Photoset

wsswatson:

fk4eva:

marinashutup:

in which the actor who plays one of television’s least likeable characters is actually super considerate and cool

How can he be such a despicable cunt, then…

(Source: kazuos, via wolvensnothere)

Text

Don’t Forget

thenightvalepost:

Imagination is something unreal. It is something you feel, like ghosts.

Photo
Putting the Us into Caduceus.

Putting the Us into Caduceus.

(Source: antipahtico, via coldalbion)

Link

carnivaloftherandom:

bookoisseur:

Capt. Carey Smith Steacy: “Oh no! All this time I thought I being a woman had no impact on whether or not I can, or should, be a pilot! Thank you for disabusing me of this notion of equality. What a silly female am I. *jumps out of the plane*” The above note was left for Captain Steacy on a flight from Calgary to Victoria. All we know about the writer is that his name is David and that he’s a time traveller from the 1950s. Oh, and he’s outrageously sexist. Reads the note:

To Capt./Westjet The cockpit of an airliner is no place for a woman. A woman being a mother is the most honor, not as “captain.” Proverbs 31. We’re short on mothers, not pilots Westjet. (Sorry not P.C.) PS I wish Westjet could tell me a fair lady is at the helm so I can book another flight! In the end this is all mere vanity… [drawing of male and female stick figures] Not impressed[.] respectfully in love, David”

Thing #4 we know about David—he’s angry that his fedora was crushed in the overhead bin. That’s what I’m supposed to take from the way he condescendingly refers to Captain Steacy as a “fair lady,” right? So many things wrong with this note. It’s infuriating, but it’s also kind of hilarious. I want David and the newspaper editor who slammed female-starring movies as part of “the hollywood agenda of glorifying degenerate power women and promoting as natural the weakling, hyena -like men, cum eunuchs” to hang out. Remember that? Good times. Captain Steacy, a mother of two (and a pilot, oh my goodness) posted the note to Facebook with her refutation:

If you are ever tempted to tell women where we, “belong,” regardless of where you think that is and regardless of your own gender, tip: don’t.

Is that why they call it a cockpit? *ba-dum-tsh*

What the world needs is more women doing what their talent and drive calls them to, and fewer men trying to put them in back into a place they never should have been forced to inhabit in the first place.

(via wolvensnothere)

Text

theheadlesshashasheen:

threedifferentways:

~stirs coffee~

That’s a pretty poppet you have there. Would be a shame if your target was able to use the link to burn down everything you have, wouldn’t it.

~lightly taps spoon on rim of coffee cup~

Backdrafts are a bitch, aren’t they.

~sips coffee~

There are people that don’t bury the poppet in a mirror cage with horrible witch plants growing atop it?

First rule of combat magic: any link runs both ways.

Second rule: therefore the person who pushes down the link hardest, or turns the current cleverest, wins.

Amazing how few workers realise these two basics.

Text

greenseer:

A fun thing to do when people accuse you of “thinking people should just have stuff HANDED TO THEM! ! !” Is to just cold be like yes. I absolutely do believe that. I think every single person should have their needs met unconditionally without ever having to prove that they “deserve” it based on arbitrary criteria of usefulness. You got me. Busted.

(via wolvensnothere)

Text

Anonymous asked: We have been warned that Will is going to be playing with fire this season and may well get burnt, do you think that the show would put Will in a threesome with Margot and Mason. Would they go there???

wolvensnothere:

bonearenaofmyskull:

Heh, I think Bryan was referring to Will’s violent tendencies and his similarities to Hannibal, not his sexual proclivities. I think getting burnt in this sense has less to do with exterior consequences like provoking Mason Verger or getting himself almost killed and more to do with being consumed from the inside out—passing a point where he becomes what it is he’s fighting.

Personally, I hope the answer is no, because ew. Michael Pitt may be a hottie, but Mason Verger is still…ew. They managed to make Chilton sympathetic—and he was despicable in the books and films—so who knows what they’ll be up to with Mason, but right now I’m just…ew.

Plus it would just seem weird, I think. I have a hard time seeing Will tolerant enough of Mason Verger to climb into bed with him, either literally or figuratively, regardless of where Will is on his own personal journey. Will’s temptations lie in Hannibal’s direction, and Hannibal and Mason are opposing forces. Never mind that they’re all killers to some degree or another: Will’s own murderous tendencies have always been pointed toward a vigilante brand of justice, while Mason is all about pure self-gratification. (Hannibal encompasses both.) But I could be wrong here, depending on what paths they choose to pursue with Mason.

We’re in pretty uncharted territory with sex on this show, and to what extent they’ll allow people to be victimized in their sexual relationships, and Mason’s the kind of character who will make the show demonstrate exactly where it intends to draw a line. I don’t think I want to see that done with Will.

Might they go there anyway? Instinct tells me no, just based on past experience with what to expect from TV. I saw that NBC supposedly gave them a little more leeway with the sex than one would expect from a network, but I don’t know what that means. It could just be referring to the incest. This might be cynical of me, but it seems risky for a show on the bubble of cancellation on a network TV show to put a male/male sexual encounter on the screen, especially with one of its main characters. Even if there’s a woman present. Not with America being what it is.

Accurate breakdown is accurate.

Also, Margot is canon is a pure lesbian, so there’s that…

Text

Anonymous asked: Can you make something good again please.

naturalshocks:

alicexz:

Aw anon! I didn’t mean to be such a disappointment of an artist to you. Here you go

Link

theheadlesshashasheen:

catvincent:

theheadlesshashasheen:

abwatt:

theheadlesshashasheen:

prosperosfootnotes:

theheadlesshashasheen:

I am not a “scholar,” and I am not an “expert.”

