Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
4950 4286

n-a-blue-box:

sushinfood:

professorpher:

roachpatrol:

tederick:

themysteryofheaven:

Just some impressions from the making of Fury Road to remind you that they used as less CGI as possible. Thank you George ♥

George Miller the realest person you’re ever gonna meet.

are you fucking kidding me that was two straight hours of ACTUAL EXPLOSIONS 

The best part is that, from my understanding, there were quite a few scenes where George Miller said “No this is too dangerous we’ll do this in post” and the rest of the crew was like “NO LETS DO IT NOW WE CAN DO IT”

are you telling me this was fucking cirque du soleil in the desert with fucking explosions

Tom Hardy described it as slipknot meets cirque du soleil 

Reposted fromnigramors nigramors viasofias sofias
malschauen2

18 Science Facts We Didn't Know at The Start of 2017

We've learned so much already.

BEC CREW 26 MAY 2017

1. Lungs don't just facilitate respiration - they also make blood. Mammalian lungs produce more than 10 million platelets (tiny blood cells) per hour, which equates to the majority of platelets circulating the body.

2. It is mathematically possible to build an actual time machine - what's holding us back is finding materials that can physically bend the fabric of space-time.

3. Siberia has a colossal crater called the 'doorway to the underworld', and its permafrost is melting so fast, ancient forests are being exposed for the first time in 200,000 years.

4. The world's first semi-synthetic organisms are living among us - scientists have given rise to new lifeforms using an expanded, six-letter genetic code. 

5. Vantablack - the blackest material known to science - now comes in a handy 'spray-on' form and it's the weirdest thing we've seen so far this year.

6. It's official: time crystals are a new state of matter, and we now have an actual blueprint to create these "impossible" objects at will. 

7. A brand new human organ has been classified, and it's been hiding in plain sight this whole time. Everyone, meet your mesentery.

8. Carl Sagan was freakishly good at predicting the future - his disturbingly accurate description of a world where pseudoscience and scientific illiteracy reigns gave us all moment for pause.

9. A single giant neuron that wraps around the entire circumference of a mouse's brain has been identified, and it appears to be linked to mammalian consciousness. 

10. The world's rarest and most ancient dog isn't extinct after all - in fact, the outrageously handsome New Guinea highland wild dog appears to be thriving.

11. Your appendix might not be the useless evolutionary byproduct after all. Unlike your wisdom teeth, your appendix might actually be serving an important biological function - and one that our species isn't ready to give up just yet.

12. After 130 years, we might have to completely redraw the dinosaur family tree, thanks to a previously unimportant cat-sized fossil from Scotland.

13. Polycystic ovary syndrome might actually start in the brain, not the ovaries.

14. Earth appears to have a whole new continent called Zealandia, which would wreak havoc on all those textbooks and atlases we've got lying around.

15. Humans have had a bigger impact on Earth's geology than the infamous Great Oxidation Event 2.3 billion years ago, and now scientists are calling for a new geological epoch - the Anthropocene - to be officially recognised.

16. Turns out, narwhals - the precious unicorns of the sea - use their horns for hunting. But not how you'd think.

17. Human activity has literally changed the space surrounding our planet - decades of Very Low Frequency (VLF) radio communications have accidentally formed a protective, human-made bubble around Earth.

18. Farmers routinely feed red Skittles to their cattle, because it's a cheap alternative to corn. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

18 Science Facts We Didn't Know at The Start of 2017 - ScienceAlert
Reposted fromYYY YYY
malschauen2
Reposted fromFlau Flau viakonnex konnex
4363 45f2 500
Reposted fromtosiaa tosiaa
malschauen2
6184 2c2a 500
Reposted fromacetylcoa acetylcoa viawonko wonko
6432 6168 500

north-bi-northwest:

pocketrunner:

srsfunny:

An Idea To Prevent A Nuclear War

“My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, “George, I’m sorry but tens of millions must die.” He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It’s reality brought home.”
- Richard Fisher, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (1981)

Never forget that part of the reason this system was never implemented was that when he presented it to his colleagues, their response was IIRC “George, that’s terrible! If he has to take an innocent life, he may never press the button.”

