do you ever do that thing where like your boob hurts for a minute and you’re like WHAT IF I HAVE CANCER

(Source: heartjoharvelle)

Saying No to the Prince

geekagora:

In the Prydain Chronicles, poor Taran is adopted and has no idea who his real parents are. He has high respect for royalty and nobility. He’s fast to bow down before anyone with a title, and is painfully aware of his no-name past when he falls in love with Princess Eilonwy. He feels he must be able to know who his parents are before he can ask her to marry him. And he idolizes Lord Gwydion, the noble and princely warrior who is of royal blood.

I’ve never appreciated it before, but in the final conflict, the enemy, Arawn, pretends to be Lord Gwydion in order to trick Taran. Taran realizes that what “Lord Gwydion” is saying is wrong, and resists his idol.

I’ve never stopped to think why that moment is so pivotal and symbolic. It’s not just another moment to advance the plot. No, Taran shows that although he will never be of noble birth, he is of noble worth. He’s finally learned that a good heart is more important than a good title. I can’t believe I had missed that symbolism until now. 

Anonymous asked: pls clarify

transschmuck:

lolz, about the Palestinian Jesus post I’m assuming? (I knew this was going to happen after I made that post saying you can ask me anything. But this is now proof).

Okay so the post is: Jesus was a homeless Palestinian anarchist who held protests at oppressive churches, advocated for universal health care and redistribution of wealth, before being arrested for terrorism, tortured and executed for crimes against the state, now go ahead and explain to me why he’d vote conservative. I’ll wait.

I don’t personally know enough about Jesus as a historical figure to confirm whether a lot of this is true — I don’t know if he advocated for universal health care, for instance. I’m assuming that idea comes from the New Testament where I think he’s described as healing the sick or something. Anyway. That’s not really the part I have a problem with.

What I do have a problem with is describing Jesus as a “Palestinian” who “held protests at oppressive churches” and was “arrested for terrorism, tortured, and executed for crimes against the state.” 

My overall problem with this wording is that it is trying to frame the history of Jesus in a very particular way, and it definitely attempts to invoke images of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the apartheid in Israel and then describing Jesus as if he exists within this modern day situation and as if he would be described as a Palestinian. While Jesus certainly did come from the area that is Palestine, Jesus was a Jew. And he lived in a Jewish community and had Jewish parents and had a Rabbi and read the Torah and had dreams about positive change in the Jewish community.

He was not a Palestinian, so it’s simply ridiculous to refer to him as one. But my real problem with describing Jesus as a Palestinian is that that description comes out of a desire to affirm the fact that Jesus was brown (which he certainly was, and he certainly was not a POC, framing Jesus in modern day US centric terms is absurd for many many reasons). But Jesus cannot be brown if he is a Jew, he can only be brown if he is Palestinian (and I say this sarcastically) because of the ways people *love* to frame Israeli Jews as white oppressors and Palestinians as POC. This framing is done to make the situation easier to understand, but the conflict/apartheid that exists in Israel/Palestine simply does not easily fit into the white/POC dichotomy that we love to use as a placeholder for all things bad that happen in the world.

Furthermore, the description that Jesus ”held protests at oppressive churches” is really grating to me because well 1. Churches? Really??? and 2. It’s an obvious use of the popular antisemitic ideology that the Jewish community and Judaism as whole is *super oppressive.*

As far as I know (which I admit, is not a lot — I am not a historian on Jesus), is that Jesus was not “protesting oppressive churches” (urgh), but he had issues with some of the practices in Judaism and was seeking to change them: He had no interest in *destroying the church* or dismantling the *oppressive structure that is Judaism*. (My dad often describes Jesus as the first Reform Jew)

And anyway, Jesus was not “arrested for terrorism.” Terrorism is a modern term, referring to specific sorts of actions in a modern day sense. It does not refer to any sort of action that Jesus took. Also the whole wording of the post makes it seem as though those *oppressive churches* were in control of the state and his protests of the church were also crimes against the state. And so this wording makes it seem as if the churches (read: Jewish institutions) were the same as the state and so we are of course invoking another antisemitic image — that the Jews killed Jesus. Of course.

TL;DR This post is attempting to use modern day situations to describe historical events, subtly describing modern day situations in a problematic and simplistic way, and using antisemitic imagery to describe why Jesus was so great.

So my response: Jesus was a poor brown Jewish boy who advocated for change in the Jewish community, before being arrested, tortured, and killed by foreign rulers who had already done the same to many members of his community, followed by his memory and life being appropriated by the same ruling group that had murdered him. Now go ahead and explain to me why you would ever try to describe him in any other way. I’ll wait.

girl are you matzah cause i’m getting kinda tired of you

alizabug:

I’ve posted this before but this gives me strength when I have none

(Source: videohall)

twinkleofafadingstar:

white girls can’t wear bindis because in sixth grade one time i was dropped off at school by my aunt who was wearing a bindi at the time and some girl’s mom whispered to her friend how she would never let her daughter play with me because my family had probably been happy about 9/11 and then four years later that daughter showed up to school wearing a bindi as part of her “”“boho”“” look

fight me

(Source: veronicamars)

spacerobot123456789:

*tips fedora at hazel grace* m’taphor

(Source: space1998)

fuckyeahsoftzionism:

wahnwitzig:

icarly-official:

if you use the bible as an excuse towards being anti gay dont forget that:

  • shrimp
  • pork
  • obesity
  • torn clothes (like ripped jeans)
  • wearing clothing made from 2 different fabrics
  • cutting your hair
  • shaving
  • tattoos
  • and working on Sundays

are all listed as abominations in the bible as well

Working on Saturdays

20,000+ gentiles don’t realize that jews are often pro- gay rights and yet have tremendous respect for these “outdated traditions”

blackmanonthemoon:

Anyone who believes 300 years of oppression can be undone in a 50 year span does not have a basic comprehension of how this subjugation can become internalized and normalized, thus continuing to be a serous social issue

fandomsandfeminism:

thepurposeismypenis:

tbh most of what i got out of tfios was that gus built up this huge persona of corny bravado to try to romanticize his own life as a desperate attempt to deal with the temporary nature of existence but cancer don’t give a shit if you sound like a teenage dirtbag that shit’ll come back to get you death doesn’t give a single solitary fuck

crossover where death from book thief rolls his eyes every time gus waters pulls a particularly pretentious line out of his ass thank

But, isn’t that sort of the point? Like, I’ve seen so much criticism about Gus going around lately and I just think it’s weird. 

Like, Augustus is TRYING to be brave in the face of his illness by dramatizing and romanticizing his life and ACTING in grand pretentious gestures as a coping mechanism. 

But through the book, we see that bravado slip away, and we see the REAL Gus. And through Hazel, we see was REAL strength and bravery is- not Augustus’s metaphors and eloquent meaningless ramblings about the infinite- but in the patience and love and small acts. 

Yeah, Gus is a pretentious 16 year old douche. But he’s also dying of cancer, and his idea of bravery is systematically deconstructed through the novel?

Tfios is in no way a PERFECT book, but I’m not sure where all this “the book sucks because Gus is pretentious” criticism is coming from. It’s like people only read the first 50 pages and then put the book down?

5evamore:

oatmeal’s kitniyot right?

i don’t even know why i asked this. how tired am i.