At first I wanted to kill him. But now I’m glad I’ve spent the time to get to know him. Yeah, of course he looks delicious with his big red cheeks. But we’ve all got an agreement that we’re not going to eat Stu. Right? Right.

#this is even funnier considering that Stu irl was not even an actor and in fact an actual IT specialist who thought he was  #going out for a job  #and somehow they convinced him to be a part of this movie

Oh man, that’s the cherry on top.

Stu Rutherford created a new stroby light technology that Waititi used in Thor: Ragnarok! That gorgeous bit in Valkyrie’s backstory? He and his friend Carlo van de Roer designed that lighting.





why didnt you call the cops or cps?

how about this: when i was 9 and my stepdad beat me until i passed out and i told my friends at school, my teacher over heard and i was interviewed by cps. they also went to my house when i was at school. when i got home, my step father was waiting on the couch, and told me who visited him that day. he told me if i ever snitched again he would beat me to within an inch of my life.

how about this: my mother locked me out of the house when i was 14 and when i cried so loud the neighbors called the cops, the cop told me i should have been respectful of my mother who was trying to sleep.

how about this. the demon you know is less scary than the demon you don’t.

children in abused households are raised to fear the idea of being taken away. children in abusive households see that help makes things worse.

dont you ever blame an abuse victim for not going to the authorities.

yes this okay to reblog!

The people that are supposed to help are often as bad as the ones who hurt you

EPA forms posse to fix ‘broken’ endangered species regulations to speed up pesticide approval



The Environmental Protection Agency is looking to fix what it calls the “broken” process of balancing pesticide approvals with endangered species protections, which conservationists have warned could be the start of eroding key protections under the Endangered Species Act.

“The current Endangered Species Act pesticide consultation process is broken,” said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in announcing a new interagency working group with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. Their goal is to fix the system which ensures endangered species aren’t harmed when approving the use of new pesticides.

The working group comes after the White House announced it will be taking actions to streamline environmental permitting and siting requirements as part of Trump’s infrastructure agenda.

The EPA said the new cooperation on endangered species comes at a “critical time” when the agency is looking to complete 700 pesticide registrations over the next four years.

“Today, the Trump Administration is taking action to improve and accelerate this process, harmonize interagency efforts, and create regulatory certainty for America’s farmers and ranchers,” Pruitt continued. Farmers and ranchers are principal users of pesticides.

The consultation process that Pruitt wants to improve falls under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which requires all agencies to consult with federal wildlife regulators on the effects of any actions, specifically pesticide approvals, which could harm animals protected under the law.

EPA forms posse to fix ‘broken’ endangered species regulations to speed up pesticide approval


The thing that I hate about atheism as a movement is that it doesn’t just want to critique the hegemony of Western Christianity, it wants to kill spirituality. There is no joy, there is nothing about it that isn’t founded in a pessimism that sees itself as so self-important that it cannot exist outside of destruction. The face of atheism is a white male disgruntled ex-Christian who decided that if he can’t find joy in religion, then nobody else can. There’s a leftover missionary sensibility to “enlighten” people to atheism that exposes itself as racist, antisemitic, and islamophobic, that’s ultimately not unlike the dominance exerted through colonial Christianity




cats don’t understand what it means when you give them kisses ):

good news tho!!  they understand it 2 a point (i was distraught about this post so i looked it up)

cats don’t kiss like humans but they do appreciate human touch and feel loved when u kiss and pet them

they don’t understand kisses but they accept them as forms of affection n love

ur cat knows u love them

My seven month old Bengal kitten runs up to me and jumps in my arms to give me kisses and rubs. She knows.

Let’s Talk About Zionism



off the back of a discussion that happened on facebook I wanted to compile some examples of different Jewish perspectives I knew on how they relate to ‘zionism’. Mainly to highlight that 1. this is a Jewish word the precludes any aspect of the modern state of Israel. 2. Jews are not monolith, and thus just because you know one accepted way a Jew relates to it, doesn’t mean you have the whole picture. & 3. (probably the most important one) that there is a systematic cross purposes happening when you have groups of activists who have only come across the word ‘zionism’ or ‘zionist’ inside the strict paradigm of acceptable I/P conflict discourse. (By which I mean, where pro-Palestine western discourse has dominated the definition of this word by unilaterally equating it with complicity, support & tolerance of violence against Palestinians). 

