I'm a philosophy student that tends to post about really serious things unseriously and about really unserious things seriously.

I was once described as a "beautiful, intelligent iguana".

5th January 2014

Post reblogged from the hounds of love are h(a)unting me with 287,778 notes


'no homo' god says as he puts the male g-spot up their anus

Source: oinkaloink

5th January 2014

Post with 8 notes

I hate when someone makes a post where replying to it implies that you want to do the frick-frack, but all you want to do is share a stupid, barely relevant story.

I mean, more likely than not I’d probably even do the frick-frack, but that’s not what I’m saying here.

Tagged: nsfw /ishmy grandpa's blasting 50s musicAnd I've lost control of my life

5th January 2014

Post reblogged from sea-surrounded fury with 383 notes


it is always either because of capitalism or worsened by capitalism

5th January 2014

Quote reblogged from Unfriendly Blackfoot Hottie with 116 notes

It is not as if an “I” exists independently over here and then simply loses a “you” over there, especially if the attachment to “you” is part of what composes who “I” am. If I lose you, under these conditions, then I not only mourn the loss, but I become inscrutable to myself. Who “am” I, without you?
— Judith Butler, Precarious Life, p.22 (via lovevoltaireusapart)

Source: lovevoltaireusapart

5th January 2014

Link reblogged from the chafings of a mind imprisoned with 45,647 notes

Why You Should Delete SnapChat →




Unsurprising fact of the day: the inventors of SnapChat are misogynists. 

so… not only do they keep your photos on file indefinitely, they also can sell them at any time for any reason they see fit - which means that your friends or family members or even future employers could see you marketing any number of things, against your will. you could be used to market pornographic sites. your image could be fucking ruined, through no fault of your own.

please please PLEASE pass this on to everyone you know, especially if you know that they use snapchat or someone they know does. this information is IMPORTANT. lives could be ruined, here.

this article bothers me, and i was going to let it go past without comment because “who cares,” but it’s apparently getting a ton of attention (10k+ notes at time of writing) and i know i’m going to be seeing it on my dashboard for-fucking-ever regardless of whether or not i say anything about it

a lot of this article, maybe even most of it, is either straight-up wrong or being vastly overblown for the purposes of scaring luddite parents into buying the author’s conveniently linked-to book on “social media”. no really, dude flogs his crappy book at least a couple times in there. the entire article is one big sign saying “your teens are using the internet in ways you don’t understand, and that should scare you

the dude’s entire thesis in this article seems to be that it is literally impossible to be anonymous on the internet no matter what you do. which is silly, of course. his first point, that “everything you do on your computer may one day become public” seems like a point better made for the purposes of staying off of computers entirely rather than some cogent indictment against snapchat specifically.

he claims that your snapchat images “may one day show up on a google image search for your name” but offers no theoretical avenues for this to take place. it’s just a nice scary turd in your breakfast cereal, a deus ex machina with no proposed connection to “real things that actually happen or have happened”.

his point about snapchat messages being stored on the phone before you access them is true (where else should they go before you look at them?) but his claim that they can be recovered by a third party is specious. yes, you can steal someone’s unaccessed snapchats— if you’ve got physical access to their (jailbroken, unlocked, unencrypted) phone and some forensic software. guess what else someone can get off your phone with those same things? a lot more than your fucking selfies. unless this dude’s point is “a skilled hacker with tons of resources can fuck with you bigtime, in theory” he’s just trying to scare you.

his second point continues in the same vein, apparently trying to claim that because MAC addresses are a thing that exist anonymity is a fake idea. the NSA’s over there hacking internet backbone to archive your communications en masse, and this dude’s freaking out about some theoretical superhacker tracing your selfies via MAC address (and access to your ISP records, I guess?)

i don’t know what to say about the claim that “a ton of servers and switches who pass that data across the web” are archiving all of your stuff as it passes through, other than that the statement is at best “ignorant” and at worst “a direct and purposeful lie”. think about how much storage capacity would be required if backbone switches were actually storing user data.

