kiyaar: squeeful: ouyangdan: ouyangdan: still got

via http://bit.ly/2Inyn1w

kiyaar:

squeeful:

ouyangdan:

ouyangdan:

still got (white) dudes on fb arguing that IT’S OKAY! BERNIE IS PRO-CHOICE! as if that is the same as him protecting that right, politically, or making sure comprehensive reproductive care is not an acceptable loss in the quest for single-payer or wev.

conveniently these same dudes seem surprised that i expect abortion to be included in ‘comprehensive reproductive care’.

BUT ABORTION IS LEGAL! STOP FIXATING ON SINGLE ISSUES, B!

ABORTION IS A NECESSARY PART OF REPRODUCTIVE CARE AND LACK OF SUCH IS A ROOT CAUSE OF MUCH OF THE POVERTY IN THE US.YOU WANT TO MINIMIZE POVERTY, YOU HAVE TO KEEP ABORTION SAFE, LEGAL, AND EASILY AVAILABLE

i thought this post was about bernie rosenthal and i was Very Confused

To those who can’t read the screenshots:

Lifetime pro-choice record, plus funding for family planning

Where does Bernie stand with regard to women’s reproductive health?

A: Bernie believes in protecting a woman’s right to choose and has a lifetime pro-choice record:

In 1993, he co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act, which aimed to bar states from restricting the right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability or at any time when a termination is necessary to protect the health of a woman.

In April 2012, Bernie wrote “We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions, when countless women died or were maimed. The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government.”

Bernie voted numerous times to allow women to travel interstate for abortions, supported permitting federal funding of organizations that conduct abortions, and voted to increase access and funding for family planning for women.

In light of these votes, Bernie has repeatedly received ratings of 100% from NARAL Pro-Choice America                        From http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Bernie_Sanders_Abortion.htm You can support whoever you like, but let’s not make shit up about the guy, hmm?

The Case Of The Unslashable Bromance

via http://bit.ly/2G6veln

mikkeneko:

weatherwaxvimes:

dsudis:

jacquez45:

plaidadder:

plaidadder:

oceaxereturns:

plaidadder:

I was thinking about Jake Peralta and Charles Boyle from B99 vis a vis Holmes and Watson and I formed a hypothesis which I have just tested. My hypothesis was correct…but I don’t know why.

Hypothesis: B99 has actually successfully prevented viewers from reading the primary m/m partnership homoerotically. To put it more simply: people by and large do not slash Jake and Boyle.

I did a search on AO3. Would you like to know how many pics show up in the Charles Boyle/Jake Peralta tag?

THREE.

For purposes of comparison, there are 1692 Jake/Amy pics on AO3 and 172 Jake /Rosas, as well as over a hundred Rosa/Ginas.

This is amazing. It’s an author-intent miracle. Yeah, I know the show doesn’t ship them, but that never stopped ANYONE. How, Moffat and Gatiss must surely be wondering, did they manage to keep Eros out of that bromance?

I have formed a few theories.

1. The inclusion of openly gay characters makes people stop looking for coded gay characters.

2. Viewers are protecting the canon ship (Jake/Amy). Plausible but does not explain the much larger number of Jake/Rosas and Amy/Rosas.

3. Both characters are given multiple heterosexual relationships. True; again, never stopped anyone before.

4. It is precisely the absurdly self-abasing intensity of Charles’s devotion that stops people from reading it romantically. Variant: it is so obvious that Charles desires to BE Jake that we don’t ask whether he wants to DO Jake.

5. Nobody wants to imagine Charles Boyle having sex. This one has merit. Despite all the girlfriends he has, his sex life is always kind of disgusting to the other characters, as is his way of introducing it very inappropriately I to conversation.

I dunno. It’s fascinating.

Is it possibly because the bromance is so tender and so very much requited?? There’s not a lot of read into there because they’re both very comfortable with it.

Excellent theory! Yes, I like this: the relationship as is is so fulfilling for Boyle that there is nothing left for him to desire. And although Jake isn’t as…full Boyle about it, he also is getting everything out of it that he wants in a friendship.

