Ate a Sherlock wrap at Speedy’s today! Then bought a print of the original Reichenbach Falls illustration at the Sherlock Holmes Museum gift shop on Baker St (but didn’t go to the museum - glad I wasn’t planning to, because the line was a block long!).

The problem is that white people see racism as conscious hate, when racism is bigger than that. Racism is a complex system of social and political levers and pulleys set up generations ago to continue working on the behalf of whites at other people’s expense, whether whites know/like it or not. Racism is an insidious cultural disease. It is so insidious that it doesn’t care if you are a white person who likes black people; it’s still going to find a way to infect how you deal with people who don’t look like you. Yes, racism looks like hate, but hate is just one manifestation. Privilege is another. Access is another. Ignorance is another. Apathy is another. And so on. So while I agree with people who say no one is born racist, it remains a powerful system that we’re immediately born into. It’s like being born into air: you take it in as soon as you breathe. It’s not a cold that you can get over. There is no anti-racist certification class. It’s a set of socioeconomic traps and cultural values that are fired up every time we interact with the world. It is a thing you have to keep scooping out of the boat of your life to keep from drowning in it. I know it’s hard work, but it’s the price you pay for owning everything.

Scott Woods (X)

he motherfucking dropped the truth.

(via mesmerisme)

THAT’S THE PRICE YOU PAY FOR OWNING EVERYTHING

(via queerfabulousmermaid)

this is a super important explanation to think about whenever you feel like telling someone that something isn’t racist because you don’t hate x person.

(via robotsandfrippary)

I probably reblogged in the past, but here it is again in that case.

(via feministdisney)
Tags: racism

violethuntress:

sherhclmes:

s  h  e  r  l  o   c  k   i s    g  a  a  a  a   y  x ]

Why aren’t more people talking about this? Why did I never notice this quotation before? It seems legit, right?

I actually do wonder, in a non-rhetorical sort of way, what conclusion they came to. Because the next episode after series 1 is ASiB, and, well, it’s definitely not obvious from that episode either, even though the episode brings up more explicitly than any other.

Anyway, interesting quote that I didn’t know existed. Very curious as to what they came up with. They can let us know any time…preferable within the show!

Reblogged from Spoil Me
acafanmom:

Lauren Bacall (with Humphrey Bogart, June Havoc, and Danny Kaye) at a hearing of the House Un-American Activities Committee while in Washington to protest HUAC’s violation of freedom of speech.

acafanmom:

Lauren Bacall (with Humphrey Bogart, June Havoc, and Danny Kaye) at a hearing of the House Un-American Activities Committee while in Washington to protest HUAC’s violation of freedom of speech.

Reblogged from acafanmom

sherholmies:

Sherlock au where everything is the same but sherlock wears this all the time and refuses to take it off

image

micdotcom:

Days after Michael Brown’s death, Ferguson looks like a war zone

A vigil held for Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager gunned down by Ferguson, Mo., police on Saturday in disputed circumstances, turned into what the media described as a riot on Monday evening.

But while national coverage has focused on the indisputably counterproductive violence and destruction committed by Ferguson residents during a moment of anguish, videos and photos taken from the scene show local police aggravating the situation as well.

Years of tension have reached a boiling point

Reblogged from Bitch, I'll sue you

nondeducible:

anigrrrl2:

martinfreeman:

Wait is Martin sick? What happened? Is he ok?

I think he’s sick and missed yesterday’s performance. Poor baby’s exhausted, I think. 

When are your tickets for?

we’re going on the 21st. he’ll be ok by then right? right?

Holy shit, so glad I saw him this weekend and wasn’t planning for a couple days later! Though it would have been cool to see it again with the understudies. But only if it was a second time!

… Radway’s account of the “Ideal Romance” formula:
1. The heroine’s social identity is destroyed.
2. The heroine reacts antagonistically to an aristocratic
male.
3. The aristocratic male responds ambiguously to the
heroine.
7. The heroine and hero are physically and/or emotionally
separated.
8. The hero treats the heroine tenderly.
9. The heroine responds warmly to the hero’s act of
tenderness.
10. The heroine reinterprets the hero’s ambiguous
behavior as the product of a previous hurt.
11. The hero proposes/openly declares his love for/
demonstrates his unwavering commitment to the heroine
with a supreme act of tenderness.
12. The heroine responds sexually and emotionally.
13. The heroine’s identity is restored.
(Radway 1985, 187)

Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers

I’m just going to leave this here. For every “heroine” read “John.”