“I’m a Zionist..” what it could mean when a Jewish person says this:

1. I’m saying this because I support the state of Israel, including its policy and sanctions against the Palestinians, and believe that the modern state of Israel should expand and control all territories.

2. I’m saying this because even though I do not support the modern state of Israel, and I abhor what is happening to the Palestinians, I believe that the Jews who currently live there should not be forced to leave. 

3. I believe in the Jewish right for self determination, that is my end goal but I truly wish it could be established in a way that brings solace to both the Palestinians and the Jews who currently live there. I am open to a one state or two state solution as long as the end goal is a homeland for the Jewish people and the end of mistreatment against Palestinians.

4. I’m saying this because my family were forced out of Egypt/Yemen/another mena country, and to suggest that we have to go back to the people who mistreated us is violent, and thus the treatment of Palestinians can only get better when mena countries end their own antisemitism.

5. I don’t support the modern state of Israel, or the politics, however I’m a religious Jew who believes in the commandment of not ‘insulting’ Israel, and using the term zionism best encapsulates that for me. 

6. This word represents revolutionary unity between Jews in the face of antisemitism as codified by Herzl (& others), even though I reject most ways in which it is used now by the modern state of Israel, it is an important and historic word to my people in a political manner and I refuse to give it up. 

7. I am very critical of the Israeli government, and I wish (although I don’t always know how) for peace and better living standards for Palestinians, simultaneously however Israel is the epicentre of the Jewish world (even if I’ve never been there) and I don’t think modern politics can detract from that.

8. I never use to use the word zionist but ever since the UN ruled antisemitic and ahistorical statements denying the Jewish history in Israel I realised that anti-zionism is in fact often antisemitic, for me it is only by working with other zionists that we can change the future of Israel to a more peaceful one.

9. I plan to make aliyah one day, this doesn’t mean I agree with everything the government is doing or that it is fair that the Palestinians have had to suffer. I still plan to join the Jewish nation and be able to live religiously near our ancient sites.

10. There are pogroms/riots against Jews/”anti-Israel” demonstrations that chant things like “gas the Jews” where I live right now. I never planned to go to Israel but I am now. It is sad that me & my community are giving up our diaspora community, I am glad Israel exist for us to flee to.

11. Since the diaspora community in [x] (for example, Yemen) has been completely obliterated in the face of violence and forced conversion to Islam, even though I don’t live in Israel I believe it’d be wrong to not support it as that is the only place where my family’s culture still exists through no fault of their own. To me the Jews didn’t create Israel, they were forced there & thus it’s insulting that we are treated as the ‘one true oppressors’ in this discourse.

12. I have family in Israel, to not be a zionist would be saying I want them to be harmed/that if they were murdered that would be just. 

13. Because so many Jews were forced to flee their countries into Israel, to not be a zionist would be saying I think they deserve to be made into refugees/sent back to countries that seek to enact violence on them. That doesn’t mean I support the government of Israel however.

14. I am a convert and part of my conversion meant joining a community that sees Israel as their ancestral homeland. Calling myself a zionist helps me feel close to me (new) identity and is my personal tie to this history. 

15. I am Israeli, no matter what I believe politically this inherently makes me a zionist because I live here & do not wish to be murdered here. 

“I’m Not a Zionist…” this could mean any of the following:

1. I do not support the state of Israel, although I of course don’t want the Jews living there to be ethnically cleansed, the most important thing is to focus on the plight of Palestinians right now.

2. I love Israel, and I fully support the state of Israel including its sanctions against the Palestinians because I believe that’s the only way to keep hamas at bay – who themselves enact violence against Palestinians – I’m not a zionist though as I never plan to make aliyah.

3. I have visited Israel/plan to visit Israel & I see it as a Jewish historical place, I don’t feel like I know enough about politics to have an informed opinion on it though, and I am sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. For this reason I just tend to say I’m not a zionist.

