Antonella

nonstupidname14:

its-awesome-turtle-time:

nonstupidname14:

castleforeverx:

YES.YES.YES. People need to realise this 

This belongs more on Facebook than it does on tumblr.

i think you’re missing out on some of tumblr then… but it should be on facebook too, it should be on every social media site!

What I mean is that people on tumblr seem better at sympathy and know how to treat others but there’s a lot of homophobic people and swagfags who blame rape victims for what happened to them on Facebook.

(Source: ikantenggelem, via cumberbabe83)

cumberbabe83:

0athenachan0:

danyww:

Andrea Camilleri - La piramide di fango
“Già fatto”
Amo Fazio quando dice “già fatto”, quasi quanto Montalbano lo odia.




non lo posso sopportare…

Mai avrei pensato di vedere roba di Montalbano su Tumblr XD

:D

cumberbabe83:

0athenachan0:

danyww:

Andrea Camilleri - La piramide di fango
“Già fatto”
Amo Fazio quando dice “già fatto”, quasi quanto Montalbano lo odia.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/f1af4b3ebd5aad87699f09c7951d3741/tumblr_inline_n96smp0aeF1qj4zja.png

image

image

non lo posso sopportare…

Mai avrei pensato di vedere roba di Montalbano su Tumblr XD

:D

professorfangirl:

“I’m afraid that the following syllogism may be used by some in the future.
Turing believes machines think Turing lies with men Therefore machines do not think
Yours in distress, Alan”
I can’t wait for The Imitiation Game, because so, so often Turing’s homosexuality goes unmentioned in stories about his work in artificial intelligence and computing. It’s frustrating, because questions of gender and identification are right at the heart of the Turing Test: the “Imitation Game” is itself a test of the ability to think based on the ability to know gender. In “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” (1950), Turing explained the game:
"(It is) played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman….It is A’s object in the game to try and cause C to make the wrong identification." (That is, the man must make the judge think that he is a woman.) “‘What will happen when a machine takes the part of A [the man] in this game?’ Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, ‘Can machines think?’"
So the “imitation” in the imitation game, the proof of thought, depends on the simulation, one could say the performance, of heteronormative gender roles.
This is terrifically simplified, but it suggests a tragic implication of Turing’s story: if a machine must be able to identify gender in order to think, then “Turing lies with men, therefore machines do not think” implies that because Turing cannot properly determine gender (that is, who he should be fucking), Turing cannot quite think—is, therefore, not quite fully human.
Excuse me, I’ll be over here crying.
***
(There’s a good overview of these issues in “The ‘Sinister Fruitiness’ of Machines: Neuromancer, Internet Sexuality and the Turing Test” [x])

professorfangirl:

“I’m afraid that the following syllogism may be used by some in the future.

Turing believes machines think
Turing lies with men
Therefore machines do not think

Yours in distress,
Alan”

I can’t wait for The Imitiation Game, because so, so often Turing’s homosexuality goes unmentioned in stories about his work in artificial intelligence and computing. It’s frustrating, because questions of gender and identification are right at the heart of the Turing Test: the “Imitation Game” is itself a test of the ability to think based on the ability to know gender. In “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” (1950), Turing explained the game:

"(It is) played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman….It is A’s object in the game to try and cause C to make the wrong identification." (That is, the man must make the judge think that he is a woman.) “‘What will happen when a machine takes the part of A [the man] in this game?’ Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, ‘Can machines think?’"

So the “imitation” in the imitation game, the proof of thought, depends on the simulation, one could say the performance, of heteronormative gender roles.

This is terrifically simplified, but it suggests a tragic implication of Turing’s story: if a machine must be able to identify gender in order to think, then “Turing lies with men, therefore machines do not think” implies that because Turing cannot properly determine gender (that is, who he should be fucking), Turing cannot quite think—is, therefore, not quite fully human.

Excuse me, I’ll be over here crying.

