the amazing spider-man 2 + trivia

ewatsondaily:

"I decided that I was a feminist. This seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word. Women are choosing not to identify as feminists. Apparently, [women’s expression is] seen as too strong, too aggressive, anti-men, unattractive."

ewatsondaily:

"I decided that I was a feminist. This seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word. Women are choosing not to identify as feminists. Apparently, [women’s expression is] seen as too strong, too aggressive, anti-men, unattractive."

Xena + Costumes

We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for  l o v e . That is our great glory, and  o u r  g r e a t  t r a g e d y .

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

yanavaseva:

mechanicusdeus:

purebaldfury:

faidame:

wat rings u got bitch?

Thus the myth of the knight lumbering around like Frankenstein is busted

This myth bugs me to no end, so let me clear it up here and now:
A made-to-measure suit of full plate armour is (and ergo was) less cumbersome to wear than, say, an ill-fitting all-weather coat. It was expensive as heck, but the movement it afforded was surprisingly non-restrictive. Also remember that the men who wore these suits were usually quite physically fit (medieval knights - who were among the few who could afford the armour - were trained to fight from around 6 years-old), and were accustomed to training while wearing them.
Plate armour was moderately heavy, granted, but the weight was optimally distributed over the body, meaning the mostly costly aspect of wearing it was increased fatigue. It’s not heavy in the same way a hiking backpack is heavy. Any accounts of a knight being unable to rise after being knocked down were most likely because he was injured, dehydrated, or just plain exhausted - all of which being common in battle anyway. Regardless, it’s unlikely that it’s because his armour prevented him from moving… and the fallacy of knights requiring cranes to get onto their horses is just stupid.
The idea that full plate was sooo impractical is ludicrous; if it were, people wouldn’t have bothered with it.

"But plate armor is increadibly heavyyyy! Only giant musclemen can even move in iiiit! It’s completely useless against agile unarmored foooooes! Women can’t even put it oooon, its sole weight will nail them in one placeeee!"

If it’s not “the distraction factor" that people use to try to justify ridiculous female armor, it’s "agility".
We’ve featured another video that dispelled many myths about field plate armor, but the performers weren’t as agile as the noble knight above.
Partially this myth survives I think because like Dungeons and Dragons always insist on selling up the idea that heavier armors come with heavier agility penalties.  And to a certain extent, there are certain activities I wouldn’t expect to be able to do while wearing plate armor.
Rock climbing without tools or ropes
High diving and synchronized swimming
Aerial gymnastics 
Dancing en pointe
Okay I don’t do any of those things but you get the point.
Practical armor is made to allow at least a fair amount of agility for it’s wearer for a simple reason: The best defense is not to be in the way of the attack, that way you don’t suffer any of the impact.
Or to put it a simpler way:  Lots of safety gear is uncomfortable and encumbering, but was the last time you heard someone propose that workers should just go without - that way if there’s an accident they’ll be able to get out of the way quicker?
- wincenworks

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

yanavaseva:

mechanicusdeus:

purebaldfury:

faidame:

wat rings u got bitch?

Thus the myth of the knight lumbering around like Frankenstein is busted

This myth bugs me to no end, so let me clear it up here and now:

A made-to-measure suit of full plate armour is (and ergo was) less cumbersome to wear than, say, an ill-fitting all-weather coat. It was expensive as heck, but the movement it afforded was surprisingly non-restrictive. Also remember that the men who wore these suits were usually quite physically fit (medieval knights - who were among the few who could afford the armour - were trained to fight from around 6 years-old), and were accustomed to training while wearing them.

Plate armour was moderately heavy, granted, but the weight was optimally distributed over the body, meaning the mostly costly aspect of wearing it was increased fatigue. It’s not heavy in the same way a hiking backpack is heavy. Any accounts of a knight being unable to rise after being knocked down were most likely because he was injured, dehydrated, or just plain exhausted - all of which being common in battle anyway. Regardless, it’s unlikely that it’s because his armour prevented him from moving… and the fallacy of knights requiring cranes to get onto their horses is just stupid.

The idea that full plate was sooo impractical is ludicrous; if it were, people wouldn’t have bothered with it.

"But plate armor is increadibly heavyyyy! Only giant musclemen can even move in iiiit! It’s completely useless against agile unarmored foooooes! Women can’t even put it oooon, its sole weight will nail them in one placeeee!"