I propose a refinement of the above theory:

Because Jake and Boyle are both largely comfortable with the intensity of the relationship, they do not appear to be repressing anything. In other words there is no level of bromanticism that either of them would deny or disavow. Therefore, the viewer actually believes that what you see is what you get: nothing is hidden or latent. So nobody has to write the fic that brings it to the surface.

I thought about this, and about the other intense, unrepressed bromance I can think of on television: J.D. & Turk (Scrubs). Of the 314 Scrubs stories on AO3, only 12 are JD/Turk (by contrast, Perry Cox/JD has 142 stories, and Turk’s most common partner is his wife Carla) . Like Boyle & Jake, they are repressing nothing, completely open about the intensity of their friendship, and emotionally secure with each other. So, I think there may be something to this theory. 

I feel like the JD & Turk example is not exactly comparable because their slash representation is probably suppressed below what it would otherwise be by the White Guy and Black Guy Are Best Friends effect (also why there’s more Shawn/Lassiter than Shawn/Gus in Psych, why there’s more Loki/Tony or Bucky/Tony than Tony/Rhodey in the MCU, etc.)

Jake/Boyle should be an unreasonably massive pairing relative to the size of the fandom, going by the dynamics of… every other fandom… because they are The Two White Guys Who Talk To Each Other, but it’s NOT! That’s actually possibly an even bigger accomplishment than just convincing people not to slash best friends!

My guess on this part of the phenomenon is that 

1) The show offers an actually really interesting and healthy het relationship in Jake/Amy, and as a part of that,

2) The Two White Guys Who Talk To Each Other are not even CLOSE to being the most attractive or interesting people on the show! Their emotional development, individually and in relation to each other, is not emphasized to the detriment/exclusion of all other characters and relationships! NOT EVEN CLOSE. They are SO DRAMATICALLY not the most interesting or attractive or emotionally-developed characters on the show that PEOPLE WRITE HET AND FEMSLASH ABOUT A SHOW WHERE THERE ARE TWO WHITE DUDES WHO TALK TO EACH OTHER! 

!!!!!!!

Lookit how this thread evolves from strength to strength

“They’re already so close and not repressing anything” would be my top bet, given how it works with my theory that “fandom fills in what the fans perceive to be incompleteness in the canon.” Charles and Jake’s friendship already feels satisfying and complete, so there’s no need to change it.

There is, however, a massive lack of Jake/Doug Judy.

lmtyl: willypadilly: sludgefriend: sludgefriend: sludgefriend: sludgefriend: sludgefriend: ...

via http://bit.ly/2UjGFyR

lmtyl:

willypadilly:

sludgefriend:

sludgefriend:

sludgefriend:

sludgefriend:

sludgefriend:

sludgefriend:

sludgefriend:

sludgefriend:

sludgefriend:

i’m gonna start generating my own conspiracy theories

aliens are dinosaurs that became advanced and fled earth

all water is secretly bad for you

flat universe theory

mushrooms think

WW3 happened but was covered up

moon egg theory

dark fire department

tony hawk soul transplant

At LEAST two plus of these were Star Trek episodes or plots.

“Dark fire department” is the VFD, the secret society in A Series Of Unfortunate Events.

A friend of mine used to do this for real on conspiracy theory blogs. He stopped after ‘Jews cause crop circles’ started to get real traction.

ouyangdan: skull-bearer: kiyaar: squeeful: ouyangdan: ouyangdan: still got (white) dudes on fb...

via http://bit.ly/2FYUJUe

ouyangdan:

skull-bearer:

kiyaar:

squeeful:

ouyangdan:

ouyangdan:

still got (white) dudes on fb arguing that IT’S OKAY! BERNIE IS PRO-CHOICE! as if that is the same as him protecting that right, politically, or making sure comprehensive reproductive care is not an acceptable loss in the quest for single-payer or wev.

conveniently these same dudes seem surprised that i expect abortion to be included in ‘comprehensive reproductive care’.

BUT ABORTION IS LEGAL! STOP FIXATING ON SINGLE ISSUES, B!

ABORTION IS A NECESSARY PART OF REPRODUCTIVE CARE AND LACK OF SUCH IS A ROOT CAUSE OF MUCH OF THE POVERTY IN THE US.YOU WANT TO MINIMIZE POVERTY, YOU HAVE TO KEEP ABORTION SAFE, LEGAL, AND EASILY AVAILABLE

i thought this post was about bernie rosenthal and i was Very Confused

To those who can’t read the screenshots:

Lifetime pro-choice record, plus funding for family planning

Where does Bernie stand with regard to women’s reproductive health?

