Why does Monsters Inc. yaoi exist?
There are many answers to this question and none of them will make you happy.
Why does Monsters Inc. yaoi exist?
There are many answers to this question and none of them will make you happy.
This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.
THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you.
What a difference having a woman up there makes to the answer we get for the inevitable fan fiction question.
Or a playstation or a flat screen TV or a newer car, etc and etc. I know people that work under the table for half their pay and get paid on the books for the rest and collect welfare. I know of drug dealers that collect for tax purposes even though they pull in thousands of untaxed money each month dealing. Tell me how I am not supposed to be upset with these people like I am with greedy corporate cronies? I’m not heartless. These people are selfish and unethical.
I swear to fuck that every person who ever makes statements like these have never actually thought about the cost of things in their lives.
Like seriously consider the cost of fucking iPhones.
To straight up buy an new-model iPhone straight from Apple is upwards of $400-$600. Gasp, so much money!
BUT — four/five years ago, when I got my first smartphone and before I switched to Androids, AT&T was running a deal where a two year contract got you a brand new iPhone for $199. This was also before I was due for contract renewal; if I’d been willing to wait a year or go for a refurbished model, I could’ve gotten an iPhone for $100. Give or take some tax.
Phone companies do deals like this all the time, because they make their money off monthly payments rather than the sale of phones. Nowadays I could probably get an older model iPhone for damn near fucking free if I shopped around. Like there’s a really big irony in people who like to insist “you could support yourself better if you were smarter with your money” acting as though electronics are soooooooooo costly. Omg there’s NO way someone could EVER find these RARE luxury items for anything less then full extreme price, you must have paid an arm and a leg for that you CHEATER.
The actual ‘big’ ongoing expense of a smartphone is going to come in the monthly fee; I was already paying $45 a month for regular cell phone service and the data plan at the time was another $30. (this was years ago, so it’s potentially cheaper now. I’m with VirginMobile, which is literally just a flat $35 a month for everything talk and data)
$75 a month sounds like a lot of money when you fixate on the image of someone who ought to be counting every penny like it’s the one thing that can raise them out of squalor — but it’s not.
The difference between “poor” and “not poor” is thousands of dollars annually, not several hundred a year. In L.A., the estimated living wage for a single adult working full time is $23,640 gross. Someone working full-time at minimum wage ($8.00x2,080 hours) makes around $16,640. (Excluding sick time or overtime or extra jobs.) A $7,000 a year difference. Even if they were a frugal and clever little bee, who saved those $75 a month instead of spending them on a “totally frivolous” cell phone service, it would take over seven years of savings for them to cross that boundary from “poor” to “fully self-supported” — for a grand total of one year. Then it’s back under the red; back to the relentless, tiring fight to stay above water.
And really, that’s the whole sham.
Dove subversive photoshop ‘app’
Four for you Dove. You go Dove.
BEST. AD. EVER.
CANADA I KNOW WE DON’T SAY THIS ENOUGH
BUT YOU’RE ACTUALLY PRETTY AWESOME OKAY
idk im gonna step in and say that art directors and photo retouchers and graphic designers? dont usually do ad work for fun, they’re getting paid for it, and in order to get paid they do what their client wants. so. :T thats all i got to say about that.
SDJIKFJASDKFJKSDLJKLFJASDSD goddamnit this is stupid.
I’m with xenotechnophile. Artists and designers are hired by companies to do this work. It’s not like the ad agencies sit down to design up all the ads and the retail companies have no choice but to accept whatever it is the designers feed them without question. The current industry standards were established by the retail industry, not created free-form by the designers. This is dishonest as fuck.
Evangeline Lilly, Desolation of Smaug world premiere press conference
Whether you like Tauriel or not, I think Evangeline makes a great point about adapting Tolkien’s works to our age and how vital it is to incorporate a feminine perspective in fantasy worlds when previously that was not emphasized at all. Even still female representation in fantasy is lacking, and I think it’s great that Evangeline clearly observes the need for characters like Tauriel to round out these narratives and demonstrate that women do have a place in the fantasy genre.
His body isn’t even cold yet and the New York times has already put out a shameful article declaring Nelson Mandela to be an “icon of peaceful resistance”. News outlets around the Western world are hurrying to publish obituaries that celebrate his electoral victory while erasing the protracted and fierce guerrilla struggle that he and his party were forced to fight in order to make that victory possible. Don’t let racist, imperialist liberalism co-opt the legacy of another radical. Nelson Mandela used peaceful means when he could, and violent means when he couldn’t. For this, during his life they called him a terrorist, and after his death they’ll call him a pacifist — all to neutralize the revolutionary potential of his legacy, and the lessons to be drawn from it.
