jacknightshadefrost:

frozen-autumn-sky:

What have I done…

you just made Frozen so much better

87,602 notes

bigeyesandstarrynights:

that was the best thing I have read in about 10 years.

(Source: best-of-memes)

60,269 notes

Anonymous said: In your opinion, who is the physically the strongest Disney prince - just curious.

nurmuzdalifah:

frostytower:

rapnzel-s:

Without a doubt Eugene.

image

no seriously watch him jumping around the castle roof, he fricken runs around the edges of the roof like good god I would’ve fallen off and he jumps really big distance on the roof too
image

image

how the fack does he do that

image

and he tackles down Maximus - who is a HUGE horse like have you seen the neck on Maximus Jebus it’s the size of Eugene

image

and he got beat up by said horse

image

and here he is hanging on for dear life if that was me I would’ve fallen and died

image

image

and then he plummeted to his death and somehow survived?!

image

(god Eugene’s scream in that^ bit makes me laugh so much) and then he climbed a tower straight afterwards like okay then

and my personal favourite; with his last strength he saved Rapunzel

image

and with even less strength than that he tugged on Rapunzel’s head to get her attention

image

not to mention he was whacked by a freaking frying pan heaps

image

oh and when he fell flat on his face in the chair

he flipped himself onto his side using just his fingers

dang

This post is still getting notes.
This is it.
This is my legacy.
Put this on my gravestone when I’m dead.
This is how I’ll be remembered.

We all know he’s secretly Ezio Auditore.

32,453 notes

poppypicklesticks:

irishnationalist:

creepyspider-stuff:

deducecanoe:

ourobousfamilia:

deducecanoe:

chickwithmonkey:

potootagath:

wingleader:

wakeupslaves:

the-goddamazon:

LOL man.

never forget white people did nothing first neither the best, they sleep and eat false propaganda,

Ugh, why the shit does that have to turn into a race thing? Why does EVERYTHING have to turn into a race thing?

because white people have made sure that everything is about race
as proved by the fact that when you say explorer, you think of a bunch of white guys walking the world and discovering it ~exotic wonders~ even though Zheng He travelled through Asia, to the Middle East, and even East Africa. But you’d likely never heard of him before.
Same reason you never heard of Ahmad Ibn Fadlan, an Arab traveller who, as early as the 10th century, went to the Volga area for diplomatic reasons. He wrote about it, much as Marco Polo would do later for his own travels, and is one of our sources on what viking were like (and by all accounts, he wrote about them more accurately than western scholars of the same period did)
Oh, or Ibn Battuta who travelled throughout Africa long before europeans did, and even went to Europe himself.
And that’s just some example of Muslim medieval travel writers
Everything is about race because white people keep telling everyone that their race is the only one who every got anything done.

i have heard of precisely zero non-european explorers ever in my life, and that fucking sucks. this exhibit is amazing and i need to learn more.

That boat is a frickin aircraft carrier comparatively. Holy crap. And no. Never heard a peep.

Zhenghe went to over 40 countries in Asia and Africa and probably went even further, but I didn’t encounter that in history books before. He brought gifts from China to every country he went to and everyone loved him. It was just like “Hey, I’m here with a water-helicarrier and a gift,” and the kings of every country were lilke “holy shit son well here have a giraffe.” There are paintings depicting him leading a giraffe as well. Check him out guys, he’s really cool

That is so awesome. Fuck western history. This is the real shit.