***

(There’s a good overview of these issues in “The ‘Sinister Fruitiness’ of Machines: Neuromancer, Internet Sexuality and the Turing Test” [x])

(via marybegone)

marybegone:

fro14:

deidrichenstein:

[puts head in hands] I just watched this episode again for the first time in…quite a while and it’s so beautiful I think I’m going to die. It’s the best one. It’s my favourite. Sherlock and Irene are the most beautiful and whimsical mirror in the whole show, they haven’t written a better one before or since, like, it’s so poignant it makes me want to cry and laugh at the same time. A very large part of why I’ve become so attached to this show and enjoy collusion with the subtext so much is because it not only illustrates, but celebrates gayness with that other most culturally reviled object: womanhood. And the reason this is so wonderful is because the rejection of both gayness and womanhood stem from the same noxious root; misogyny. One finds expression in the other and vice versa, and the expression is genuine. It’d be so easy for a story like this to fall into misogynist traps, whether outright or internalised, but it doesn’t, which is such a delight. While I do find shows/films that deal head on with misogyny very important and in many cases cathartic [The Piano Teacher being the all time best], it also becomes exhausting and depressing. So finding something that genuinely subverts these ideas, that is funny and warm and gentle and soft, a story about two men that is erotic, utterly feminine and bereft of toxic masculinity is like being TOUCHED BY THE ANGELS.

Irene is THE mirror for Sherlock’s sexuality. There are other mirrors directly about that, namely The Golem, The Hound and Moriarty, but they are about fear and repression; they are monstrous disfigurements (fear and stimulus). Irene is not. And the reason A Scandal in Belgravia is so wistful and achy and absolutely fraught is not because there is any sudden romance between Sherlock and Irene in the surface narrative, it’s because in that whimsical layer just below, Irene is his hidden desire and longing. Put plainly out in the open for all the world to see, in her form; a woman. You can literally watch the whole episode thinking of Irene as a kind of faerie and it’s one of the most PRECIOUS THINGS I’ve ever seen.

And sldjkfmlj they are the most beautifully gender bent versions of each other; same blue eyes, high cheekbones, curly brown hair (and she wears hers like he keeps his), wiry figures. THEY’RE GORGEOUS.

I’m gonna be the biggest bag of trash when I write about this episode.

ASIB is my favorite as well! I would be interested in hearing more detail about how the Golem, the Hound and Moriary mirror Sherlock’s sexuality!

Mine too! It’s the most beautiful and elegant episode we’ve had so far.

marybegone:

greyface-angel:

I’ve been doing some thinking, and I just realized just how much this scene said about Sherlock’s past. It always used to confuse me, but now it makes perfect sense. Because there are so many ways that Sherlock could blow off the press, and he has explicitly stated earlier in the show that he was completely indifferent to the press. He could have just said ‘no, because you’re an idiot’ or ignored her and flounced off without a word, but he didn’t. He stepped in close, looked her right in the eye and said “You. Repel. Me.” There is blatant disgust and hatred being shown here, and I used to be baffled by it; he doesn’t even know her, where did this come from? But I’ve figured out why. It’s all in the scene.
First, she tried to trick him. That alone is an insult to his genius. But it’s how she tricked him. She could have dressed up as anything, but what did she pick? A fan. She pretended to be a fan. She pretended to be someone who liked him, who adored him. When really she saw him as her meal ticket. She wanted to use him to further her career, and she was ready to pretend to like him to do it.
After he sniffed her out, what did she do then? She still tried to feed him affection. “You’re going to need someone on your side” (aka. You’re going to need a friend to help you out.) When she knew that she had absolutely no pull. She never expected to hold up her end of the bargain.
How many people do you think have done this over the years? We know Sebastian Wilkes did. In his email, it was all “Hey buddy, how are you?”, but when Sherlock showed up, he told John about how much he hated him at Uni. About how they all hated him. And Sherlock flinched and looked away, but he didn’t look surprised. He knew. Add to the fact that Sherlock calls him ‘Seb” instead of ‘Sebastian’ or “Wilkes’. He still tried to be his friend. Still tried to cling to that.
And how many times did he let them? How many times did he think ‘I’m not someone who can be loved, so this is the closest I’ll ever get.’ But then John came along, and he realized that he could have friends. That he was someone who could be loved. And so when Kitty Riley came up to him and tried to pull the same shit that everyone else had tried to pull on him, and he got to say what he had bottled up for how many years. He got to say ‘No. Fuck you, I don’t need your scraps of affection, because I have John and Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson.’
He got to walk right up to her, look her in the eye and say to her and to Sebastian Wilkes and to everyone else who had ever done that to him “You. Repel. Me.”

