Credit
You go Glen Coco

19. Love Supernatural. Walking Dead. Avengers. SkinsUK. Doctor Who. Marvel. Buffy. Archer. Long walks on the beach.


themaefive:

axonsandsynapses:

yuletidekarkat:

dannygayhealani:

creatingaquietmind:

the speech impediment of the 21st century (by Marc Johns)

I’ll fuck you up buddy this is not a speech impediment it’s linguistic evolution!! the existence of the phrase “Aisha was like” allows the speaker to convey whatever Aisha said without making the listener assume they’re quoting Aisha directly while still maintaining the FEELING of what Aisha said.
ie, Aisha said she didn’t want to go out with me VERSUS Aisha was like, “I’d rather kiss a Wookie”.
the addition of “XYZ was like” lets the speaker be more expressive and efficient and it is a totally valid method of communicating information!!

With the way language has evolved, this is one of the few ways I can even think of to express in casual conversation what someone said. 
"So I said to Aisha," is certainly used, but if you remove the "so," which implies casual tone ("and" can be used in the same way), you get
"I said to Aisha," which is really formal in most English dialects/variations. I don’t know about all, but in New England dialects, you sound like you’re reading aloud from a novel.
"I told Aisha," is really only used when you continue to describe, not tell, what you told her. Ex: "I told Aisha that James was too punk for her" works while, "I told Aisha, ‘James is too punk for you’" crosses the line back into formalness of the "I said."
Things like “I asked” or “I answered [with]” are similar levels of casual and efficient to the “So, I said [or say, as many conversations about the past take place in present tense anyway, as if the speaker is giving a play-by-play in the moment]” but are specific to only certain situations. 
"I was like, 'Marc Johns, what is your obsession with restoring archaic speech patterns and interfering with the natural progression of English from complex to efficient?'" envelopes all of these easily and is accessible and crisp, and allows for more variations on inflection than the others.
Of course, James is probably like, “I already fucking said that.” But eh, I tried adding on.

#linguistics #a.k.a. how I learned to stop worrying and love the evolution of the English language without being a discriminatory elitist jerk (via crystalandrock)

This a million times

wedidthetimewarpagain:

she wears short skirts

i wear nothing because i am the disembodied incorporeal form

she’s a flapper

i am the eyes of T. J. Eckelburg


australiansanta:

i wish you could delete things from your brain like here i am struggling to remember information i learnt last week but as soon as a veronicas song comes on i know every single word 


alliartist:

rifa:

prokopetz:

nebcondist1:

prokopetz:

I’ve seen this image going around, and I feel compelled to point out that it’s only half-right. It’s true that high heels were originally a masculine fashion, but they weren’t originally worn by butchers - nor for any other utilitarian purpose, for that matter.
High heels were worn by men for exactly the same reason they’re worn by women today: to display one’s legs to best effect. Until quite recently, shapely, well-toned calves and thighs were regarded as an absolute prerequisite for male attractiveness. That’s why you see so many paintings of famous men framed to show off their legs - like this one of George Washington displaying his fantastic calves:

… or this one of Louis XIV of France rocking a fabulous pair of red platform heels (check out those thighs!):

… or even this one of Charles I of England showing off his high-heeled riding boots - note, again, the visual emphasis on his well-formed calves:

In summary: were high heels originally worn by men? Yes. Were they worn to keep blood off their feet? No at all - they were worn for the same reason they’re worn today: to look fabulous.

so then how did they become a solo feminine item of attire?

A variety of reasons. In France, for example, high heels fell out out of favour in the court of Napoleon due to their association with aristocratic decadence, while in England, the more conservative fashions of the Victorian era regarded it as indecent for a man to openly display his calves.
But then, fashions come and go. The real question is why heels never came back into fashion for men - and that can be laid squarely at the feet of institutionalised homophobia. Essentially, heels for men were never revived because, by the early 20th Century, sexually provocative attire for men had come to be associated with homosexuality; the resulting moral panic ushered in an era of drab, blocky, fully concealing menswear in which a well-turned calf simply had no place - a setback from which men’s fashion has yet to fully recover.

FASHION HISTORY IS HUMAN HISTORY OK

Thank you, history side of tumblr. That “stay out of blood” thing has been driving me mad.

awwww-cute:

I tried to shame him for eating all my shoes. I’m not sure what I expected

dicaeopolis:

im really curious what happened in those 22 comments

sammy-got-pimped-for-pie:

In honor of back-to-school.


moosekingofhell:

Forever wondering if I am contributing to a conversation by using my own experiences or being self centered and rude.

(Source: doeeyedpdsmessiah)

Artist: UnknownThe Runaways
Title: UnknownCherry Bomb
Album: UnknownGuardians of the Galaxy
Plays: 134,582


Friendly reminder that anyone born between 1985-1998 didn’t get their hogwarts letter because Voldemort’s ministry wiped out the record of muggleborns

(Source: tracey-hummel)