can you imagine how fucking relieved the french must have been when we reached the year 2000? 

they went from having to say “mille neuf cents quatre-vingt-dix-neuf” to just having to say “deux mille” to say the year

(Source: wingedpikmin)



How Frozen Should Have Ended




We can’t be the only planet with a Scotland.

Scientific fact: EVERY planet has a Scotland.



We can’t be the only planet with a Scotland.

Scientific fact: EVERY planet has a Scotland.

(Source: thorinium)


if you ever think English is not a shit language just remember that read and lead rhyme and read and lead rhyme, but read and lead don’t rhyme, and neither do read and lead.


» The Art of Acting by Tatiana Maslany

Holding a glass/mug (submitted by sirhughlaurie)

A subtle change in traits. Each of the clone hold their glasses in a different way. We haven’t seen Sarah hold wine glasses a lot, but she uses her whole hand to hold a bottle or a mug. Alison holds them by her finger tips and Cosima uses a couple of fingers.

If you have noticed anymore, do message me.

(Source: karrinmurphs)





I don’t understand because wasn’t Olaf’s actions of lighting the fire, almost melting and then trying to save her and act of true love and shouldnt that have unfrozen her heart?

oh shit

that could be said about almost everything in this movie. wasn’t kristoff’s actions of bringing her to the trolls in an attempt to have the magic reversed an act of true love? wasn’t him bringing her to hans despite his feeling for her because he believed it would save her life an act of true love? wasn’t kristoff coming back for her when he realized she was still in danger an act of true love?  Wasn’t Elsa staying away from her and leaving the castle in fear of her safety an act of true love? Everyone in this movie was constantly showing her love without her even noticing.

Anna was the only one who didn’t know what love was and the only one who hadn’t ever sacrificed anything for it. The act of true love wasn’t for someone else to do for her which everyone always constantly did. She had to unfreeze her own heart.


(Source: kisedbyfire)

It does not matter if biology claims trans women are males. Biology is not concerned with the violence done to people. Biology is not a shield to do violence to people, and indeed, the admittedly flawed models of colloquial biology often cited against trans women have also been used to justify and make excuses for violence against minority populations in oppressive systems.

Violence is still violence. It is still immoral, still unethical, and defending it is immoral and unethical.

Psychology, sociology, anthropology, physiology, medicine — these sciences have all proven that calling a trans woman a man is violence.

So it doesn’t matter if biology says male when biology, itself, is being violent, according to other sciences.

Because that violence is still violence.

Violence is not limited to broken bones and bruised flesh and physical damage visible to the seeing (an ableist concept itself, so compounding the violence there).

It is words. Ask those fleeing persecution, read history, talk to survivors of child abuse and domestic violence and prison violence.

Words are just as physically damaging - and according to many measures more so, since the brain treats those words no differently than it treats the body blows.

It sends the chemicals out to the flesh and the organs and it sears synapses and it lasts long after the bruises and the broken bones have mended.

Calling trans women men is violence. It has physical, measurable consequence, and it endures and we know that this applies even when it is strangers.

The science establishes it.

This is fact. Not opinion.

Calling a trans woman a man is an act of violence, an assault, and those who do so are being violent, are being immoral, are being unethical.

Silence in the face of violence is complicity, especially when that violence is social. Defense of calling a trans woman a man is defending violence.

Liking it, re blogging it without calling it out, these are forms of complicity.

If you can tolerate violence against a woman, what sort of a person does this make you? What sorts of lessons are you teaching?

Name it what it is. Don’t dress it up, don’t reduce it, it is violence. It is unethical. It is immoral.

Shame those who do it, teach them it is wrong.

Because not doing so means you are complicit, means you are supporting, means you are not trying to stop violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and even straight people.

It means you are not trying to stop violence against people of color, against immigrants, against the disabled, against the poor.

It means you are standing by watching as someone does violence to another person.

And that is immoral, unethical, and shameful.

AED (via tonidorsay)


I never knew how true and realistic and non-exaggerated this episode was until I went to college.

(Source: thekrustyykrabb)