Don’t fucking let them.
Okay, also wrong.
1) Nelson Mandela WAS an icon of peaceful resistance, but not in the simplistic way the NYT article (and, I’m sure, many that will follow) believe he was. You see, when Mandela was arrested in 1962, he was, indeed, the leader of the ANC’s armed forces. That is not a fact that people should forget.
However, when he started negotiations with the apartheid regime in the late 1980s, South Africa was in the midst of what was basically an undeclared civil war. Violence was everywhere and often very unfocused; don’t think for one second that it was all between anti-apartheid fighters against people upholding the apartheid regime. The deaths/beatings/tortures/rapes were largely civilian-focused, and everyone was hurting everyone else (with white-on-white, black-on-black, black-on-Indian, Indian-on-coloured, coloured-on-black, so on and so forth). For an example, Google anything about “necklacing”.
It was b a d.
In order for the country not to collapse completely, someone needed to emerge as a leader who favored political negotiation and peaceful tactics over the violence that was ravaging the country, and Nelson Mandela, whose release had been advocated for over the past few years, found himself thrust into that position to the point that he started negotiating for the fall of apartheid from prison. He did what he needed to do because any more violence would have completely destroyed South Africa. He chose ending apartheid over saving face with the already-emerging anti-apartheid politicians, chose negotiating with the enemies that he hated over seeing more of his people die because of an ego or power trip or an extreme ideology (see: most of the leaders of both sides at this point). He chose making peace over expressing his anger, or (an even bigger issue now), his racial/ethnic affiliation. If he isn’t an “icon of peaceful resistance” for this, I don’t know who is.
2) “He and his party” Hahaha no. There were different parties and different voices and different races who fought together against the regime, not just the ANC. The ANC is one part of a MUCH LARGER MOVEMENT, one that included the people who would become the DA (the ANC’s biggest political rival), one that included not only the black Africans (mainly Zulu) that the ANC represents but also the Xhosa and the Tswana and the Sotho and the Coloureds and the Indians and The Black Sash and the Jews. IT WAS NOT JUST THE ANC.
Also, the ANC is actually largely why the country is so fucked up right now, because the party wants to keep power over actually doing anything good for its people (see: President Robert “Yes I raped that lesbian HIV-positive AIDS activist but I’m getting acquitted because I’m in power and I’m not HIV positive because I took a shower afterwards” Zuma; see: President Thabo “yeah I committed crimes against humanity but come on hear me talk more about how HIV isn’t a real thing and what all my people are dying of AIDS because I refuse to provide any knowledge or treatment LALALALA I can’t hear you LALALA” Mbeki)
3) “Don’t let racist, imperialist liberalism co-opt the legacy of another radical.” Don’t let your ignorant, imperialist liberalism co-opt the legacy of a man who is recognized as an amazing leader of a country and continent seriously lacking them. Don’t let your lack of knowledge of contemporary African politics let you think for one goddamn second that praising someone’s violence is a good thing. Don’t let your Western all-blacks-are-same ideology not recognize the true radicalism in his ideology, which is that ethnic groups should not matter and people should work together regardless.
4) “Nelson Mandela used peaceful means when he could, and violent means when he couldn’t.” Hahahaha take this, reverse it. He started violent and ended peaceful.
5) “For this, during his life they called him a terrorist,” Nope. They called him a terrorist because he fought against the apartheid regime, and the apartheid regime was allied with the West during the Cold War. He would have been a terrorist regardless of the amount of violence he actually used.
"and after his death they’ll call him a pacifist" Yep. Because he was (kind of) in the end. Although the Truth & Reconciliation Commission was totally Desmond Tutu’s brainchild, so don’t listen to anyone crediting him with that.
"All to neutralize the revolutionary potential of his legacy," hopefully by now you realize that if you mean "revolutionary" to mean "violence is okey-dokey" you are full of shit. His revolutionary act was to be a Xhosa leading a largely Zulu resistance-cum-political party; his revolutionary act was to negotiate with a racial/ethnic enemy. His revolution rested in whom he dared to talk to, not whom he dared to hurt.
"and the lessons to be drawn from it." Yeah, the wrong lessons will be drawn from it, but not for the reasons you think. People will just think his thought process was "peace at any cost" instead of "w o w having a violent revolution was a super stupid idea because everyone is dying. Let’s take a different approach that doesn’t involve my wife directing her own band of assassins and me being imprisoned for almost 30 years that sounds grand".
An Actual Fucking (Half) South African
P.S. This is still super-simplified (I could literally spend hours explaining all the ins and outs of apartheid/the anti-apartheid movement/Mandela himself), but I think it does its job at least somewhat okay.