Now Playing Tracks






Can we please talk about this:

Steven Moffat has called into question calling Peter Capaldi’s incarnation the “Twelfth Doctor”.

Speaking in SFX magazine he says: “I’m just going to throw this continuity grenade back at Doctor Who fans and say, “You are all wrong!” He has never called himself the anything-th Doctor in the show.

“If the Doctor was a real person and walked in here, and you said, “Which incarnation are you?” he’d have to think, just as you’d have to think about how many houses you’ve lived in. He never thinks of himself as a numbered Doctor. The Twelfth Doctor means the twelfth actor to have played the lead in Doctor Who. That’s all it means. There is no such character as the Twelfth Doctor and never has been.

“It’s a long time into the show before any such nonsense ever comes up. It’s purely us lot, us fans, wittering on about calling him the Third or the Fourth Doctor – which is actually quite an unpleasant thing to do. It doesn’t feel right at all when you type that. I had to do that for the [50th] special. It was the Tenth Doctor, the Eleventh Doctor, and it felt like a betrayal, in a way. But what else could you do?

“Out of curiosity I looked at what they did in “The Five Doctors”. They didn’t number them at all. Do you know what they called them? The Hartnell Doctor, the Pertwee Doctor…” [x]

I’m sorry, but this really rubs me up the wrong way. Wasn’t there a conversation in the Time of the Doctor dedicated to clearing up this very thing? (A conversation in which The Doctor mentions “thirteen versions” of him, “thirteen silly Doctors”, and in which Clara clearly states that the man she’s talking to right now is “number eleven”.)

Doesn’t this mean that, yes, the whole numbering system does matter inside the show and isn’t just relevant to the sort of fans who are into this sort of thing? 

And let’s not forget the “Eleven is the best, you’ll cry your eyes out” wank that Clara says at some point in series 7. 

To me it just sounds like Moffat is constantly contradicting himself and always forgetting the shit he wrote himself.

Also, the Doctor tells Craig that he is the eleventh in The Lodger.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But it’s ironic to hear Moffat say that the Doctor has never called himself the anything-th Doctor, when the only times it’s happened (afaik) are on his watch.

What is he even on about? Of course we call them the Xth Doctor, because it’s waaay clearer than saying “When he had curls and the silly costume- no, brown curls. Yeah, that one”. We’ve been using the numbering for decades, I don’t understand why he feels there is a need to stop doing that.

Just like when the Doctor is called “Doctor Who” in media, it’s much clearer for everyone when it’s “Peter Capaldi is the next Doctor Who” instead of “Peter Capaldi is the next Doctor”.

"He doesn’t think of himself as X" doesn’t matter because he is a fictional character, and we are talking about him in the real universe. No one has ever claimed the Doctor has ever called himself the Xth Doctor, except yeah, in The Lodger.

I just don’t understand at all what Moffat is trying to say with all this. Yeah, we know that the numbering system is just for us fans. There is not a single fan out there who thinks the Tenth Doctor’s name is the Tenth Doctor or Ten. Has he been watching a lot of Classic Who lately and feels he’s made discoveries other fans aren’t aware of? Or is he trying to fix the mess the War Doctor brought in on the numbering? Though I suppose there isn’t much else he can talk about until the show starts airing again, anyway. 

Ok, and just so we’re clear, I’m not holding this against Moffat or criticizing him. I’m just having trouble trying to figure out what he thinks this “revelation” is accomplishing, because it comes off slightly condescending.

//Wait, so is he trying to say we shouldn’t say the Doctor’s incarnations are different? Because they are. Yes, he is the same person with similar characteristics, but like Big Finish put it; “in different proportions”. There is no use pretending every incarnation is exactly the same and should be addressed as such. He is also not a real person, and some people prefer the acting or writing style some of the Doctor’s incarnations have had over others.

"He doesn’t think of himself as X" doesn’t matter because he is a fictional character, and we are talking about him in the real universe.