4. I used to call myself an anti-zionist but have since realised that anti-zionism is a movement entrenched in antisemitism and after being systematically abused and belittled for merely being a Jew – even when I openly said I’m anti-zionist – I have given up the title & now say non-zionist.

5. I believe in the Jewish homeland, and that it should be Israel. One part because it is our ancestral home, another part because that’s where Jews live now. I don’t support the actions of the government however, so I choose not to call myself a zionist in light of that. 

6. I am really tired of being dragged into the I/P debate just because I’m a Jew, so I say this to try and get goyim to leave me alone. 

7. I think the time of the usefulness of the word ‘zionism’ is over, and instead we should be looking at the viability of a bi-national state. 

8. I support the right for Jewish self determination, and that Israel is our ancestral homeland, furthermore I think that modern pro-Palestinian activism is often antisemitic and ignores the fact that destabilising Israel will lead to a genocide of the Jewish people who live there. However, many people who use the term zionist are racist/believe things I don’t believe in, so I don’t associate with that word.

9. I’m frum* and to me zionism is a secular word and movement that I don’t associate with, this doesn’t really tell you anything about my politics however. (**note to goyim: frum means ‘religious’ in yiddish, but is better translated as part of a community that strictly observes religious law.)

10. I am Israeli, I don’t need to be zionist as I just have political opinions about my country. Zionism is more for people in diaspora.

“I’m anti-Zionist…” this could mean:

1. I do not support the modern state of Israel, I don’t support people who do, I actively fight the political movement of zionism & would be happy to see “Israel” dismantled and Palestine returned.

2. I believe in the Jewish history and ties to Israel, and I also understand why it was created, but for me Zionism stands for enacting violence on Palestinians and thus I will actively fight against it. 

3. Although I am not wholly comfortable with the term, I use anti-Zionist as goyishe activists would probably throw me out of left wing movements if I don’t constantly prove that I’m not a zionist. 

4. I am Israeli, thus when I say I’m anti-Zionist I obviously am not saying I want Israel to be dismantled, or for Israelis to be harmed, I am instead saying something about the political rights of Palestinians.

5. I think Zionism has come to dominate too much of the Jewish identity, for that sake I distance myself from it. This doesn’t say very much about my political opinions.

6. I don’t want Israel to be destroyed, and I fear for the lives of Jews who live in diaspora and may not be able to flee there if Israel were to change, I am also fearful for the lives of Israelis as Israel’s neighbours have often promised death upon them and hamas’ charter has been one of wishing genocide upon Jews. However, I don’t ever want to go to Israel myself, I don’t agree with the government, and in any way I can I support the pro-Palestinian activism. 

7. Everything about Israel makes me really embarrassed and angry, I wish Israel would stop its violent actions as in the long run it is Jews like me in diaspora that face the brunt of it. 

8. It makes me really angry that right wing politicians and bigots can be antisemitic and even enact/incite violence against Jews, but just because they ‘support Israel’ Jewish safety is ignored by the left, and many Jewish institutions will ignore them in hopes of not rocking the boat. 

9. To me it is a simple binary: do you accept what the modern state of Israel is doing now? If yes: you’re a zionist. If no, you’re an anti-zionist. I fall on the latter, but that doesn’t actually tell you about the other layers of opinion I may have. 

To write this I genuinely just ran through all my Jewish friends and tried to summarise their position and sort it into the three headings. As you can see, from just one British Jew in London, I rub shoulders with a multitude of opinions, feelings & perspectives on Israel. And none of these are even supposed to adequately sum up even one Jew’s feelings on the place Israel or the word zionism. 

Hopefully those reading will see why I get so frustrated when they assume that Jews are either sharing the same opinion on the word zionism, or that they are talking about the same thing Jews are when we use it. 

Finally I will say: zionism is a Jewish word, for my own sake I have a complicated and not particularly happy relationship with it. However, I don’t believe any non-Jew have the right to take away the Jewish control over its definitions. This is especially the case as ‘zionist’ is more easily used as a placeholder for Jew, to the extent that the stormfront created ‘zio’ was in fact common place in ‘anti-zionist’ spaces for a long time & used even by ‘woke’ leftists. Asking goyim to stop using zionism as a catch all term to rile against in regards to Israel doesn’t detract anything from pro-Palestinian activism, the activism itself is still there unless your support for Palestinians was just preformative, to show off your ‘wokeness’ or worse: because you’re explicitly or latently antisemitic and don’t want to give up the ‘acceptable’ means of manifesting that. 

