Internet-meister, dark-humoured, cat-weak, big on metas, easily amused. And in Scotland, UK. Increasingly neutral to people, but big on people issues. Recently described as 'endearingly evil'. I'd say the endearing is sporadic at best. I'm an INTJ (can you tell?). Likes good music, occasional crazy and the world...
Current big fandoms include Ergo Proxy, Evangelion, Kannazuki No Miko, Shadow Star Narutaru, Bokurano, NANA, HPMOR, AHS Coven, Bob's Burgers and general film analyses. TVtropes is pretty super. Expect posts and critiques a lot. Plus meta and lols.
Reblogged from hoganddice  27,195 notes

smashsurvey:

Now think of how many of those female characters and protagonists are oversexed, created for the male gaze, or put in an inactive damsel role for the plot of the game. Representation matters. A Study last year proved that exposure to tv shows increased the self esteem of young white boys and markedly decreased the confidence and self esteem of girls across the board (and we haven’t even started on the representation of characters of color and the effect it has on children’s self perception). 

Video games are a different media, and even more concerning if representation metrics are changing how our kids think of themselves. Especially knowing that 67% of American Households have video game consoles and 91% of Children play video games regularlyhow do you think the portrayal (and lack of portrayals) of women and girls in these games is affecting little girls – or influencing how little boys view their importance and/or influence over them? 

Comics. Movies. Lit. Pop Culture. The Smash Survey is an upcoming podcast project that will critically explore the representation of race, gender, and queer identity in media and pop culture in a fun and engaging format. 

On foodbanks

I don’t know, I think it they can be and for some people, have to be a solution, albeit one that people are unwilling to take until backed into a corner purely because of pervasive ideological bias that everyone has to provide for themself and not rely on others, even when the potential one has to do that becomes increasingly unrealistic.

Our modern profit-driven society is like that; circular; so many of the jobs people do don’t actually NEED to be done; so many people that do work pretend all the time to be enthusiastic and care about the company and improving effectivenesses and keeping costs down when in reality no-one gives a shit. Just saying the right things to get ahead.

We live in a country where people work crazy long hours for little reward, little free time, and little desire to do a good job. Work-life balance for many is completely up the creek. We have students paying and indebting themselves ridiculously to struggle through degrees while living on hardly anything, not having time to take a part-time job to make ends meet because of increasingly competitive university courses; a First is devalued from what it was, from what our parents encouraged us to go to uni for; and competition from international students. Even when you try to get a job, no joy, because youre competiting with school kids who’ll cost less, and people with years of experience who’ve been laid off from their own jobs. A cycle no-one can win.

These are the problems driving people to food banks; a realisation that if you’re scraping by on 56 quid a week or whatever and you could get some ‘free’ food (a term that’s highly suggestive of thievery; its DONATED food that would go to waste if you didnt take it) that could let you keep more money for your heating or your electric bill, maybe that would be a good idea. Even so, the British psyche is too proud to consider this anything but a shameful last resort.

Everyone knows the causes but they are so many no-one is willing to talk about reforming the system to be better equipped to deal with this. At least by using suggestive language when reporting on these cases they can weaken public support for such issues and demonise those who use food banks; just so that people keep paying for price hiked and overpriced food from the supermarkets and they can profit more from the poor as well as their own underpaid staff. Insidious, that’s what it is. Its not just a problem you can easily diagnose and fix like that, but it doesnt help when no-one seems to actively care about the situation.

And yes, some of the people that claim, you may think are scum-of-the-earth types. But if you believe in their right to have food, you have to concede that they need food banks, because how else to get food than a food bank or stealing? So much food goes to waste in this country and people are still getting het up about people taking the handouts that people can afford to put into storage specifically for them.

Its no mother Teresa thing; no-one’s bankrupting themself donating an extra bag of rice to the foodbank.