P.s you can open a book about the subject too about Chinese history and everything in betweenIt’s not rocket science

Zheng He discovered and explored nothing.
He did not sail one nautical mile that others (including the Chinese and White men) had not sailed before.
His voyages were tributary expeditions along already existing trade routes. He knew the cities he visited already existed and where they were before he set out. Traders and pirates from all over Asia had long gone on the routes between the cities he visited.
The Yuan emperor (Kublai Khan) sent a fleet in 1284 to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and a fleet sent by the Khan’s great-nephew for a bride in Persia visited Ceylon in 1293. The purpose of visiting Ceylon was to obtain the Buddhist holy relic of Buddha’s left canine tooth, by trying to buy it from the local king(s). Both fleets stopped in Singapore and Sumatra and India. Chinese artifacts are found throughout cities in the Indian ocean, so Chinese merchants didn’t stop at Indonesia. They followed Malay, Indian and Arab traders where they had sailed for centuries
So the trips Zheng He made were not unprecedented, unique or new; neither were they discoveries or explorations. In fact, Marco Polo was aboard both Yuan fleets to Ceylon as a a representative of Kublai Khan. So Zheng He merely went where a White man had gone before.
Zheng He’s routes in the Indian Ocean had been established for more than a millennia before he came along, and the sailors included Whites. More on that below.
Zheng He’s ships were so big because they were to be filled with tribute to be brought back.
Even Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, who can’t lavish enough praise on non-Whites, states:

The objective was “impressing the ports he visited with Chinese power,” as well as “stimulating the awe of the emperor’s home constituency with exotica which the Chinese classified as the tribute of remote peoples”

Zheng He brought giraffes back to China because he extorted riches out of the local kings by threatening them with his huge fleet:

Imperial proclamations were issued to the foreign kings, which meant that they could either submit and be bestowed with rewards or refuse and be pacified under the threat of an overwhelming military force.[132][208] Foreign kings had to reaffirm their recognition of the Chinese emperor’s superior status by presenting tribute.[209] Many countries were enrolled as tributaries.[141]
…
Nevertheless, Dreyer (2007) states that it must have been a “terrifying apparition” when the large Chinese fleet came within visible reach before the coastline of a foreign country, bringing any state into submission by the sole sight of it alone.

And no, they were not loved wherever they went:

The Ming–Kotte War was a military conflict between the expeditionary forces of the Chinese Ming empire with the Sinhalese Kotte kingdom, located in the southern territories of present-day Sri Lanka. This conflict happened when Ming China’s treasure fleet returned to Ceylon in 1410 or 1411. It resulted in the overthrow of the Sinhalese ruling house.

And the model is inaccurate. Accurate estimates put the treasure ships at 59 meters, 3 times as long as the Santa Maria. 
And why did these voyages stop? They lasted thirty years, and then the ships were dismantled, records of the voyages destroyed and the Ming Dynasty ended all overseas trade. Why? (answers below)
Why didn’t the Chinese circumnavigate Africa to the Atlantic? Why didn’t the Chinese sail north to explore Manchuria, Siberia, Alaska and America? Why didn’t the Chinese discover Australia or New Zealand? Why didn’t they explore Melanesia, Polynesia, Micronesia and venture to Hawaii in the calm Pacific? Why didn’t they circumnavigate the world?
Why did Chinese have advanced ships but do so little with them? As well China stagnated in shipbuilding technology afterwards. They continued to rely on sewn planks and junk rigs. They lacked the navigation technology that Europeans had in the Age of Exploration and had been using since the middle ages, portolan charts, Jacob’s staff’s, true dry mariner’s compasses, and astrolabes. The Chinese continued to use needles in bowls of water for compasses until the late 15th century. They failed to adopt the advances of their neighbours or visiting Europeans:

The remarkable number of inventions that originated in China is proof enough of the genius of the Chinese people. And yet for centuries China refused to accept ideas or inventions from outside, with the result that Chinese techniques eventually languished…A willingness to imitate, or adopt, inventions made by foreigners is the first step towards the creation of an inventive and technically progressive society

The Chinese also believed the Earth was flat until Europeans corrected them in the mid seventeenth century:

The lack of instances of arguments for a spherical earth is, of course, compounded by the lack of instances of any counter-argument at all; the flat earth remained unquestioned. This situation persisted until well into the seventeenth century.