(via ceapcologne)

For me this relates to this ongoing discussion on mild-lunacy ‘s blog about  whether John is aware that Sherlock is in love with him. Because if we interpret Sherlock’s best man speech/the Waltz scene as #11, then what follows is John’s emotional response and we’re near the end of the romantic arc. I guess one interpretation is as follows:

The “Ideal Romance” formula:

1. The heroine’s social identity is destroyed.

ASiP

Mike Stamford: That’s not the John Watson I know.
John: Yeah, I’m not the John Watson …

Donovan: He doesn’t have friends. So who are you?
John: I’m … I’m nobody.


2. The heroine reacts antagonistically to an aristocratic male.

TBB (for example)

(John comes back when he didn’t get the shopping)

John: You could always go yourself, you know. You’ve been sitting there all morning. You’ve not even moved since I left.


3. The aristocratic male responds ambiguously to the heroine.

ASiB

John: So, she’s alive then. How are we feeling about that?
Sherlock: Happy New Year, John.

4. The heroine and hero are physically and/or emotionally separated.

TRF

He was my best friend and I’ll always believe in him.” (John’s blog)

5. The hero treats the heroine tenderly.

TSoT

Sherlock: “So if I didn’t understand I was being asked to be best man, it is because I never expected to be anybody’s best friend. Certainly not the best friend of the bravest and kindest and wisest human being I have ever had the good fortune of knowing.”

6. The heroine responds warmly to the hero’s act of tenderness.

image


7. The heroine reinterprets the hero’s ambiguous behavior as the product of a previous hurt.

HLV

John: If you were anywhere near this kind of thing again, you could have called, you could have talked to me.
Sherlock: Please do relax. This is all for a case.

I think that at the beginning of HLV one of many things John is feeling is that Sherlock is avoiding him because he got married. John was worried about that, he told him : “you know it won’t alter anything, right, me and Mary, getting married? We’ll still be doing all this.” 


8. The hero proposes/openly declares his love for/demonstrates his unwavering commitment to the heroine with a supreme act of tenderness.

This hasn’t happened yet [S 4/5]


9. The heroine responds sexually and emotionally.

[S 4/5]


10. The heroine’s identity is restored.
[S 4/5]

(text source)

(via natka-natka-natka)

Yessss! I was a bit skeptical about ‘heroine reacts antagonistically’, but I guess Series 1 was too long ago, haha. John was so irritated, wasn’t he? Ahh, the good old days, haha. I’m fascinated by the process— possibly begun in TSoT— of John starting to understand Sherlock and want to help him emotionally, reassure him, etc. It’s in its very beginning stages, though, since they’ve had such setbacks with everything in HLV.

But yes, this is what I meant when I said John realizing Sherlock’s feelings would ‘change everything’: the heroine (John) would respond sexually and emotionally— for sure at least very emotionally!— if the hero really demonstrated his devotion to John’s satisfaction or conviction of its purity and veracity. These two things happen almost simultaneously: the tenderness and the tender, passionate response are a united movement, since it’s essentially— together— what constitutes the romantic resolution. You can’t ‘sorta kinda maybe’ have a resolution with a classic arc like this. It has to be another misunderstanding, because the resolution is undoubtable, pure tender passion. In idealized romance arcs, I mean.

(via mild-lunacy)

Wait. Shooting Magnuson wasn’t a supreme act of tenderness? I’d mark number 8 as hit in HLV.

(via fffinnagain)

No, it’s not; coming back to life for John is probably closer, but that’s not it either. So is dragging John from the fire, jumping from Barts, and agreeing to die with a look at the Pool. This points at the problem we have in Sherlock, though: it’s not a classic romance in terms of genre. If you interpret either Sherlock’s or John’s actions purely romantically, you’d be misinterpreting the plot in many cases. They do big dramatic things for each other out of love and loyalty with some regularity (since Series 1, episode 1). In the case of Magnussen, once again Sherlock did what he had to do in order to take care of Magnussen and to tell Mary ‘she’s safe now’. Sure, this is another instance of sacrificing themselves for the other, but that’s essentially par for the course. They’re Holmes and Watson: what else would they do?

