gallusrostromegalus:

katy-l-wood:

It amuses me when small-town real estate listings say things are within walking distance. Literally everything is within walking distance. Your town is three streets and then you hit wilderness filled with bears.

Important variation: Your mountain town is only three streets but the two interestctions are 12 miles apart due to the hilarious flailing of municipal organizations in the face of inconveinient geography.  Everything is still full of bears.

unsahikable:

literally how hard would it have been for jkr to say something like “listen I was writing it in the 90s, I was inexperienced, I was writing from my own point of view, I didn’t realise how underrepresented a lot of people are, I wasn’t thinking about anything other than the plot, I accept that it’s a little sparse on the diversity front, I can try to be more self aware with my future works” etc etc instead of.. this nonsense

cyberpigeon-remade:

ineedarendezvous:

mumblingsage:

beinggayisreallyexpensive:

Why do (esp white) men love having fights about politics where they change topics 6x to confuse you and then try and make you look dumb because you can’t jump between the points bc you’re too busy arguing the separate distinct points bc you thought that’s what the fight was about

“The Gish gallop allows a debater to hit their opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate. In practice, each point raised by the “Gish galloper” takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place,[4] which wastes the opponent’s time and can cast doubt about their debating ability in an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved.[5] …If one is familiar with an opponent who is known to use the Gish gallop, the technique can be countered somewhat by preempting and refuting their commonly used arguments before they have the chance.[7]“ 

Or sometimes it could help to point out that they’re doing it, though I suspect the kind of person who does this is the kind of person who responds to “Wow, you’re Gish galloping” with “ad hominem!” 

People who do this know they look like they’re winning to the audience. They make lots of short snappy inaccurate points and you’re fumbling to refute with full facts and explanations.

add. to the previous response:

inkskinned:

when someone loves you – really loves you – treat them gently. text your best friend back when you can. tell your mother you noticed her haircut and that she was right about that recipe. tell your grandfather that the boats in his bottles are the best things you’ve ever seen. be good to the people who are good to you. it’s the least you can do.

fivemanwaltz:

ladyoflate:

not voting isn’t refusing to play the game. You’re in this country, you’re subject to the game whether you like it or not. The only way not to play is to leave, and the vast majority of us don’t have that option.

Not voting is playing the game but saying ‘pass’ every time your turn comes up and then wondering why you lost.

Making young people not vote is actually a tactic used in politics to keep the satus quo. The young vote is always the one for change, so dissuading them from voting at all is actually a political tactic used by the people in charge to keep themselves there.

Voting is rebellion.