I fear we are witnessing the “death of expertise”: a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of any division between professionals and laymen, students and teachers, knowers and wonderers – in other words, between those of any achievement in an area and those with none at all. By

Tom Nichols (via azspot)

GOOD.

'Expertise' as used here almost always requires the acceptance and approval of the Powers That Be - automatically excluding anyone who has knowledge that comes from experience (look, ‘expert’ and ‘experience’ have the same root for a reason), who can’t afford/has no access to traditional institutions through which ‘expertise’ is conferred, whose expertise conflicts with the agenda of those Powers, etc., etc.

The glory of Google and Wikipedia and everything like them is their ability to democratize knowledge. Furthermore, that is precisely what teachers want: to help people learn stuff, whether they normally would or not, whether it’s taught in schools or has been thrown aside for three months of test prep, whether it’s the area someone specializes in or is simply curious about… There’s no reason whatsoever that knowledge has to come from a ‘professional’ rather than some other source; that doesn’t make the knowledge any less potent, or any less true. 

There is no division between “students and teachers, knowers and wonderers”. I am a teacher; I am also a student, always, because no matter your knowledge, you can always learn more. ‘Knowers’ v. ‘wonderers’? Really? How do you think people come to know things in the first place? I’m definitely an ‘expert’ on a number of things—an institutionally certified expert, even!—but I still wonder about all those things. Besides, who determines what is ‘knowing’? Plenty of those things I have expertise in are *not* institutionally certified, and that makes my expertise not one whit less.

For instance: I know a shitload more about recovering from traumatic brain events than my neurologist. He knows all about how these things happen in the first place, all the ins and outs and mechanisms; however, when it comes to practical advice for what’s necessary to not continue to fuck yourself up in the weeks afterward, he learns a hell of a lot from me. He’s an MD/PhD, he’s about as ‘expert’ as you can get; but that’s nothing in the face of actual experience. In fact, the main reason I knew he was an infinitely better doctor than the other neurologists I’d seen is because he acknowledged how little he knew about the experience of, say, having your life force drained from you by anti-seizure medication. Despite his honest-to-Dog genius, he does not pretend to all-encompassing expertise, or treat his fount of knowledge as the only valid source - which makes him smarter and more ‘expert’ than anyone who thinks they know it all. 

And everyone knows that the only difference between professionals and laymen is that one gets paid for their achievements and the other doesn’t. It’s such a pathetic example, really: ‘laymen’ is a word created to distinguish the people who were not endorsed by the institutional Powers That Be in religious life; the Jesus Christ of the Bible was a layman, and as such was anathema to the institution. Now, we’ve all seen how much we should blindly trust and accept what the Church/etc. tells us, right?

Finally, that bit about “achievement in an area” is utterly nonsensical. Is ‘achievement’ supposed to stand in for ‘experience’—which, as already noted, is never accepted as institutionally valid in conferring ‘expertise’? Does ‘achievement’ mean an official document a la a diploma? How many of the world’s political leaders have degrees in management, policy, diplomacy, etc.? Have they ‘achieved’ less than those who have studied those topics in a fucking ivory tower? To reverse the question, there’s that old saw about how those who can’t do, teach. Now, I think that’s bullshit, because teaching is a fucking skill, and plenty of people who have incredible achievement in an area can’t go into a classroom and convey any of that in a useful way. By the same token, when those people *are* good teachers, do we keep them out of the classroom because their ‘expertise’ comes from experience rather than academic success? Never. 

This whole thing is bullshit. All those signal words—expertise, professional, layman, student, teacher, knower, wonderer, achievement—are deliberately misused, ignorant of their actual definitions and meanings, to make a faux-profound statement that has no purpose other than to bitch about how the Powers That Be are no longer as all-important in conferring expertise as they used to be.

You can be an expert without paying for it. That really pisses this person off.

(via aka14kgold)

"I worry that in an information-driven age of technological marvels, nobody will treat me like I’m a wizard-priest anymore."

(via blue-author)