ofgeography:

queenlyanna:

Do you ever just get something and think: This. This is it. This is my new favourite thing.

#make a snide remark and then get drunk (via)

ofgeography:

queenlyanna:

Do you ever just get something and think: This. This is it. This is my new favourite thing.

 (via)

(via ikeacasillas)

nflstreet:

feeling your computer getting slower though the years is one of the most heartbreaking things ever

(via president-cellphone)

The more charming person is the person who admits the other person is more charming.

(Benedict Cumberbatch)

(via 221bsherlock)

asker

themaddragon asked: Crows in all their intelligent glory?

thescienceofjohnlock:

itsallblogtome:

thescienceofjohnlock:

thecutestofthecute:

Crows can be so floofy, expecially when they are babies

No no no, those last 3 pics are not crows of any kind.

Well what are they then?

I don’t know but judging by their feet, some sort of wading bird. Crows are never really fluffy and when they are a bit fluffy they are more grey than black. I have raised two and they look like this

Words will inspire her.

(via president-cellphone)

masterbuildercam:

huffy-lemon:

Please be nice to moths 

They spend their whole caterpillar lives thinking theyre going to be beautiful butterflies and then they turn out ugly and everyone hates them.

Please be nice to moths

get out of here, moths are freaking gorgeous have you even seen them

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

what is there to not love about moths

(via president-cellphone)

If there is one thing that an atheist movement should stand against (or at least be reflexively suspicious of), it is the erection of cults of personality around individual voices. Most movement atheists will be able to, without breaking stride, list a number of specific examples of religious movements that have gone terribly awry when a single person is placed at their zenith. Atheistic communities are no exception, or at least should not be. If Richard Dawkins is ‘a liability’, it is because we atheists have failed to resist the urge toward celebrity worship. In a perfect world, Dr. Dawkins‘ opinions on evolution would be evaluated and lauded when accurate, and his opinions on other matters would be seen as irrelevant when they are false. The fact that he regularly repeats fairly common bromides about rape culture and xenophobia would be seen, in this better world, as reflective of an incurious mind that speaks more than it thinks. To the extent that this is not the case (many atheists I know have no interest in Dr. Dawkins‘ opinions), it should be seen as a failing of the community to live up to its principles. When people continue to write articles as though it was still 2007 and The God Delusion was still one of the only popular sources for atheist advocacy, it cements the perception that Richard Dawkins is reflective of the atheist movement rather than being simply one voice among many.

Ian Cromwell (@Crommunist(via feminace)

Quote is from Is Richard Dawkins An Asset Or A Liability To Atheism? No. Must…read. Love how he questions the question itself (problem with liability/asset binary), questions the idea that there is “one” atheist movement (nope) and illustrates how similar personality cult in secular space is to it some theist ones. Oh and I’m one of the atheists that has "no interest in Dr. Dawkins‘ opinions." Must read full essay!

(via misandry-mermaid)

(via misandry-mermaid)