(Europeans didn’t hesitate to adopt outside ideas and improve on them, e.g. the Chinese invented paper as we know it, Chinese POWs passed it on to Arab Muslim conquerors. Arabs passed it on to Europeans, but Europeans were the first to mechanize paper production with the use of water mills [which we invented]; Chinese and Arabs continued to make it manually by hand. The Chinese also failed to advance in the use of gunpowder and guns/cannons)
Most crucially, the lack of an adventurer spirit in Zheng He’s voyages is obvious. As David Landes wrote in his The Wealth and Poverty of Nations:

Why did China not make that little extra effort that would have taken it around the southern end of Africa and up into the Atlantic? Why, decades and even centuries after the arrival of European visitors in Chinese waters were there no Chinese vessels in the harbors of Europe? (the first such vessel, a vehicle for diplomacy, visited London for the Great Exhibition of 1851.)…
To begin with, the Chinese lacked range, focus, and above all, curiosity. They went to show themselves, not to see and learn, to bestow their presence, not to stay, to receive obeisance and tribute, not to buy. … this desire to overawe meant that costs far exceeded returns. These voyages reeked of extravagance.

The Chinese are a very pragmatic people, they simply saw the costs of Zheng He’s voyages as too high and had them stopped:

The Shuyu Zhouzilu then adds the following to the story.[252] The Minister of War Xiang Zhong (in office 1474-1477) had sent a clerk to retrieve the documents, but could not find them after several days of searching.[253][254] Liu Daxia eventually confessed and justified his actions to Xiang Zhong by stating that “the expeditions of Sanbao to the Western Ocean wasted tens of myriads of money and grain, and moreover the people who met their deaths [on these expeditions] may be counted by the myriads. Although he returned with wonderful things, what benefit was it to the state? This was merely an action of bad government of which ministers should severely disapprove. Even if the old archives were still preserved they should be destroyed in order to supress [a repetition of these things] at the root.”[253][254] Minister Xiang Zhong was recorded to have been impressed by this explanation.[253][254]

And simply put, the treasure voyages were not as dangerous, difficult or daring a journey as European explorations, not simply because the routes were known, as were the kingdoms visited, but because the Pacific and Indian Oceans are much calmer and easier to navigate than the Atlantic. Joseph Needham, The Shorter Science and Civilisation in China, p.141:

There was another matter in which the Portuguese showed seemingly more originality than the Chinese, and this was in the use of regime winds and currents. The problems they [the Portugese] had to face were more difficult, and the rose gallantly to the challenge. Almost as far as Madagascar the Chinese were in the realms of the monsoons ,the ‘junk-driving winds’ with which they had been familiar in their own home waters for more than a millennium. But the inhospitable Atlantic had never encouraged sailors in the same way, and though there had been a number of attempts to sail westwards, that ocean had never been systematically explored… these voyages were essentially an urbane but systematic tour of inspection of the known world.

And the plain and simple fact is most explorers have been European/White:

Most explorers in history have been European. Concise Encyclopedia of Explorations lists a total of 274 explorers, of which only fifteen are non-European, with none listed after the mid-fifteenth century.
Frank Debenham’s Discovery and Exploration, a broad survey published in 1960, informs us that “man’s natural inquisitiveness has been a mainspring of discovery and exploration.”29 Yet, much of Debenham’s book is about modern Europeans exploring the world. There is an appendix that lists a total of 203 famous explorers, of which only eight are non-Western.30
Likewise, Fernández-Armesto’s book Pathfinders is described as “a study of humankind’s restless spirit,” but once he reaches the period after the 1500s, he has no explorers outside the West to write about.

The science of geography was initiated by the Ancient Greeks. European geography, cartography and interest in the rest of the world never stopped from the time of the Ancient Greeks’ colonizing the Mediterranean, Black and Aegean Seas (The city of Miletus alone created over 90 colonies) and creating the first world maps.
Whites had different motivations for exploration. The Portuguese, a tiny nation of less than one million, circumnavigated Africa and then the Globe, not the Chinese because they were motivated by a desire of renown and superior achievement. Again, Fernández-Armesto:

we have seen evidence of one feature of European culture which did make the region peculiarly conducive to breeding explorers. They were steeped in the idealization of adventure. Many of them shared or strove to embody the great aristocratic ethos of their day—the “code” of chivalry.