@vaspider I don’t know if you’ve seen this yet

“I never do x” vs “When I do x, it doesn’t count, because it’s justified”.


It’s important to have morally neutral language to describe actions. This is especially important for actions that are always, usually, or sometimes morally wrong.

For instance:

  • In English, ‘killing’ and ‘murder’ mean different things.
  • ‘Murder’ always means killing that is either illegal or morally wrong. 
  • ‘Killing’ can describe any act that causes someone to die. 
  • This distinction makes it possible to talk about when killing is and isn’t justified. 
  • Even for people who think that killing is always murder, this is important. 
  • Without morally neutral language, it’s impossible to express a clear opinion on whether or not killing is ever acceptable.

For instance (names randomly generated using http://www.fakenamegenerator.com/gen-random-us-us.php):

  • Heather: *shoots Sonja*.
  • Sonja: *dies as a result of being shot by Heather*.
  • In this situation, Heather definitely killed Sonja. Whether or not she murdered Sonja is something people can argue about.
  • Eg: If Sonja was trying to kill Heather and Heather shot her in self-defense, almost everyone would argue that this isn’t murder.
  • Eg: If Heather was trying to rob Sonja’s store and shot her to prevent her from calling for help, almost everyone would consider that murder.
  • Eg: If Heather felt threatened by Sonja in a public space and shot her rather than trying to run away, most people would consider that murder, but some people would vehemently disagree.
  • Because ‘murder’ and ‘killing’ are different words, everyone would be able to express their opinion in a clear way.

When it’s impossible to describe actions without condemning them, it can be impossible to describe what people are actually doing. This makes it hard to have an honest conversation, and even harder to hold people accountable.

Here’s a disability services example (randomly generated names):

  • Charles (a staff person): I don’t believe in coercion. I never control my clients or tell them what to do. They’re totally in control of their own lives.
  • Patricia  (a disabled adult client): I want to eat some cookies at 3am.
  • Staff person: You can’t eat cookies at 3am. You agreed to take care of yourself by making healthy choices, and it’s important to keep your agreements.
  • Patricia: You’re telling me what to do instead of letting me decide. 
  • Staff person: No I’m not. I’m telling you that you can’t eat cookies at 3am because staying up past your bedtime and eating junk food aren’t healthy choices. I would never tell you what to do.
  • Patricia doesn’t get access to cookies, and is put on a behavior plan if she leaves her room after 10pm.

In this example, Charles is blatantly and unambiguously controlling Patricia and telling her what to do. When Patrica says ‘telling me what to do’, she means it literally. When Charles says, ‘telling people what to do’ he really means ‘telling people what to do (without a good reason)’. He doesn’t realize that coercion is still coercion even if he thinks it’s justified coercion. Without a direct literal way to refer to the act of controlling people, it becomes nearly impossible to discuss when coercion is and isn’t justified.

This happens a lot, in any number of contexts, often following this kind of pattern:

  • Person: I would never do The (Unacceptable) Thing!
  • Person: *does The (Unacceptable) Thing*.
  • Someone else: You literally just did The (Unacceptable) Thing.
  • Person: No, I didn’t do The (Unacceptable) Thing. I had a good reason, so it wasn’t The (Unacceptable) Thing. I would never do The (Unacceptable) Thing.

Sometimes people who talk this way are lying — but not always. Sometimes it’s that they don’t understand that reasons don’t erase actions. Sometimes they think actions only count as The (Unacceptable) Thing when they consider the actions to be unjustified/unacceptable. If you point out that they are, in fact, literally doing The Thing, they think that means you’re accusing them of being bad — and that you couldn’t be right, because they have a good reason.

This language problem is breaking a lot of conversations that need to happen, particularly around privilege and misuse of power.

Tl;dr: It needs to be possible to describe what people are doing in morally neutral terms. This is especially important for actions that are always, usually, or sometimes morally wrong. Scroll up for more about why and a concrete example.