Spells
Spells

Spells

Alwaysed
Alwaysed

Alwaysed

You Lose
You Lose

You Lose

missing
missing

missing

you win
 you win

you win

seconds
 seconds

seconds

payed
payed

payed

ons
ons

ons

my idol
my idol

my idol

hai
hai

hai

🔥 | Latest

College, Community, and Gif: Kara @karawrite On behalf of, I dunno, EVERY FAT KID IN the USA, I'ma go ahead and call BS on the whole bullying creates mass shooters narrative. LGBTQ kids, kids of color, disabled kids, poor kids, girl kids are bullied. Who's doing the shooting? White boys whose parents don't secure their guns 5/22/18, 10:40 PM 39 Retweets 106 Likes shanlad: redmachasacorns: Not a single lie in sight…… Hello, college grad that actually wrote an award winning paper on this topic! Here’s some knowledge I’d like to share: There’s actually been studies as to why it’s usually white kids, a large conclusion amongst the criminology community is that those that often have more privileged lives (white kids in our society’s case) are less adept to dealing with stress and denial. Whereas minorities and others are more likely to cope and function normally despite stressors because of the constant stressors that come from systematic racism and/or other platforms of more limited priviledge. TL;DR: It’s usually a white kid because their privilege incacipated their ability to learn how to handle stress/ denial/ whatever without acting out. The less privileged are done used to the bs and thus typically dont turn to extreme measures as coping mechanisms. EDIT: I had reblogged this and added a link to the paper (which I should’ve done to begin with,) but it’s probably best I just edit my original reblog and add the link (which I also should’ve just done already.) Anyway, it can be found fully sourced here.
College, Community, and Gif: Kara
 @karawrite
 On behalf of, I dunno, EVERY FAT KID
 IN the USA, I'ma go ahead and call BS
 on the whole bullying creates mass
 shooters narrative. LGBTQ kids, kids of
 color, disabled kids, poor kids, girl kids
 are bullied. Who's doing the shooting?
 White boys whose parents don't
 secure their guns
 5/22/18, 10:40 PM
 39 Retweets 106 Likes
shanlad:
redmachasacorns:

Not a single lie in sight……

Hello, college grad that actually wrote an award winning paper on this topic! Here’s some knowledge I’d like to share: There’s actually been studies as to why it’s usually white kids, a large conclusion amongst the criminology community is that those that often have more privileged lives (white kids in our society’s case) are less adept to dealing with stress and denial. Whereas minorities and others are more likely to cope and function normally despite stressors because of the constant stressors that come from systematic racism and/or other platforms of more limited priviledge. 
TL;DR: It’s usually a white kid because their privilege incacipated their ability to learn how to handle stress/ denial/ whatever without acting out. The less privileged are done used to the bs and thus typically dont turn to extreme measures as coping mechanisms. 
EDIT: I had reblogged this and added a link to the paper (which I should’ve done to begin with,) but it’s probably best I just edit my original reblog and add the link (which I also should’ve just done already.)
Anyway, it can be found fully sourced here.

shanlad: redmachasacorns: Not a single lie in sight…… Hello, college grad that actually wrote an award winning paper on this topic! Here’s...

Apparently, Definitely, and Family: Me [25F] with my boyfriend [25M] of seven months. He has VERY bizarre opinions and I want help understanding him, and getting him to understand how others see him Relationships submitted 7 hours ago by throwaway47273747483 have been with my boyfriend, Henry, for around 7 months now, and he's an amazing guy etc. I really see this developing into a long and very serious relationship. There are no big problems or red flags. One thing that gets me though, are his political opinions. They are esoteric, somewhat incomprehensible, and frankly, bizarre. He is an ardent monarchist (we are in the UK) but not in the typical use of the word (ie liking the Queen being an impartial head of state), he literally believes in the divine right of kings and that it is the only natural form of government. He claims to recognise no monarch since James ll, and apparently the real legitimate successor is some guy called Francis who I've never heard of, who is also supposedly the rightful king of France and Greece. He never votes, saying he has no desire to assist his monarch in their choice of servants (which is technically how the UK government works, the Queen "chooses" whoever wins the election). He expressed disgust at Prince Harry's recent engagement, I pressed him as to why (I was slightly worried it was racist in nature) and he said both Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton are commoners who have no business marrying royalty, then made some remark about the Royal Family being a "ghastly bunch of arriviste Germans anyway, so I suppose it doesn't matter". It's just strange. It's like his worldview is so odd and so far removed from anything I can even begin to understand. I can name the current major Royals and a few of the more important historical ones, whereas he is an absolute expert. He will passionately debate anyone who wants to, though again it just makes him look strange. Friends at dinner will be discussing normal, contemporary political issues, and he will interject and go on some tangent about how this all relates to "King John's submission to Papal authority in 1213". He does seem to genuinely believe this stuff, but it gives an odd impression to those around us. No one can really reply beecause they don't know what he's talking about so he definitely gets the feeling he's winning these debates (he's far too well-mannered to be rude about it, but it's certainly an unspoken truth in his view) tikkunolamorgtfo: TFW your boyfriend is a 17th Century Catholic vampire who is NOT OVER™ the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Apparently, Definitely, and Family: Me [25F] with my boyfriend [25M] of seven months. He has VERY bizarre opinions
 and I want help understanding him, and getting him to understand how others see
 him Relationships
 submitted 7 hours ago by throwaway47273747483
 have been with my boyfriend, Henry, for around 7 months now, and he's an amazing guy etc.
 I really see this developing into a long and very serious relationship. There are no big
 problems or red flags.
 One thing that gets me though, are his political opinions. They are esoteric, somewhat
 incomprehensible, and frankly, bizarre. He is an ardent monarchist (we are in the UK) but not
 in the typical use of the word (ie liking the Queen being an impartial head of state), he literally
 believes in the divine right of kings and that it is the only natural form of government. He
 claims to recognise no monarch since James ll, and apparently the real legitimate successor
 is some guy called Francis who I've never heard of, who is also supposedly the rightful king of
 France and Greece. He never votes, saying he has no desire to assist his monarch in their
 choice of servants (which is technically how the UK government works, the Queen "chooses"
 whoever wins the election). He expressed disgust at Prince Harry's recent engagement, I
 pressed him as to why (I was slightly worried it was racist in nature) and he said both Meghan
 Markle and Kate Middleton are commoners who have no business marrying royalty, then made
 some remark about the Royal Family being a "ghastly bunch of arriviste Germans anyway, so I
 suppose it doesn't matter". It's just strange. It's like his worldview is so odd and so far removed
 from anything I can even begin to understand. I can name the current major Royals and a few
 of the more important historical ones, whereas he is an absolute expert.
 He will passionately debate anyone who wants to, though again it just makes him look strange.
 Friends at dinner will be discussing normal, contemporary political issues, and he will interject
 and go on some tangent about how this all relates to "King John's submission to Papal
 authority in 1213". He does seem to genuinely believe this stuff, but it gives an odd impression
 to those around us. No one can really reply beecause they don't know what he's talking about
 so he definitely gets the feeling he's winning these debates (he's far too well-mannered to be
 rude about it, but it's certainly an unspoken truth in his view)
tikkunolamorgtfo:
TFW your boyfriend is a 17th Century Catholic vampire who is NOT OVER™ the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

tikkunolamorgtfo: TFW your boyfriend is a 17th Century Catholic vampire who is NOT OVER™ the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:

This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not...

God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:
This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not ...