Fernández-Armesto here speaks about the Portugese and Spanish, thinking this idealization was a result of medieval romance popular in Iberia. But the same statement could be made of the Ancient Greeks who loved the Odyssey, the Vikings and their explorations, the Crusaders, Renaissance explorers like Marco Polo, even the scientific explorers in the Age of Enlightenment (Captain Cook in particular, in his own words he wanted the “pleasure of being first” to sail “not only farther than man has been before me but as far as I think it possible for man to go”).
This spirit of exploration never ceased amongst Whites even when the culture became materialist: the explorers of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Amazon basin, the explorers of the North pole and Antarctica, the mountaineers who surveyed, mapped, climbed and conquered the Alps, the Himalaya and the Andes and astronauts and cosmonauts of the Space Race. Even today the private mission to Mars is White. Exploration, restlessness, lust for the glory and lust of adventure is a White thing. Valuing prestige above all else has been the defining element of the West.
As Oswald Spengler put it, the soul of the West is a fighting one, struggling against comfort and convience for the challenge and daring: 


It has been said that when Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilization he answered, “I think it would be a good idea.” Academics today interpret this answer to mean that the actual history of the West—the Crusades, the conquest of the Americas, the British Empire—belie its great ideas and great book…
I challenge this naive separation between an idealized and a realistic West, using Oswald Spengler’s image of the West as a strikingly vibrant culture driven by a type of personality overflowing with expansive, disruptive, and creative impulses. Spengler designated the West as a “Faustian” culture whose “prime-symbol” was “pure and limitless space.” This soul type was first visible in medieval Europe, starting with Romanesque art, but particularly in the “spaciousness of Gothic cathedrals”; “the heroes of the Grail and Arthurian and Siegfried sagas, ever roaming in the infinite; and the Crusades,” including “the Hohenstaufen in Sicily, the Hansa in the Baltic, the Teutonic Knights in the Slavonic East, [and later] the Spaniards in America, [and] the Portuguese in the East Indies.”
“Fighting,”“progressing,”“overcoming of resistances,” battling “against what is near, tangible and easy”—these are some of the terms Spengler uses to describe this soul. This Faustian being was animated with the spirit of a “proud beast of prey,” like that of an “eagle, lion, [or] tiger.” Much like Hegel’s master, who engages in a fight to the death for pure prestige, for this being “the concerns of life, the deed, became more important than mere physical existence.”
This spirit infused every cultural sphere of Western life. As John Farrenkopf puts it: “the architecture of the Gothic cathedral expresses the Faustian will to conquer the heavens; Western symphonic music conveys the Faustian urge to conjure up a dynamic, transcendent, infinite space of sound; Western perspective painting mirrors the Faustian will to infinite distance; and the Western novel responds to the Faustian imperative to explore the inner depths of the human personality while extending outward with a comprehensive view.”


As for why none of you idiots ever heard of Zheng He, maybe it’s because you’re uninquisitive morons? I was taught about Zheng He, but then again I was in the International Baccalaureate, so I’m not a retard. You probably did learn about him briefly, but forgot, cos y’know… you’re fucking thick. And again, Zheng He was not an explorer or discoverer.
As for why you’ve never heard of Muslim travel writers, why have you never heard of Eudoxus of Cyzicus, the first Greek to sail to India in 118 BC, and possibly the first man to attempt to circumnavigate Africa? 
Greeks and Roman ships sailing to India were common by 50 BC. In fact Romans sent an embassy all the way to China by sea in 166 and continued to do so until the 7th century (Showing again how Zheng He’s route was long and well used). Why have you never heard of this? 
Why have you never heard of Scylax of Caryanda, a Greek explorer of India who sailed down the Indus in the 6th and 5th centuries BC?
Or of Pytheas, who’s exploration of the Northern Europe helped influence Eratosthenes conceptualization of the Earth as a sphere, his estimated size within 5% accuracy?
Or of Roman traveler Maes Titianus, who reached China?
Or of William of Rubruck, a 13th century traveler through central Asia all the way to the Khan’s court at Karakorum? 
Or of Afansy Nikitin, early 15th century Russian traveler to Persia and India, who wrote Journey Beyond Three Seas?
Or of Niccolo de Conti an early 15th century traveler to China?
Or of Viking raids, conquests and explorations as far East as the southern Caspian Sea in modern day Azerbaijan and Iran?
Answer: 
There’s a lot of travelers in history.
Only some of them make a consequential impact.
Marco Polo was one who made an impact. His tales of China and Asia fascinated Europeans, so much that it helped spur the Age of Exploration. Christopher Columbus carried a copy of his book with him across the Atlantic. His works also helped create the Catalan Atlas and the Fra Maruo world map:


Niccolo de Conti also influenced the Genoese map:

Why weren’t any great new world maps made of the areas visited by Zheng He? The Guang Yutu was an atlas of forty sailing maps that focused only on the coastlines of places Zheng He visited, but it made no attempt at a world map. And it failed to be popular:

This much we know: On the eve of the first Anglo-Chinese War of 1839-42, Jesuit-influenced world maps of the sort produced by individuals such as Cao Junyi and Zhuang Tingfu were at best a dim memory for most Chinese scholars and officials. From the late seventeenth century into the nineteenth, the vast majority of Chinese mapmakers ignored Jesuit constructions of the world almost entirely. Most did not even choose to pattern their cartographic productions after Luo Guangxian’s grid-oriented Guang Yutu. Far more popular were maps of the Tianxia quantu variety, which depicted India, Europe and even Africa as small entities sitting on the extreme western margins of China. 


Above is an example of a map from the Guang Yutu.
Here is what Chinese world maps looked like before Europeans arrived:

As you can see Chinese world maps speak of Chinese insularity and disinterest with the rest of the world. Cartographic skill was devoted to smaller maps for navigation, world maps grew more inaccurate with time. European  Jesuits created increasingly detailed detailed and accurate world maps for the Imperial Court, but again they failed to be popular.
This Korean map dramatically inflates the size of Korea:

Some better maps were actually deliberately destroyed by the Chinese imperial authorities.
The Muslim travel writers also failed to have such an impact, either in cartography or inspiring adventure, even the great Ibn Battuta. They themselves were not inspired by adventure, being mostly emissaries. They mostly visited Muslim lands, unlike European travelers who were attracted to the alien. Also notable that on that link of Muslim travel writers, two merely made pilgrimage to Mecca, a third was Greek, a fourth a late nineteenth century scholar who traveled to England and Zheng He is also on the list. So out of a list of 13 only 8 Muslim travel writers can be said to be actual travelers. Battuta himself visited only Muslim countries aside from China and even there he stayed with Muslims as he did wherever he went, and in his own words was motivated by “overmastering impulses” to visit “illustrious sanctuaries” not the alien, unknown and dangerous. Muslim geography would culminate in the Tabula Rogeriana and would advance no further. These men simply did not have the impact that Marco Polo had, nor the same motivation to visit the far off and unknown.
In the same vein it’s insane to suggest that Zheng He’s voyages were of the same consequence as Christopher Columbus’ discoveries. Columbus sailed where no man had gone before initiating the conquest and colonisation of the Americas. Zheng He was erased from history by his own people and the world promptly forgot him as if he never was, his voyages mere legends in the lands he visited. No one could have erased Columbus, Cortes, Magellan or de Vasca if they wanted to.
I could write more but I think this suffices.
"fuck western history?" No, Fuck you.
Edit: I knew I would remember something to add something: Rangaku. Europeans set out to conquer, but we were willing to learn and trade knowledge with other peoples as well, our curiosity of them initiating the sciences of anthropology and ethnography.