A: Bernie believes in protecting a woman’s right to choose and has a lifetime pro-choice record:

In 1993, he co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act, which aimed to bar states from restricting the right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability or at any time when a termination is necessary to protect the health of a woman.

In April 2012, Bernie wrote “We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions, when countless women died or were maimed. The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government.”

Bernie voted numerous times to allow women to travel interstate for abortions, supported permitting federal funding of organizations that conduct abortions, and voted to increase access and funding for family planning for women.

In light of these votes, Bernie has repeatedly received ratings of 100% from NARAL Pro-Choice America                        From http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Bernie_Sanders_Abortion.htm You can support whoever you like, but let’s not make shit up about the guy, hmm?

CONGRATS! YOU JUST DEMONSTRATED EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

People are responding to this post with ‘yeah! Bernie is really bad for abortion rights!’ so I don’t think you communicated your message very well.

After two months of my ‘Daleks at the

via http://bit.ly/2OTNUaI

After two months of my ‘Daleks at the gym’ project. I have an almost complete knowledge of the Hartnell era and the body of Gal Gadot.

ouyangdan: skull-bearer: ouyangdan: skull-bearer: kiyaar: squeeful: ouyangdan: ouyangdan: st...

via http://bit.ly/2uSZKZr

ouyangdan:

skull-bearer:

ouyangdan:

skull-bearer:

kiyaar:

squeeful:

ouyangdan:

ouyangdan:

still got (white) dudes on fb arguing that IT’S OKAY! BERNIE IS PRO-CHOICE! as if that is the same as him protecting that right, politically, or making sure comprehensive reproductive care is not an acceptable loss in the quest for single-payer or wev.

conveniently these same dudes seem surprised that i expect abortion to be included in ‘comprehensive reproductive care’.

BUT ABORTION IS LEGAL! STOP FIXATING ON SINGLE ISSUES, B!

ABORTION IS A NECESSARY PART OF REPRODUCTIVE CARE AND LACK OF SUCH IS A ROOT CAUSE OF MUCH OF THE POVERTY IN THE US.YOU WANT TO MINIMIZE POVERTY, YOU HAVE TO KEEP ABORTION SAFE, LEGAL, AND EASILY AVAILABLE

i thought this post was about bernie rosenthal and i was Very Confused

To those who can’t read the screenshots:

Lifetime pro-choice record, plus funding for family planning

Where does Bernie stand with regard to women’s reproductive health?

A: Bernie believes in protecting a woman’s right to choose and has a lifetime pro-choice record:

In 1993, he co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act, which aimed to bar states from restricting the right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability or at any time when a termination is necessary to protect the health of a woman.

In April 2012, Bernie wrote “We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions, when countless women died or were maimed. The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government.”

Bernie voted numerous times to allow women to travel interstate for abortions, supported permitting federal funding of organizations that conduct abortions, and voted to increase access and funding for family planning for women.

In light of these votes, Bernie has repeatedly received ratings of 100% from NARAL Pro-Choice America                        From http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Bernie_Sanders_Abortion.htm You can support whoever you like, but let’s not make shit up about the guy, hmm?

CONGRATS! YOU JUST DEMONSTRATED EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

People are responding to this post with ‘yeah! Bernie is really bad for abortion rights!’ so I don’t think you communicated your message very well.

On the contrary, you are grossly misunderstanding the message.

Bernie considers abortion access an acceptable loss. A bargaining chip to make nice with anti-choicers, including so-called anti-choice Democrats (an oxymoron).

He can be as pro-choice as you or me, but if he doesn’t protect access, then he’s no good to any of us for whom access is part of our comprehensive care.

I’m sorry you can’t read between the lines.

… and Obamacare will lead to death panels and we’re all going to be herded into hobbit homes by the UN. Yeah, I think we’re done here. If you can look at s lifetime’s support for abortion and 100% rating by a pro choice organisation and think ‘he’s going to ban abortion!’, you’re not reading between the lines, you’re projecting so hard we could use you for PowerPoint presentations.