TL;DR: almost all of the dude’s technical points are just taking things that can be applied to “everything you do on the internet, ever” and then making them sound as scary as possible so that he can sell his book. these are infrastructure vulnerabilities that get theorized about over bonghits at hacker-cons, not stuff there’s actually a meaningful risk for.

his second big point is that “snapchat gets used for sexting” which, well, i don’t care. use it how you like, i guess? fuck you internet dad, you’re not my real dad. the creators of snapchat sound like scumbags, but welcome to the tech industry. i guarantee you almost every company is terrible in ways you will never know about.

he wraps up by getting mad that snapchat was funded by venture capitalist money and therefore you cannot possibly trust them. which, fine, but a couple paragraphs later he recommends you trust facebook with your private communications instead. facebook, of all fucking companies, which is basically designed to violate user privacy. (incidentally, one of facebook’s boardmembers is real good friends and former colleagues with the CEO of in-q-tel, the venture capital wing of the CIA.) good suggestion internet dad thanks for looking out for our privacy

delete snapchat if you want, they’re assholes and their real-life security practices are bad and they should feel bad. they just got hacked and leaked 4.6 million phone numbers using a publicly-documented technique that they were first warned about (and blew off) back in like fucking august or something. so fuck them, delete your account. just don’t do it because this internet dad yelled some bullshit at you while trying to sell his book.

Source: azspot

5th January 2014

Post reblogged from Schmeels on Wheels with 273,092 notes



how come when someone decides to eat only fruits and vegetables people commend them for their “willpower” and “diligence” but when i decide to eat a diet composed entirely of mozzarella sticks and vodka suddenly i’m “out of control” and “putting myself in danger”

this post is everything

Tagged: alcohol /food /

Source: dogapult

5th January 2014

Link reblogged from tanacetum vulgare with 15 notes

http://lamaracuya.tumblr.com/post/51736655089/what-good-does-immanent-critique-do-for-a →



What good does immanent critique do for a practical politics if, after stripping social life bare - exposing the brutality of social injustice - it provides it with no alternative clothing?…Given the complexities by which harm is represented and aprehended within late liberalism, it seems to me that if we are to address the above criticisms it would do us well to begin by addressing whether negative dialectics is in fact negative, and in what ways potentiality emerges from actuality. For instance, we know that negative dialectics is negative in the sense that it attempts to demonstrate how the achievement of identity and unity is built on the violent suppression of difference and diversity. Negative critique was developed to make visibile the nonidentity between claims of social unity and claims of social difference and diversity, and to make palpable the nonidenittiy between claims about normative worlds and actual worlds. Negative dialectics insists that we must rigorously demonstrate the noncorrespondence between what is claimed and what is, and the techniques of power that allow the claimed world to appear not merel as the actual world but the best of all actual worlds. One must unwork this identity - make it unworkable - transform it from the background that allows an ease of copying for some but not others…

In other words, negative critique and critical theory more generally do not lack a relationship to normativity. They shift the focus on normativity from a horizontal to a background perspective. And it is exactly as background that normativity provides critical theory with a specific kind of positivity. What appears to be a radically empty gensture (‘not this’) is revealed to be a positive act….All of these fictive and real characters are acting positively in a social world that is built in such a way that it is unreliable for them whether or not the statement ‘not this’ immediately produces a ‘what then.’ ‘Not this’ makes a difference even if it does not immediately produce a propositional otherwise. Each of these differences is unique because of their differential distribution across the social worlds of late liberalism. 

Economies of Abandonment, Elizabeth Povinelli


Source: todoelajo

5th January 2014

Post reblogged from My Url is not ironic with 24 notes


I want affection and doughnut holes

Tagged: food /

Source: turd-bag

5th January 2014

Photo with 4 notes

California selfies.
[I feel like this haircut makes me look like Tin-Tin.]

California selfies.

[I feel like this haircut makes me look like Tin-Tin.]

Tagged: actual gpoygood morning!it's so warm here what the hell

4th January 2014

Photo reblogged from tanacetum vulgare with 131 notes


From Stephanie Jackson’s Catflexing: A Catlover’s Guide to Weight Training, Aerobics & Stretching   


From Stephanie Jackson’s Catflexing: A Catlover’s Guide to Weight Training, Aerobics & Stretching   

Source: womenandcats