I fucking love it when tumblr gets schooled and I learn something new in the process 

poppypicklesticks:

irishnationalist:

creepyspider-stuff:

deducecanoe:

ourobousfamilia:

deducecanoe:

chickwithmonkey:

potootagath:

wingleader:

wakeupslaves:

the-goddamazon:

LOL man.

never forget white people did nothing first neither the best, they sleep and eat false propaganda,

Ugh, why the shit does that have to turn into a race thing? Why does EVERYTHING have to turn into a race thing?

because white people have made sure that everything is about race

as proved by the fact that when you say explorer, you think of a bunch of white guys walking the world and discovering it ~exotic wonders~ even though Zheng He travelled through Asia, to the Middle East, and even East Africa. But you’d likely never heard of him before.

Same reason you never heard of Ahmad Ibn Fadlan, an Arab traveller who, as early as the 10th century, went to the Volga area for diplomatic reasons. He wrote about it, much as Marco Polo would do later for his own travels, and is one of our sources on what viking were like (and by all accounts, he wrote about them more accurately than western scholars of the same period did)

Oh, or Ibn Battuta who travelled throughout Africa long before europeans did, and even went to Europe himself.

And that’s just some example of Muslim medieval travel writers

Everything is about race because white people keep telling everyone that their race is the only one who every got anything done.

i have heard of precisely zero non-european explorers ever in my life, and that fucking sucks. this exhibit is amazing and i need to learn more.

That boat is a frickin aircraft carrier comparatively. Holy crap. And no. Never heard a peep.

Zhenghe went to over 40 countries in Asia and Africa and probably went even further, but I didn’t encounter that in history books before. He brought gifts from China to every country he went to and everyone loved him. It was just like “Hey, I’m here with a water-helicarrier and a gift,” and the kings of every country were lilke “holy shit son well here have a giraffe.” There are paintings depicting him leading a giraffe as well. Check him out guys, he’s really cool

That is so awesome. Fuck western history. This is the real shit.

P.s you can open a book about the subject too about Chinese history and everything in between
It’s not rocket science

Zheng He discovered and explored nothing.

He did not sail one nautical mile that others (including the Chinese and White men) had not sailed before.

His voyages were tributary expeditions along already existing trade routes. He knew the cities he visited already existed and where they were before he set out. Traders and pirates from all over Asia had long gone on the routes between the cities he visited.

The Yuan emperor (Kublai Khan) sent a fleet in 1284 to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and a fleet sent by the Khan’s great-nephew for a bride in Persia visited Ceylon in 1293. The purpose of visiting Ceylon was to obtain the Buddhist holy relic of Buddha’s left canine tooth, by trying to buy it from the local king(s). Both fleets stopped in Singapore and Sumatra and India. Chinese artifacts are found throughout cities in the Indian ocean, so Chinese merchants didn’t stop at Indonesia. They followed Malay, Indian and Arab traders where they had sailed for centuries

So the trips Zheng He made were not unprecedented, unique or new; neither were they discoveries or explorations. In fact, Marco Polo was aboard both Yuan fleets to Ceylon as a a representative of Kublai Khan. So Zheng He merely went where a White man had gone before.

Zheng He’s routes in the Indian Ocean had been established for more than a millennia before he came along, and the sailors included Whites. More on that below.

Zheng He’s ships were so big because they were to be filled with tribute to be brought back.

Even Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, who can’t lavish enough praise on non-Whites, states:

The objective was impressing the ports he visited with Chinese power, as well as stimulating the awe of the emperors home constituency with exotica which the Chinese classified as the tribute of remote peoples

Zheng He brought giraffes back to China because he extorted riches out of the local kings by threatening them with his huge fleet:

Imperial proclamations were issued to the foreign kings, which meant that they could either submit and be bestowed with rewards or refuse and be pacified under the threat of an overwhelming military force.[132][208] Foreign kings had to reaffirm their recognition of the Chinese emperor’s superior status by presenting tribute.[209] Many countries were enrolled as tributaries.[141]

Nevertheless, Dreyer (2007) states that it must have been a “terrifying apparition” when the large Chinese fleet came within visible reach before the coastline of a foreign country, bringing any state into submission by the sole sight of it alone.