That Moffat quote is also another example of him addressing the fandom with a condescending and know-it-all attitude.

Well, I hold that against him. I do not want the arguments about the numbering to start again. Why is he starting it again? Didn’t we have enough of it during the 50th and the Christmas special when he tried to destroy the numbering? Didn’t we already establish that the only times the Doctor numbered himself was during his own run of the show with the Eleventh Doctor, that the Doctor refered to himself as the Eleventh around five times during Matt’s run? And then he tried to make us believe that he never did, or that the Doctor didn’t know which number he was or whatever. Now that the change in numbering fortunately didn’t stick, and that Twelve is still Twelve, he will try again? Again, ignoring things he wrote himself, like the whole ‘I’m the thriteenth’ in the Christmas Special? Start again the ol’ arguments we had back during the 50th and  Christmas special, why? Does he have something against the number 12 so much that he wants no Doctor having that number?  

SIGN THE PETITION - NBC: Don't Straight-Wash John Constantine aka Hellblazer #BiBlazer


In the comic books, Constantine alludes to past relationships with both women and men and is periodically depicted leaving the bed of male lovers. But NBC’s Constatine, played by Matt Ryan, doesn’t have any same-sex dates on his dance card at the moment, it seems. 

And while Cerone is right in noting a few instances where Constantine was seen getting out of bed with a man, it was more than just "one or two issues." Throughout the comic, Constantine alludes to more than just a few sexual encounters with someone of the same sex.

It’s bad enough networks don’t create bisexual characters let alone when they "straightwash" one. Make your voice heard!

  1. Sign the Petition then signal boost it to your friends on Tumblr, Facebook, Twitter, and anything else you can think of
  2. Tweet using the hashtag #BiBlazer (A combination of Bisexual and Hellblazer) to stop the bi erasure of a canon bisexual character. Direct your tweets to @JohnConWriters and @NBCConstantine.
Especially in the United States, there’s a lot of hokum about ‘positive thinking’ and various other iterations of magical thinking, as though by crossing your fingers hard enough and wishing, you can magic yourself to a world where bad things don’t happen. If bad things do happen, you’re not trying hard enough. If you respond to them in a negative way, you’re letting them get you down, instead of confronting them with a cheery smile and brave aspect.
On Inferiority and Consent | this ain’t livin’ (via brutereason)










This is a game for if you ever wanted to travel with the doctor! The link to the game is here!



(Source: expelliarmus)

1) You are allowed to take up space. You are a human.

2) You are allowed to have a voice.

3) You are allowed to leave whenever you feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

4) You deserve more than someone who doesn’t know how to respect you.

5) You are allowed to put your own needs first.

6) You are allowed to love yourself.

6:11 p.m. (Six reminders for bad times)

(Source: expresswithsilence)


Hey guys! This is my friend Alexandria, she’s a scholarship student at Cornell University. She’s a National Merit Scholar, is so smart and very sweet, but right now, she and her mom having a hard time finding the funds to get her back up to New York from Texas. If any of y’all could even donate a little bit to getting her back to school, it would mean so much!


Anonymous asked:

Asking me to not use gypsy because it's a slur, is like telling me I can't say fairy because it's a slur against otherkin freaks on tumblr. Or that witch is a slur against women who like to trip. Gypsies are mythical and mystical, just like fairies and witches. Ain't ever gonna change that opinion, and anyone who tries to call me out might as well talk to a wall. Hope I don't get a gypsy curse put on me!



sure….. Romani people sure DON’T exist……. we’re just  ~mythical~ and ~mystical~


nope sorry kids you dont actually exist


sorry young Rroma activists! you’re only mythical!!!







………..gadje………. *shakes head*


Anonymous asked:

Just curious what alternatives are there to animal testing? When you say animals do you mean ALL animals? Worms, fish, rats? I think animal testing for make-up is horrible, but for scientific research it's necessary. Not trying to hate or anything, I'm genuinely curious.