Reposted fromturn20 turn20 viawonko wonko
malschauen2
0829 25a0
Reposted fromlokrund2015 lokrund2015 viawonko wonko
5138 7fa7 500
Reposted frompizza-piety pizza-piety viagingerglue gingerglue

sluttyshakespeare:

who fucking litters. why do i ever see litter. who thinks that’s okay. who. who NEEDS to throw their fast food bag out the fucking window instead of waiting until they get somewhere with a trashcan. what kinda clown behavior. get fucked.

Reposted fromAnimlaguy Animlaguy viaSirenensang Sirenensang
malschauen2
2611 be2c 500
Reposted fromno-rest-for-destka no-rest-for-destka
malschauen2
Play fullscreen

history of the entire world, i guess

Originally, in the 20s and 30s, the stereotype of someone who was schizophrenic was the housewife who was sad and withdrawn, and would not do her duties as a housewife; would not do the housework. This was the typical case of schizophrenia. And then, in the 60s, something shifted. The actual criteria for schizophrenia shifted. A lot of psychiatrists and hospitals and police were encountering young, angry Black men who were part of the civil rights movement. Who were part of the riots – the uprisings – in the Black Power movement. Who were angry. Who were perceiving a conspiracy of power against them, that was called paranoia. They would see it is white privilege, but it was called paranoia. And so we actually see the diagnositc criteria for schizophrenia change. So now you have anger and paranoia and hostility being included as criteria, whereas 30 years before they hadn’t been. Because the stereotype has changed. So there’s a way in which the DSM and the perspectives of the psychiatrists and the doctors who were giving these diagnoses is thoroughly politically constructed, and thoroughly dependent on the culture and context that they’re within.

Will Hall at Unitarian Church Vancouver Canada March 2012 - Transcript | Madness Radio (via blinko)

for anyone interested in reading more about how schizophrenia moved from being a diagnosis assigned to white, middle-class women to one used to pathologize and institutionalize noncompliant Black men in the 1960s, jonathan metzl’s the protest psychosis: how schizophrenia became a black disease is a good place to start. i have a PDF scan of it, too — just ask.

(via onegirlrhumba)

Reposted fromKaiju-Squidling Kaiju-Squidling
1394 d901 500

norcumi:

clarawebbwillcutoffyourhead:

…“But if that’s true, they should be extra double going to yoga classes. Why is the less violent gender the one learning all the emotional self regulation?
Because women are expected to regulate the emotions of men as well as themselves. They have to sharpen their emotional regulation skillz because they’ll be regulating for two even when they’re not pregnant. This has been a thing that’s starting to get noticed in feminist circles; the concept of unpaid emotional labor that women are expected to supply. This takes many forms (and I’ve written about this before) and at its most benign looks like listening, support and empathy. However, as it becomes more noxious, women are expected to read the emotions men and proactively protect them from their own negative emotions.
In my personal life, I remember a man telling me that women should reject men’s sexual advances in a way that won’t hurt the man’s feelings. And, that sounds reasonable on first glance. However, unfortunately, honest communication of the feelings “I am not sexually attracted to you” is considered hurtful to most men. So, women are forced to not communicate their honest feelings in order to protect the man from feeling anything bad.
For me, this need to protect men from the truth of my reality if it will hurt them has extended so deeply that I have laughed off sexual assault so that I would not hurt the feelings of the man who assaulted me. At great personal cost, I should add. A few years after that, I asked someone out, and was rejected by them and that experience split me wide open. Yes, being rejected was painful, but it was nothing — nothing — compared to the pain I absorbed trying to save men from the pain of rejection. Being rejected by someone I had a crush on led to my being sad for a few months. My absorbing sexual harassment from men so they wouldn’t have to face rejection led to years of flashbacks, depression, and an inability to work in my chosen profession.