And no, they were not loved wherever they went:

The Ming–Kotte War was a military conflict between the expeditionary forces of the Chinese Ming empire with the Sinhalese Kotte kingdom, located in the southern territories of present-day Sri Lanka. This conflict happened when Ming China’s treasure fleet returned to Ceylon in 1410 or 1411. It resulted in the overthrow of the Sinhalese ruling house.

And the model is inaccurate. Accurate estimates put the treasure ships at 59 meters, 3 times as long as the Santa Maria.

And why did these voyages stop? They lasted thirty years, and then the ships were dismantled, records of the voyages destroyed and the Ming Dynasty ended all overseas trade. Why? (answers below)

Why didn’t the Chinese circumnavigate Africa to the Atlantic? Why didn’t the Chinese sail north to explore Manchuria, Siberia, Alaska and America? Why didn’t the Chinese discover Australia or New Zealand? Why didn’t they explore Melanesia, Polynesia, Micronesia and venture to Hawaii in the calm Pacific? Why didn’t they circumnavigate the world?

Why did Chinese have advanced ships but do so little with them? As well China stagnated in shipbuilding technology afterwards. They continued to rely on sewn planks and junk rigs. They lacked the navigation technology that Europeans had in the Age of Exploration and had been using since the middle ages, portolan charts, Jacob’s staff’s, true dry mariner’s compasses, and astrolabes. The Chinese continued to use needles in bowls of water for compasses until the late 15th century. They failed to adopt the advances of their neighbours or visiting Europeans:

The remarkable number of inventions that originated in China is proof enough of the genius of the Chinese people. And yet for centuries China refused to accept ideas or inventions from outside, with the result that Chinese techniques eventually languished…A willingness to imitate, or adopt, inventions made by foreigners is the first step towards the creation of an inventive and technically progressive society

The Chinese also believed the Earth was flat until Europeans corrected them in the mid seventeenth century:

The lack of instances of arguments for a spherical earth is, of course, compounded by the lack of instances of any counter-argument at all; the flat earth remained unquestioned. This situation persisted until well into the seventeenth century.

(Europeans didn’t hesitate to adopt outside ideas and improve on them, e.g. the Chinese invented paper as we know it, Chinese POWs passed it on to Arab Muslim conquerors. Arabs passed it on to Europeans, but Europeans were the first to mechanize paper production with the use of water mills [which we invented]; Chinese and Arabs continued to make it manually by hand. The Chinese also failed to advance in the use of gunpowder and guns/cannons)

Most crucially, the lack of an adventurer spirit in Zheng He’s voyages is obvious. As David Landes wrote in his The Wealth and Poverty of Nations:

Why did China not make that little extra effort that would have taken it around the southern end of Africa and up into the Atlantic? Why, decades and even centuries after the arrival of European visitors in Chinese waters were there no Chinese vessels in the harbors of Europe? (the first such vessel, a vehicle for diplomacy, visited London for the Great Exhibition of 1851.)…

To begin with, the Chinese lacked range, focus, and above all, curiosity. They went to show themselves, not to see and learn, to bestow their presence, not to stay, to receive obeisance and tribute, not to buy. … this desire to overawe meant that costs far exceeded returns. These voyages reeked of extravagance.

