it’s so dumb that piercings and tattoos can impact your ability to find a job. employers shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation, or level of punk-rockness
If you were about to have a surgery done, would you feel comfortable if she/he had gages and tattoos all over their face?
I mean presumably they went to medical school I literally would not give a single shit what they decided to put on their face
I can understand it to a certain degree depending on the job — and let me reveal my bias: I’m military, and while (most) tattoos are generally fine, piercings are not — but overall it comes down to professionalism. Can the job still be done at top levels while maintaining the air of professionalism if the members have tattoos/piercings/faddish hairstyles or clothing, etc?
From a military standpoint, we’re meant to look uniform, so this a definite no. Other professions might have the same mentality — they want to present a uniform, professional appearance, and that mandates a dress code of sorts. Unfortunately, the hardline stance the military takes doesn’t make sense in the civilian world, especially with the growing freedom in fashion trends, so professional dress codes at work will need to adapt with the times.
“I don’t expect gay people to prove to me, a straight person, that there’s actually homophobia. I don’t expect poor people to prove to me, a Harvard grad, that hunger and poverty are widespread problems. And if someone asked me, as an Asian person, to “prove” to them that racism exists, I would laugh all the way back to Chinatown. Marginalized groups are not responsible for explaining their marginalization to you. If you are actually concerned, you would take the initiative to do some research yourself instead of showing up at some oppressed group’s door step demanding a list of citations for things (racism, sexism, etc.) that are proven time and time again in the real world.”—WORD (via englishjakes)
You ever find yourself not caring for a character, not because the writers don’t care for them, but because they care for them too much. It’s like I can’t take their struggles seriously because I know they’re gonna come out on top. Mainly at the expense of minority characters.
Okay, okay, I’m going to tell you what Hermione sees in Ron.
A trio is a balancing act, right? They’re equalizers of each other. Harry’s like the action, Hermione’s the brains, Ron’s the heart. Hermione has been assassinated in these movies, and I mean that genuinely—by giving her every single positive character trait that Ron has, they have assassinated her character in the movies. She’s been harmed by being made to be less human, because everything good Ron has, she’s been given.
So, for instance: “If you want to kill Harry, you’re going to have to kill me too”—RON, leg is broken, he’s in pain, gets up and stands in front of Harry and says this. Who gets that line in the movie? Hermione.
“Fear of a name increases the fear of the thing itself.” Hermione doesn’t say Voldemort’s name until well into the books—that’s Dumbledore’s line. When does Hermione say it in the movies? Beginning of Movie 2.
When the Devil’s Snare is curling itself around everybody, Hermione panics, and Ron is the one who keeps his head and says “Are you a witch or not?” In the movie, everybody else panics and Hermione keeps her head and does the biggest, brightest flare of sunlight spell there ever was.
So, Hermione—all her flaws were shaved away in the films. And that sounds like you’re making a kick-ass, amazing character, and what you’re doing is dehumanizing her. And it pisses me off. It really does.
In the books, they balance each other out, because where Hermione gets frazzled and maybe her rationality overtakes some of her instinct, Ron has that to back it up; Ron has a kind of emotional grounding that can keep Hermione’s hyper-rationalness in check. Sometimes Hermione’s super-logical nature grates Harry and bothers him, and isn’t the thing he needs even if it’s the right thing, like when she says “You have a saving people thing.” That is the thing that Harry needed to hear, she’s a hundred percent right, but the way she does it is wrong. That’s the classic “she’s super logical, she’s super brilliant, but she doesn’t know how to handle people emotionally,” at least Harry.
So in the books they are this balanced group, and in the movies, in the movies—hell, not even Harry is good enough for Hermione in the movies. No one’s good enough for Hermione in the movies—God isn’t good enough for Hermione in the movies! Hermione is everybody’s everything in the movies.
Harry’s idea to jump on the dragon in the books, who gets it in the movies? Hermione, who hates to fly. Hermione, who overcomes her withering fear of flying to take over Harry’s big idea to get out of the—like, why does Hermione get all these moments?
[John: Because we need to market the movie to girls.]
I think girls like the books, period. And like the Hermione in the books, and like the Hermione in the books just fine before Hollywood made her idealized and perfect. And if they would have trusted that, they would have been just fine.
Would the movies have been bad if she was as awesome as she was in the books, and as human as she was in the books? Would the movies get worse?
She IS a strong girl character. This is the thing that pisses me off. They are equating “strong” with superhuman. To me, the Hermione in the book is twelve times stronger than the completely unreachable ideal of Hermione in the movies. Give me the Hermione in the book who’s human and has flaws any single day of the week.
Here’s a classic example: When Snape in the first book yells at Hermione for being an insufferable know-it-all, do you want to know what Ron says in the book? “Well, you’re asking the questions, and she has to answer. Why ask if you don’t want to be told?” What does he say in the movie? “He’s got a point, you know.” Ron? Would never do that. Would NEVER do that, even before he liked Hermione. Ron would never do that.
”—Melissa Anelli THROWS IT DOWN about the way Ron and Hermione have been adapted in the movies on the latest episode of PotterCast. Listen here. This glorious rant starts at about 49:00. (via karakamos)
God, I’m just so happy Erica, Boyd and Cora left together for south america. I’m thrilled Boyd taught Erica to drive so she could get her license, and Cora refuses to learn so she makes them drive her everywhere. I love that they are in a beautiful polyamerous relationship and nothing bad ever happens to them ever again.
When I’m a parent I’m definitely going to ask my child often “are you okay?” I never want my child to be crying their eyes out when I’m peacefully sleeping under the same roof and I certainly never want them to feel like there’s nobody there for them. Because I always will be
Roughly defined, the Quantum Queer Effect is the process by which, in terms of how they are viewed by outsiders, nonmonosexual individuals exist in an ambiguous state of “kinda queer, kinda not” until they are reduced to “gay” or “straight” by outside observers.
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
Derek being a king and Deaton being the rook might mean Deaton is actually good. There's a sort of divine move in chess called 'castling' and it's the only time you can move two pieces (the rook and king) at once and it allows the rook and king to swap places - it gets the king (Derek) stay out of danger and allows the rook (Deaton) to attack. Castling can often be the single most important move of the game. Deaton could finally do some good for Derek. He might sacrifice himself for him.
OMFG! Could that be the divine move?! The move that turns the tide of the game. The move that switches the game from a loss to a win????