People may misinterpret this the same way they misinterpreted the Barts fall: because surely, it’s ‘romantic’. But that’s in terms of subjective judgment, not structural intent. As I said, though, this highlights a sort of problem, which is that this isn’t a classic romance in terms of genre, even if certain strong elements exist on the supplementary and archetypal levels. I talked about this as a difference between epic friendship-driven and romantic arc narratives when I discussed resolving the Sherlockian epic:

Usually someone dies (or nearly dies), and the other sacrifices (or nearly sacrifices) themselves to save them. I feel like the sexual gets sublimated into the mortal/spiritual, and that’s a foundational difference of driving energies. There’s a lot of dying for, killing for, sacrificing for, trusting vs betraying, etc. In romance, some of that still exists, but on the back burner. The focus is generally on living for, fighting for, feeling angst over, feeling jealousy for, etc. The ‘climax’ is life-or-death in one, and, frankly, sex-or-marriage in the other.

I’d thought that because so many more plot arc elements point to sacrifice and betrayal rather than jealousy or marriage, what we had was an epic friendship; clearly, I’ve changed my mind, but even so there has to be a hybrid structure. Romantic arc elements still exist, but one cannot mistake the fact that the establishment of an epic friendship is also a really strong structural aspect. In other words, whatever happens to establish Sherlock’s feelings to John (and vice versa) ought to be connected to their ‘work life’ but also clearly delineated as separate, as being about them: not about Mary, not about anyone else. That moment has to be singular and utterly unlike anything that came before, to have the power to smash John and Sherlock’s illusions about themselves and each other, to be transformational. It’s a delicate thing to portray while leaving the old Sherlock and John behind, but I have trust in Mofftiss.

(via mild-lunacy)
Tags: meta

auburnrecluse:

chescaleigh:

Robin Williams Is NOT Free (via Phoebe Gavin)

Did you know that suicide is contagious?
Yep. A great deal of research has been done on cases spanning the last three hundred years the show that suicide rates spike after a highly publicized suicide – especially when it’s a celebrity suicide.
Does that mean we shouldn’t talk about suicide or Robin Williams? No. It means we should talk about suicide and Robin Williams responsibly.
From the CDC: ASPECTS OF NEWS COVERAGE THAT CAN PROMOTE SUICIDE CONTAGION
  • Presenting simplistic explanations for suicide
  • Engaging in repetitive, ongoing, or excessive reporting of suicide in the news
  • Providing sensational coverage of suicide
  • Reporting “how-to” descriptions of suicide
  • Presenting suicide as a tool for accomplishing certain ends
  • Glorifying suicide or persons who commit suicide
  • Focusing on the suicide completer’s positive characteristics
"But Phoebe, they’re basically saying don’t talk about suicide."
No, they’re saying is don’t make it sound attractive. 

An example of what not to do: 

Robin Williams is NOT free.

Please watch this. 

This is very important. As someone who has been suicidal in the past, please know that it can get better. But it doesn’t happen like a switch- you don’t just press a button and never feel depressed again. It’s a lifelong process, pushing back the dark thoughts and choosing the light. There are good days and bad. But when you consider the altnerative, that suicide is the end of all days, the closing of all chapters, it’s worth every moment. Choose life.

Reblogged from Me
Tags: tw: suicide

penns-woods:

I am tormented by Martin Freeman’s adorableness… And his beard.

He and it were SO FREAKING ADORABLE in person! (Out of character, at the stage door, that is - nothing adorable about him onstage in this one.)

Reblogged from Pennswoods
Rest in Peace, Robin Williams.
July 21st, 1951 - August 11th, 2014

Thank you for bringing joy into my childhood and life with your voice and acting. Thank you for your contagious jokes, your wacky impersonations, and amazing acting. Thank you for making my childhood experience better, and thank you for bringing joy to those even though you battled with your own joy. If only you could have known how much you’ve impacted people. Your life work will live on, and you will never be forgotten. I know I won’t forget you. Thank you for helping me whenever I felt sad and having a film for every mood. Gone, but never forgotten.

Reblogged from Cumberbuddy

mishasminions:

but Peter Pan isn’t supposed to die