Instead of learning how to take a rejection gracefully, men will claim women should “let them down easy.” It comes right down to that Margaret Atwood quote “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.” Men are so terrified of being laughed at, rejected or absorbing indignity in any way that they demand women risk physical violence so they don’t have to face the pain of rejection.
This is an unfair trade, and one that women only make because historically men have had power over us. If you need to rely on a male income for your livelihood, you have to make sure your presence improves the lived experience of your husband. Otherwise, he might kick you to the curb and you’d be fucked. Even now, with a continued disparity in earning potential, women will often manage male emotions so that a woman can be assured of material support by providing emotional value to her partner. Often, this goes beyond the conscious recognition of the men who receive it.
I remember one of my male friends was a complete wreck during his divorce. He relied on me so much emotionally after he lost the support of his wife (wanting to talk with me, wanting to cuddle with me, etc.) that I completely started to break down. I had to set some hard limits (like, not seeing him for a week) that didn’t go over very well. Our friendship was severely strained until he started seeing a dominatrix whose demands included health conscious things like getting him to quit smoking and going gluten free. What I see now, in retrospect, is that this dominatrix did a bunch of the emotional management he had received from his wife, and that I was not willing to provide. Ultimately, my friend got a new girlfriend (who he’s now married to) and stopped seeing his dom.”

https://medium.com/@emmalindsay/men-dump-their-anger-into-women-d5b641fa37bc

“So many men I know are unable to live a happy life when they don’t have a woman who stops them from feeling the negative feelings that accompany their poor life decisions. It’s notable that they often do not stop making these poor life decisions.“

Reposted fromthefandomhoarder thefandomhoarder
4945 f886

noccor:

sleepyminyard:

haramzada:

awkwardlyinsane:

Oh

All sports are gay and I’ve been preaching this forever

fun fact: the media keeps trying to imply that diego costa (white jersey) bit gareth barry (blue jersey) out of some sort of hetero football-rage during the game but barry insists it wasn’t a bite which is apparently a hard concept for the football association to grasp cause they cant think of any other explaination for the above image lmao

That ain’t no bite

Reposted fromtuba-ornot-tuba tuba-ornot-tuba
malschauen2
Play fullscreen
summer's coming
Reposted fromdhoop dhoop viagingerglue gingerglue
malschauen2

Und dann erzählt er in Bildern und Sprechblasen, was er erlebt hat, als er auf einer reinen Jungenschule war. "Wir wussten nichts", sagt er über die Ideen, die er und seine Freunde als Teenager hatten, Vorstellungen von Männlichkeit. "Also schnappten wir uns das erstbeste, das vorbei kam und benahmen uns, als hätten wir alles längst kapiert."

Diese Männlichkeit beinhaltete Wettkampf, Ellenbogenmentalität und die Regel 'verspotte oder du wirst verspottet'. Und Frauen? Die gab es zuerst nicht und dann, als der Sex eine Rolle zu spielen begann, ging es wieder nur um Sieg, Wettkampf, Ego.
Reposted fromsouping souping viagingerglue gingerglue

Frauen an der Macht

Von Tove Tovesson

„Sie ist radikal und skrupellos. Trotzdem hat Marine Le Pen gute Chancen, den ersten Wahlgang zu gewinnen. Warum thematisiert niemand, dass es eine Frau ist, die es so weit gebracht hat?„, heißt es auf „Zeit Online“. Darauf habe ich ungefähr 780 Antworten. Ein Auszug: Es wird nie nicht „thematisiert“, dass (und wenn ja, ob wirklich!) eine öffentliche Person eine Frau ist. Wo nur möglich, wird es gegen Frauen verwendet, dass sie Frauen sind.

© Tine Fetz

Warum eigentlich „trotzdem“? Bezieht sich die Verwunderung darauf, dass eine radikale und skrupellose Person eine Wahl gewinnen könnte, oder darauf, dass sie eine Frau ist, die Eigenschaften hat, die in der Vorstellung von „Zeit“-Redakteur*innen so gar nicht fraulich sind? Oder darauf, dass doch allgemein bekannt ist, dass die Gesellschaft Frauen verachtet? Über politische Inhalte möchte die „Zeit“ offenbar nicht reden, trotzdem sei gesagt: Radikal und skrupellos passt anscheinend ganz gut zur Stimmung der wählenden Bevölkerung. Sie ist radikal und skrupellos.