I just read a lot of fucking books, mang.

Isn’t that pretty much the definition of a scholar, though? Or are you requiring Peer Review?

Well, the term ‘scholar’ comes from the late Latin…

The trouble with being a scholar of gnosticism is that divine inspiration in the present counts for as much as knowing what the great gnostic masters of the past had to say abut their own divine inspiration…

*peers at theheadlesshasheen* I’ll look you over again, but you seem to know what you’re talking about. Is that review enough by a peer?

Or do you need someone with the title “Marquis” or “Earl” to do it?

Gnosticism presents certain problems to such a dialogue, in part because of the nature of ‘Gnosis’. Knowledge (and understanding of that knowledge) is imparted as a byproduct of the exalted state made by contact with the Divine. The Gnostic sects themselves tended to favor distinct interpretations of deities and even scriptural sources based on their personal experience with the Divine. In many cases, their texts almost contain anti-Orthodox interpretations (such as those where Yeshua does not die on the cross, because his divine spirit abandons him - leading to the terrifying statement: “My God, why have you abandoned me?”).

In some regards, this is applicable to a great many magicians (& etc.), who through their experiences come to have a different view from the texts they’re working on versus the typical Ivory Tower scholar. A great many experiences we have don’t necessarily have aspects we can point to in scholarship regarding the very source material we’re using. One might point to the battles waged over subjects like UPG regularly, which range from helpful to downright absurd. (Whenever I encounter Reconstructionists that complain of a lack of historical evidence for this or that, I tend to remain shocked that they aren’t willing to use ecstatic trance work to “figure that shit out”. It’s far easier to pilfer and alter what we have on record, but limiting ourselves to that seems foolish to me. On the other hand, I’m not down with “Venusian Dolphin Masters,” either.)

As for your review - perfectly acceptable, although not quite what I meant. LOL. And no absurd titles are necessary.

A big part of why I initially posted this, though, was due to the insufferable need to be seen as a form of “acceptable authority” on matters that leads to people to take up such labels in some circles. More obnoxious, by far, is those that insist on referring to individuals with such labels when they don’t claim them.

Ahh - takes me back to the days of being on the Brown University occult discussion bulletin board in the mid-90’s, where the scholars had a bad habit of telling the practitioners we were Doing It Wrong…

In a purely historical context, we as practitioners probably often ARE “doing it wrong.”

In terms of doing shit, we’re probably doing more than they are.

The truth of the matter is that magical practices change over time; particularly between different schools of thought, etc.

Both a ceremonial magician and one of the cunning-folk will have, for example, incredibly similar approaches to evocation… However, they will also be different.

And when we get to straight up “spirit work,” things get complicated very fast. The source material may well say one thing, but once evoked it is pretty standard for a given spirit to say: “this is all well and good, but I’d like it if you did X, Y, and Z differently.”

At which point you can insist that you won’t change a practice, or take up what you’ve been told… Which can generate massively different results.

Oh yes. Shame that Doing It Wrong can also work, innit?

Link

theheadlesshashasheen:

abwatt:

theheadlesshashasheen:

prosperosfootnotes:

theheadlesshashasheen:

I am not a “scholar,” and I am not an “expert.”

I just read a lot of fucking books, mang.

Isn’t that pretty much the definition of a scholar, though? Or are you requiring Peer Review?

Well, the term ‘scholar’ comes from the late Latin…

The trouble with being a scholar of gnosticism is that divine inspiration in the present counts for as much as knowing what the great gnostic masters of the past had to say abut their own divine inspiration…

*peers at theheadlesshasheen* I’ll look you over again, but you seem to know what you’re talking about. Is that review enough by a peer?

Or do you need someone with the title “Marquis” or “Earl” to do it?

Gnosticism presents certain problems to such a dialogue, in part because of the nature of ‘Gnosis’. Knowledge (and understanding of that knowledge) is imparted as a byproduct of the exalted state made by contact with the Divine. The Gnostic sects themselves tended to favor distinct interpretations of deities and even scriptural sources based on their personal experience with the Divine. In many cases, their texts almost contain anti-Orthodox interpretations (such as those where Yeshua does not die on the cross, because his divine spirit abandons him - leading to the terrifying statement: “My God, why have you abandoned me?”).

In some regards, this is applicable to a great many magicians (& etc.), who through their experiences come to have a different view from the texts they’re working on versus the typical Ivory Tower scholar. A great many experiences we have don’t necessarily have aspects we can point to in scholarship regarding the very source material we’re using. One might point to the battles waged over subjects like UPG regularly, which range from helpful to downright absurd. (Whenever I encounter Reconstructionists that complain of a lack of historical evidence for this or that, I tend to remain shocked that they aren’t willing to use ecstatic trance work to “figure that shit out”. It’s far easier to pilfer and alter what we have on record, but limiting ourselves to that seems foolish to me. On the other hand, I’m not down with “Venusian Dolphin Masters,” either.)

As for your review - perfectly acceptable, although not quite what I meant. LOL. And no absurd titles are necessary.

A big part of why I initially posted this, though, was due to the insufferable need to be seen as a form of “acceptable authority” on matters that leads to people to take up such labels in some circles. More obnoxious, by far, is those that insist on referring to individuals with such labels when they don’t claim them.

Ahh - takes me back to the days of being on the Brown University occult discussion bulletin board in the mid-90’s, where the scholars had a bad habit of telling the practitioners we were Doing It Wrong…