 19th century. Also, Jewish goldsmiths were not allowed to join guilds and mark their creations until circa that time. (via)

vladislava: mylistofthangs: Antique Jewish wedding rings.  These are absolutely gorgeous. Some info: Antique Jewish wedding bands are st...

Save