great analysis! think you’re right.

marybegone:

greyface-angel:

I’ve been doing some thinking, and I just realized just how much this scene said about Sherlock’s past. It always used to confuse me, but now it makes perfect sense. Because there are so many ways that Sherlock could blow off the press, and he has explicitly stated earlier in the show that he was completely indifferent to the press. He could have just said ‘no, because you’re an idiot’ or ignored her and flounced off without a word, but he didn’t. He stepped in close, looked her right in the eye and said “You. Repel. Me.” There is blatant disgust and hatred being shown here, and I used to be baffled by it; he doesn’t even know her, where did this come from? But I’ve figured out why. It’s all in the scene.

First, she tried to trick him. That alone is an insult to his genius. But it’s how she tricked him. She could have dressed up as anything, but what did she pick? A fan. She pretended to be a fan. She pretended to be someone who liked him, who adored him. When really she saw him as her meal ticket. She wanted to use him to further her career, and she was ready to pretend to like him to do it.

After he sniffed her out, what did she do then? She still tried to feed him affection. “You’re going to need someone on your side” (aka. You’re going to need a friend to help you out.) When she knew that she had absolutely no pull. She never expected to hold up her end of the bargain.

How many people do you think have done this over the years? We know Sebastian Wilkes did. In his email, it was all “Hey buddy, how are you?”, but when Sherlock showed up, he told John about how much he hated him at Uni. About how they all hated him. And Sherlock flinched and looked away, but he didn’t look surprised. He knew. Add to the fact that Sherlock calls him ‘Seb” instead of ‘Sebastian’ or “Wilkes’. He still tried to be his friend. Still tried to cling to that.

And how many times did he let them? How many times did he think ‘I’m not someone who can be loved, so this is the closest I’ll ever get.’ But then John came along, and he realized that he could have friends. That he was someone who could be loved. And so when Kitty Riley came up to him and tried to pull the same shit that everyone else had tried to pull on him, and he got to say what he had bottled up for how many years. He got to say ‘No. Fuck you, I don’t need your scraps of affection, because I have John and Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson.’

He got to walk right up to her, look her in the eye and say to her and to Sebastian Wilkes and to everyone else who had ever done that to him “You. Repel. Me.”

great analysis! think you’re right.

(Source: lost-in-hammerspace)

karin-woywod:

Hi-Res ! 2013 05 21 - ’ Sherlock ’ Season 03 Filming by Zed Jameson
Open in new tab / window for       [1500 x 1742 pixels]       !
Caption : Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman filming the fourth season of “Sherlock” in London, England on May 20, 2013.
[ Karin says : ]     If only. It was, of course, only the third season they had been filming.
Link

karin-woywod:

Hi-Res ! 2013 05 21 - ’ Sherlock ’ Season 03 Filming by Zed Jameson

Open in new tab / window for       [1500 x 1742 pixels]       !

Caption : Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman filming the fourth season of “Sherlock” in London, England on May 20, 2013.

[ Karin says : ]     If only. It was, of course, only the third season they had been filming.

Link

(via rox712)

junejuly15:

Sherlock: Yes, but I’m not my brother, remember? I am you. Prepared to do anything. Prepared to burn. Prepared to do what ordinary people won’t do. You want me to shake hands with you in hell? I shall not disappoint you.
Moriarty: Nah. You talk big. Nah. You’re ordinary. You’re ordinary. You’re on the side of the angels.
Sherlock: Oh, I may be on the side of the angels, but don’t think for one second that I am one of them.