Besides the fact that it’s ethically barbaric, I would like to share the facts with you that have brought me to the conclusion that animal testing is a waste of time.

-In the book Vivisection Unveiled  Dr John Carpenter explains that less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals.

-According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree “5%-25% of the time.”

-Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85% as explained in the MEIC Evaluation of Acute Systemic Toxicity. 

-92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both. This is revealed in the 1998 book Nature Biotechnology. 

-The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals as published in Smoking: New York Times and Heart disease: Animal Models in Cardiovascular Research.

-A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK- commissioned by patient safety group Europeans for medical progress- showed that 83% wanted an independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods.

-In the Drug Metabolism reviews, it’s said that rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin.” 

-Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue. The two are completely different. This was published in World Medicine Volume 79.

-Volume 298 of Science Magazine said the results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs.

-Page 41 of Vivisection Unveiled says that gender differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.

-AP Fletcher revealed that 75% of side effects identified in animals never occur.

-Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics said that over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals.

-Vioxx was shown to protect the heart of mice, dogs, monkeys and other lab animals. It was linked to heart attacks and strokes in up to 139,000 humans. This was revealed in Current Opinions in Lipidology.

-Science Volume 297 said that genetically modified animals are not like humans. The mdx mouse is supposed to have muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment.

-The Journal of the American Medical Association published that genetically Modified (GM) animal, the CF- mouse, never gets fluid infections in the lungs – the cause of death for 95% of human cystic fibrosis patients.

-The Journal of the American Medical Association also said that in America, 106,000 deaths a year are attributed to reactions to medical drugs.

-Nature Medicine 2000 revealed that each year, 2.1 million Americans are hospitalised as a result of medical treatment.

-In the UK an estimated 70,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs. All these drugs have passed animal tests. Earl Baldwin published this.

-Professor Hoff at the congress of clinical medicine said that in the UKs House Of Lords, questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer.

-A German doctor’s congress Munchner concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.

-Munchner also concluded that according to a thorough study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests.

-Developmental Toxicology said that 70% of drugs which cause human birth defects are safe in pregnant monkeys.

-Volume 19 of Biogenic Amines revealed that 78% of foetus-damaging chemicals can be detected by one non-animal test.

-Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals – including water, several vitamins, vegetable oils, oxygen and drinking waters. Of more than 1000 substances dangerous in lab animals, over 97% are safe in humans. This was published in Sax’s Dangerous Properties Of Industrial Materials.

-One of the most common lifesaving operations (for ectopic pregnancies) was delayed 40 years by vivisection said the Birmingham Daily Post.

-In The Story Of Medicine by K. Walker, it’s said that blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies.

-The polio vaccine was delayed 40 years by monkey tests said the Yale University Press in the report The History Of Poliomyelitis.

-The Journal of the American Paraplegic Society published that 30 HIV vaccines, 33 spinal cord damage drugs, and over 700 treatments for stroke have been developed in animals. None work in humans. 

-The Director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was “I am sure it could be.”

In conclusion, the practice is not only unethical but obsolete. 

When vivisectionists are asked why they use animals in labs, they tell us it’s because the animals are like us. But when asked why it’s acceptable to do this to animals, they tell us it’s because the animals are not like us.

What I’ve found from studying psychology in general is that evolutionary psychology in particular is rarely good science. Its hypotheses are rarely falsifiable, and it allows any researcher with sufficient creativity to invent a plausible-sounding explanation for just about any phenomenon in human behavior. Many studies from evolutionary psychologists merely show that a phenomenon exists, and then assume that that phenomenon has an evolutionary origin. In fact, most of our behavior is probably caused by an interplay of genetics, socialization, culture, and other factors that are too complex to distill into a statement like “most people aren’t biologically predisposed to share their lovers.”
Debunking Four Myths About Polyamory
To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union