All My Obsessions

Fandom things. My own musings. Travel shenanigans. Things I find pretty. Disclaimer: Just because I reblog it, doesn't mean I agree wholeheartedly (This is largely concerning certain areas of fandom snark, some of it just gives me a giggle. I am studying for the Bar. I NEED ALL OF THE GIGGLES I CAN GET). If you're curious about anything, go ahead and ask. I'm friendly enough. If you send me an ask, tell me if you want me to publish it or not, because unless otherwise stated, i'll answer in private.

"'Now, Watson,' said Holmes, rubbing his hands,'we have half an hour to ourselves. Let us make good use of it.'"

Reblogged from earlgreytea68

The Sign of Four (via gaydeductions)

These type of innuendos are so perfect

(via thetwogaydetectives)

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])

Reblogged from professorfangirl

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])

Reblogged from bbcatemysoul

thekneegrope:

even when john is “forgiving” mary he can’t fucking stop

image

talking about

image

SHERLOCK

image

Reblogged from brunettebookworm

anotherwellkeptsecret:

sherli-holmes:

mallamun:

areyousuretonightsadangernight:

Deduce for me, you sexy thing.

kjdhsfjkadhsfkjhgadjskfgjkagsgf

OH GOD. OH GOD. BLESS WHOEVER PUT THIS GIFSET TOGETHER.

Oh my god, seriously, bless your soul. 

[TALK DIRTY PLAYING IN THE DISTANCE]

(Source: sherlockismyholmesboy)

Reblogged from ron-swansong

wocinsolidarity:

Understand the Israeli – Palestinian Apartheid

Reblogged from mischief-in-221b

(Source: ourtimeorg)

Reblogged from addictedstilltheaddict

addictedstilltheaddict:

seducemymindyouidiot:

Yeah…The creators and actors also denied Booth/Bones until they were blue in the face. 

Well guess who is married with a baby now? 


And Scully/Mulder - don’t forget them…

So true (I know they’re another common comparison, I just felt I didn’t have the cred to name drop them as I didn’t watch the show. It’s on my catch up list)

bluart106:

Two men dancing, Harlem, 1920s.
According to George Chauncey’s eponymous Gay New York, the Harlem Renaissance of the ’20s provided an opportunity for gay men to create their own social and cultural spaces within the burgeoning nightlife in the neighborhood. 

Reblogged from scifantasy

bluart106:

Two men dancing, Harlem, 1920s.

According to George Chauncey’s eponymous Gay New York, the Harlem Renaissance of the ’20s provided an opportunity for gay men to create their own social and cultural spaces within the burgeoning nightlife in the neighborhood. 

(Source: howpeoplelived)

"The West Wing was what we hoped politics would become. House of Cards is what we fear it could be."

Reblogged from ron-swansong

The Writers’ Room ‘House of Cards’ (via im-marion-cotesworth-haye)

(Source: in-this-reverie)

The whole “I support Palestinians but Hamas is an extremist/terrorist” yadda yadda yadda line is annoying. Occupied peoples have a right to resistance and armed struggle MUST be a part of any liberatory praxis when the oppressor has forgone consciousness and dehumanizes an entire people.

Reblogged from ron-swansong

ron-swansong:

seducemymindyouidiot:

ron-swansong:

Admittedly I’m pretty new to learning about the Israel/Palestine conflict (I’ve kind of been avoiding it and hoping it would go away because it just seemed like another black hole conflict and I guess I got sick of dealing with all of it… ANYWAY), but if Hamas is a legitimate resistance force, why are they kind of universally regarded as a terrorist organization? Is it the chokehold that Israel and pro-Israel interests seem to have on everyone? Because from the things I’ve read, they seem like they don’t put much effort into safeguarding actual Palestinians. I know that Israel goes way overboard with attacks, and bombs places/things/people they absolutely do not need to bomb (schools, hospitals, etc.), but it almost seems like Hamas is inviting attacks by doing things like storing rockets in schools?

Literally any clarity anyone can provide would be super appreciated (though I’m obv going to keep doing my own research on this subject).

The line between legitimate resistance organization and terrorist organization is pretty hazy and is influenced a lot by who has more support. For example, the the IRA was listed on the United State’s Foreign Terrorist Organization, but the UFF (basically the protestant IRA, doing the same kinds of things) wasn’t.

So I do think there is some of that going on. But at the same time, the Fatah party /isn’t/ listed on the terrorist organizations, and they are pro-palestine.

However, on a basic level acts of terror are acts of terror even if they are done in resistance to an oppressor.

There are international laws for a reason to govern this sort of things and I get that Israel is a party to many of the conventions and treaties and Hamas is not (mostly because they are not recognized as legitimate). However, just because they don’t submit themselves to the authority of those rules, doesn’t meant they don’t know about them.

If the allegations are true that Hamas is placing weapons and the like in protected targets. They are doing so with the provision in mind that /that/ is a protected place that should not be bombed and exploiting that.

That is wrong, and were they subject to the treaties, it would be a violation.

It, in no way, excuses Israel’s bombing of those protected targets, but that is the kind of thing that goes into targeting analysis.


Speaking of targeting analysis. Israel seems to be throwing out any semblance of acknowledgement to the principles of lawful targeting and it infuriates me.

Additionally, they are using weapons that most countries deem to cause more harm than necessary.

Night bombing. Not okay.

lots of these provisions have been clear-cut ‘do nots’ for decades and it feels like Israel is going out of their way to go against them.


all of these things are violations.

Ugh. It’s complicated. It’s really complicated. Anyone who says this situation /isn’t/ complicated is not paying attention.

All I know is that breach of the law of conflict on one side does not justify the breach on the other. All I know is that the distinction between terrorist or freedom fighter is vague, but killing civilians is not okay.

Is Hamas a terrorist organization? I don’t know. But I do know that I have talked to a boy who saw his mother die in an Israeli phosphorous bomb, who was later burned over most of his body by another israeli bomb. Who, when Hamas tried to recruit him for suicide missions flatly refused because although he had suffered atrocities, he knew that blowing up other innocents wasn’t the way to fix it.

A stance taken by him and his father that caused them to be targets by Hamas and nearly cost them their lives. (Can’t give details beyond that)

It’s not my place to say “let’s all just get along” but if that little boy can say it after experiencing these things first hand, then I believe him.

I don’t have a solution though. I just wanted to give my impressions, understandings, experiences from the case I worked.

Thanks so much for explaining all this. I know it’s really complicated, but that helped clarify some things for me. I’ve got an uncle who’s originally from Palestine, but had to flee with his family to Jordan, and who eventually emigrated here. I wish I could talk to him about it and get his perspective (but THANKS family feuds, for p much ensuring that won’t happen).

No problem!!

It’s definitely really compelling to speak to people who have been there. I’m sorry you’re not able to talk to him.

I will fully acknowledge that my experience is limited to law of armed conflict/humanitarian law classes that one family that I worked with on an asylum case, but I felt that they provided really good insight.

There is always more to learn. And so much to learn here.

(Source: america-wakiewakie)