Wie kann es nun sein, dass es eine Frau in diesem Kontext so weit bringt? Oder auch: Kann man das nicht irgendwie gegen Frauen verwenden, dass so ein besonders verkommenes Exemplar …?

Es gibt sie, die Feministinnen, deren Ziel „die Hälfte der Macht“ oder eine ähnlich unkritische Version von Gleichberechtigung ist. Es ist ein vergleichsweise unbedrohlicher Feminismus für das Patriarchat und lohnt sich vor allem für Frauen, denen es schon relativ gut geht, also deren einziges strukturelles Problem ist, dass sie Frauen sind. Aber auch für Männer springt etwas dabei heraus, im Scheinwerferlicht den Kuchen mit einer Frau zu teilen, nämlich der Schein der Progressivität. Eine Frau mit Macht und ohne tatsächlich progressive Agenda ist ein neoliberaler Deflektorschild. Denn ist Ungerechtigkeit nicht ein kleines bisschen weniger schlimm, wenn eine Frau sie propagiert? Und kann diese Frau sich deshalb sogar für eine Weile ein bisschen mehr Scheußlichkeit erlauben?

Eine extreme rechte Frau bedient somit nicht nur rechte, sondern auch neoliberale Ideologie, denn der Neoliberalismus hat kein Problem mit Macht und Gewalt an sich. Nur selbst zu den Verlierer*innen zu gehören, das wäre ungut. Diese müssen dann nur noch mit Pseudogerechtigkeit mundtot gemacht werden, damit der Laden unbehelligt läuft. Seht her, Frauen als Staatsoberhäupter, Personen of Color als Cops, sogar mit Hijab und Dastar, Pepsi gegen Polizeigewalt. Gleichberechtigung, Diversity!

„Viele Liberale hoffen, dass Ivanka Trump mäßigend auf ihren Vater wirkt. Nun trifft sie auf die Kanzlerin. Aber was, wenn die Tochter den US-Präsidenten nicht korrigiert – sondern seine Komplizin ist?“, fragt sich ebenfalls ein Mensch bei „Zeit Online“. Das mit der Komplizenschaft ist schnell abgehandelt, wenn man sich erinnert, dass Trump nicht nur von weißen Männern, sondern ebenso von weißen Frauen zum Präsidenten gemacht wurde. Ist es nicht sogar besonders aufschlussreich und belastend, dass weiße Frauen in dieser Wahl ihren Rassismus über Frauenrechte gestellt haben? Scheiß auf körperliche Selbstbestimmung. Frauen sind keine passiven Bystander im Rassismus, sondern davon entweder positiv oder negativ betroffen. Die Unschuldsvermutung gegen weiße Frauen ist ebenso unberechtigt wie hartnäckig.

Töchter zu haben hält Männer auch nicht davon ab, widerliche Macker zu sein. Der Zauber der Immunität durch Proximität wird aber gern bemüht. Eine erwachsene Frau, die sich neben jemanden wie Trump stellt, sollte in ihrer Haltung ernst genommen werden, statt ignorant weibliche Tugenden der Mäßigung auf sie zu projizieren.

Konservative verstehen und unterstützen Frauen als Hostessen für den gleichen Scheiß, den alte Männer langsam nicht mehr alleine abziehen können. Frauen an der Macht sind kein begrüßenswerter Anbruch einer neuen Zeit, sondern alter Lack in neuen Schläuchen.

Reposted fromfeminism feminism
3373 233f 500

thedorktimes:

Marvel dads and their kids

4670 da98 500

tikkunolamorgtfo:

fenrir-kin:

goingtobed:

This is fake. HOWEVER,

This Chinese lesbian billionaire couple, is real. 

image

This is GiGi Chao (right) and her Wife, Sean Eav (left). Chao’s father was offering a TON of money to any man who’d marry his daughter, and she publicly responded saying she would marry a man when he does. #iconic. Read the links for more!

much better

Okay, but why would you use that picture when this amazing photo of Sean and Gigi with their dogs exists: 

Reposted fromtsukana tsukana
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl