Not To Sound Corny But The Textile Arts Make Me Feel Connected To The World Around Me. It's So Intentional

missing babe so much right now

you’ve saved me so much weapon durability in botw and i want to u to know u were appreciated

u cut my trees

u kaboom’d my bokos

i love u

Down by the banks of the hanky panky where the bullfrogs jump from bank to banky, with an eeps, ipes, oups, oops, you miss a lily pad cur-plop.

alright, question for the esteemed jury (though I imagine this will be a uniquely american, if not perhaps also canadian, experience):

are you familiar with the children's game that involves slapping hands around a circle while singing a song that begins "down by the banks of the hanky panky"

and if you are, how did the rest of the song go for you

And also remember he was too old to adopt in Tennessee because he was 18. This is mentioned in the movie, the book, and his memoir.

Remember The Blind Side starring Sandra Bullock? The movie showed how a kid who had an extremely rough upbringing got help from the family of a school friend, found success in football and ultimately ended up being adopted by the family. Turns out he was never adopted.

Michael Oher says that he was tricked by the Tuohy family into signing documents that made them his conservators. Since he was already 18 at the time the family told him, “that it means pretty much the exact same thing as 'adoptive parents,' but that the laws were just written in a way that took [his] age into account.”

Oher also says that papers were signed so that his story and likeness were given away for free to use in The Blind Side. He also never got a single royalty check for the hugely successful, Oscar nominated film in the 14 years since its release.

ESPN.com

'Blind Side' subject Oher alleges adoption was lie

In a 14-page court petition, the former NFL star alleges that Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy never adopted him, instead tricking him into signing

For your art request: can I ask for an art of Wolfie with Wild) I love these blorboes so much!

Your artstyle is so cool, I adore it enormously!!!)

Yawning is contagious...😪

Hate him and whatever. He's dumb. But what the heck are you encouraging doxxing? Violence is Not the answer!! Ignore him and make him irrelevant if you want, but you deserve to be pepper sprayed at least if you show up to his house. Swatting is attempted murder. Grow up. Be better.

I need all of these in my life.

SOKKA CENTRIC FICS

Here are some Sokka centric fics! Most of these works are not labeled as Sokka centric and so it’s very hard to find! There’s only 64 fics out of 15019 fics 

Keep reading

Imagine: a post apocalyptic world. No government. Every man for himself. And you pull up to a charging station for your electric car and pray there's gas in the generator 🤣🤣

Paleocons, preppers, libertarian rugged-individualists and others in their general orbit disliking electric cars is one of the most salient illustrations of "politics is 90% aesthetics" to me. Because here's the thing: gasoline goes bad. It only takes a couple months for it to degrade into non-usability. And extracting new gas out of the ground is hard—it requires massive, organized, often international industry. It requires society. You can't really dig it out of the ground yourself, as a rugged-individualist. And you can't stockpile it either, because as I said, it goes bad. Gasoline makes no sense as a fuel from an ultra-localist rugged-individualist prepper blah blah perspective. You basically have to rely on others to continually produce and provide it for you, from far away, in order for your machinery to run.

Electricity on the other hand? Anyone can generate electricity, it's fantastically simple to do. You can do it with a water wheel, you can do it by burning coal, basically if you have a way to make a thing spin you can generate electricity. And, hell, if you do happen to have some gasoline you can run a generator with it! Electrically powered devices in general are going to be far more portable, far more versatile, and far easier to actually run in the apocalypse or on your homestead when the fed collapses or whatever than gasoline powered ones.

But, well. Gas is old-school, it's manly, it smells like shit, and most importantly—the damn liberals hate it. Electricity is new-fangled, effeminate. Electric cars are for hippies and silicon valley weirdoes.

Pure aesthetics.

Now obviously electric cars as they exist right now have a lot of disadvantages, being relatively new technology and all. But you'd think it would be the preppers and the homesteaders and whatnot who would be most enthusiastic about seeing the technology develop. I mean, you would think that if you were ridiculously naive. But of course they aren't, that's not how the world works.

"Battles are ugly when women fight" =/= "women shouldn't fight ever." Jack never said that. In Narnia, women demonstrably do fight in battles. Case in point: Lucy in HHB, Jill in LB.

You can judge the moral value of any society based on how it treats its most vulnerable members: women, children, minorities. Women are inherently vulnerable in wartime. Any battle in which women must fight is de facto extremely ugly, and it reflects very poorly on the society that placed them in that position.

That said, "Women feel that they must fight in the battle because the situation is so desperate/the culture fails to recognize their vulnerability/the culture actively exploits them" is entirely different than "adult women choose to fight as a matter of calling and do so in culturally appropriate ways." There's a very good reason why most modern democratic nations allow women to enlist, but don't include women in their drafts.

Father Christmas says "battles are ugly when women fight" specifically to clarify that Susan and Lucy don't have to go into battle against the Witch even though he's arming them. He's saying, "That's not your job; Narnia won't put its women in positions where they must fight." This is not a remotely misogynist statement; it's saying that a noble society has a responsibility to care for women during wartime. Which. Yes.

The bible is incredibly edited. If it fits together, which is heavily does not, it's because someone arranged it to be that way. Books that didn't match up were discarded. It's nothing more than a collection of short stories, cultivated in a vain attempt to convince generations of people to pass judgement on others. There's not a shred of evidence a word of it is anything more than personal delusion. Believing is just buying into that delusion.

Actually, the Bible is the most authenticated ancient text known to man. What does that mean? A lot of things actually…

The Bible has the smallest time gap between the time it was first written and the earliest manuscripts we have. That is VERY important when we are dealing with ancient documents because it greatly increases probability of reliability. We are going to take a few moments to compare the New Testament to other ancient historical accounts that are considered trustworthy and reliable. I usually just link to this whole video but I felt like throwing in pictures this time because I’m Extra like that

By historical comparison, the earliest manuscripts we have of the New Testament were written in a shockingly short time span from when the original document was penned - a mere 50 years. But there is so much more…

Every single manuscript out of the 24,633 we have of the New Testament alone matches up virtually perfectly, which means they were copied, not edited. They were not perpetuated like a game of telephone, they are true to their original content. How does that compare to the works of other ancient text? Look how many we have of Caesar, Plato, and Tacitus in comparison to the New Testament:

The next closest in regards to the number of manuscripts we have would be Homer’s Iliad with a total of 643 manuscripts

That still leaves the Bible leading by 23,990 manuscripts.

The foundational points of Caesar’s life, the preservation of the Iliad, and the reliability of Tacitus’ writings are considered rock solid. We believe those events happened, we believe the stories told are ones the authors wrote. So why do we doubt the Bible which is FAR more trustworthy than anything else we have? 643 x 38.31 to be exact.

So internally it’s accurate, but what about externally? How do we know it is not simply the writers perpetuating a lie? Glad you asked! Next slide…

Apart from the Bible, we have 9 non-Christian outside sources and 33 Christian outside sources. That brings us to a total of 42 outside sources affirming the events and authenticity of the Bible. Compare that to the second place who would be Caesar of which we only have ten outside sources documenting his life.

We don’t doubt the events of Caesar’s life, we don’t say that there is no evidence to prove the words about him are true, we don’t claim that these other books are so heavily edited that we can no longer believe anything they say is accurate. So why do we doubt the Bible is true?

The Bible blows everything else away. It passes every test of authenticity by a massive amount. If we disregard the validity of the Bible, we have to discard everything we claim to know about ancient history because the Bible is the absolute highest standard for historical accuracy. That’s a fact. (You can watch the whole video including why the four eye-witness gospel accounts are important here)