If it’s not “the distraction factor" that people use to try to justify ridiculous female armor, it’s "agility".

We’ve featured another video that dispelled many myths about field plate armor, but the performers weren’t as agile as the noble knight above.

Partially this myth survives I think because like Dungeons and Dragons always insist on selling up the idea that heavier armors come with heavier agility penalties.  And to a certain extent, there are certain activities I wouldn’t expect to be able to do while wearing plate armor.

  • Rock climbing without tools or ropes
  • High diving and synchronized swimming
  • Aerial gymnastics 
  • Dancing en pointe

Okay I don’t do any of those things but you get the point.

Practical armor is made to allow at least a fair amount of agility for it’s wearer for a simple reason: The best defense is not to be in the way of the attack, that way you don’t suffer any of the impact.

Or to put it a simpler way:  Lots of safety gear is uncomfortable and encumbering, but was the last time you heard someone propose that workers should just go without - that way if there’s an accident they’ll be able to get out of the way quicker?

- wincenworks

axbitofboth:

You have no idea how long I’ve waited for someone to STATE THE DAMN OBVIOUS

hiddleshabanera:

BEHOLD THE UNHOLY OFFSPRING OF LIGHTNING AND DEATH ITSELF

HERE YOU GO BABIES!! : Arrow Season 2 Bloopers

stardust-rain:

stardust-rain:

sometimes tumblr’s US-centric social justice makes me so fucking frustrated. Right now sweden’s third biggest party are literally neo-nazis and our elections couldn’t even get onto trending tags today, goddamit.

Okay, so the post is gaining notes and people are confused, so to explain what the hell is going on: 

image

Swedish elections held were on last Sunday, 14th September. We’ve had a right-leaning government the past eight years and after this there will be a change of power. The new party, Socialdemocrats (S) gained a total of 31% percent. The old party, Moderaterna (M) gained 21%. 

Sverigedemokraterna (SD) gained a total of 12.9%. Their policy is racist, Islamophobic, anti-immigration, anti-refugee, anti-diversity, anti-LGBT+, and anti-feminist. Basically, they tick every box on the douchebag lottery.

If you’re here to argue that they’re ~not actually~ Nazis: 1) Fuck you. 2) Fuck the horse the you rode in on. 3) I hope you get stepped on by a moose, you ignorant asswipe. 

  1.  they literally started as neo nazis. They have used a Neo-Nazi movement as campaign slogans,
  2. party members have assaulted immigrants with iron pipes (tw for racialised violence),
  3. worn Nazi symbols 
  4. supported and helped build Neo-Nazi group SvP.

There’s probably more, but I don’t have links on hand. 

They’ve been having rallies and demonstrations all over Sweden, and people have shown up just to turn their back on them and protest (this post explains it better). 

In the 2010 elections, SD were pretty much considered no better than neo-Nazis and only got 5.7% votes - it put them in 6th place and was just enough to get them into parliament. In the elections before that, they got about 2.9%. In the past four years, they’ve grown exponentially in Sweden.

They’ve also run extremely extensive PR campaigns, appealing to the youth, kicking out members “exposed” of being racist, (note: these members often end up in SvP) and picking up buzzwords from the Socialdemocrats’ ideology. 

29% of votes they gained this year were from swing voters who previously voted M,  and the biggest gain have been in the south, in small towns and the countryside:

image

This is not something that’s just going on in Sweden. Europe has seen an influx of extreme-right parties over the last decade or so, often thinly disguised as a party that puts ‘traditional values’ and ‘national interest’ first.

In Greece and Hungary they’ve already been in power. In Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Finland France and UK, extreme-right-wing parties have been voted into the EU. 

Because here’s the thing: we’ve forgotten what it looks like. We’ve gotten to the point where we’ve turned Nazism into a cartoonish lampoon of goose-stepping, uniforms and moral lessons that “we’ll never be like them~”, ignoring the fact nationalism is not as cut-and-dry two ends of an extreme but exists on a scale.

People have been apologising for SD’s actions for a while now because they’re not considered “extremist enough” to be neo-Nazis, because they don’t share the same beliefs, because they’ve “publicly denounced” SvP. 

But the same people still get hurt. Still SD has the institutional and systematic power and privilege to oppress, degrade and humiliate people of colour, which they already have done. Stop making excuses for them. Stop making leeways for right-wing-extremists because that is how they gain tract. 

Please spread this.