The Chinese are a very pragmatic people, they simply saw the costs of Zheng He’s voyages as too high and had them stopped:

The Shuyu Zhouzilu then adds the following to the story.[252] The Minister of War Xiang Zhong (in office 1474-1477) had sent a clerk to retrieve the documents, but could not find them after several days of searching.[253][254] Liu Daxia eventually confessed and justified his actions to Xiang Zhong by stating that “the expeditions of Sanbao to the Western Ocean wasted tens of myriads of money and grain, and moreover the people who met their deaths [on these expeditions] may be counted by the myriads. Although he returned with wonderful things, what benefit was it to the state? This was merely an action of bad government of which ministers should severely disapprove. Even if the old archives were still preserved they should be destroyed in order to supress [a repetition of these things] at the root.”[253][254] Minister Xiang Zhong was recorded to have been impressed by this explanation.[253][254]

And simply put, the treasure voyages were not as dangerous, difficult or daring a journey as European explorations, not simply because the routes were known, as were the kingdoms visited, but because the Pacific and Indian Oceans are much calmer and easier to navigate than the Atlantic. Joseph Needham, The Shorter Science and Civilisation in China, p.141:

There was another matter in which the Portuguese showed seemingly more originality than the Chinese, and this was in the use of regime winds and currents. The problems they [the Portugese] had to face were more difficult, and the rose gallantly to the challenge. Almost as far as Madagascar the Chinese were in the realms of the monsoons ,the ‘junk-driving winds’ with which they had been familiar in their own home waters for more than a millennium. But the inhospitable Atlantic had never encouraged sailors in the same way, and though there had been a number of attempts to sail westwards, that ocean had never been systematically explored…
these voyages were essentially an urbane but systematic tour of inspection of the known world.

And the plain and simple fact is most explorers have been European/White:

Most explorers in history have been European. Concise Encyclopedia of Explorations lists a total of 274 explorers, of which only fifteen are non-European, with none listed after the mid-fifteenth century.

Frank Debenham’s Discovery and Exploration, a broad survey published in 1960, informs us that “man’s natural inquisitiveness has been a mainspring of discovery and exploration.”29 Yet, much of Debenham’s book is about modern Europeans exploring the world. There is an appendix that lists a total of 203 famous explorers, of which only eight are non-Western.30

Likewise, Fernández-Armesto’s book Pathfinders is described as “a study of humankind’s restless spirit,” but once he reaches the period after the 1500s, he has no explorers outside the West to write about.

The science of geography was initiated by the Ancient Greeks. European geography, cartography and interest in the rest of the world never stopped from the time of the Ancient Greeks’ colonizing the Mediterranean, Black and Aegean Seas (The city of Miletus alone created over 90 colonies) and creating the first world maps.

Whites had different motivations for exploration. The Portuguese, a tiny nation of less than one million, circumnavigated Africa and then the Globe, not the Chinese because they were motivated by a desire of renown and superior achievement. Again, Fernández-Armesto:

we have seen evidence of one feature of European culture which did make the region peculiarly conducive to breeding explorers. They were steeped in the idealization of adventure. Many of them shared or strove to embody the great aristocratic ethos of their daythe code of chivalry.

Fernández-Armesto here speaks about the Portugese and Spanish, thinking this idealization was a result of medieval romance popular in Iberia. But the same statement could be made of the Ancient Greeks who loved the Odyssey, the Vikings and their explorations, the Crusaders, Renaissance explorers like Marco Polo, even the scientific explorers in the Age of Enlightenment (Captain Cook in particular, in his own words he wanted the pleasure of being firstto sail not only farther than man has been before me but as far as I think it possible for man to go).

This spirit of exploration never ceased amongst Whites even when the culture became materialist: the explorers of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Amazon basin, the explorers of the North pole and Antarctica, the mountaineers who surveyed, mapped, climbed and conquered the Alps, the Himalaya and the Andes and astronauts and cosmonauts of the Space Race. Even today the private mission to Mars is White. Exploration, restlessness, lust for the glory and lust of adventure is a White thing. Valuing prestige above all else has been the defining element of the West.

As Oswald Spengler put it, the soul of the West is a fighting one, struggling against comfort and convience for the challenge and daring:

It has been said that when Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilization he answered, I think it would be a good idea.Academics today interpret this answer to mean that the actual history of the Westthe Crusades, the conquest of the Americas, the British Empirebelie its great ideas and great book…
I challenge this naive separation between an idealized and a realistic West, using Oswald Spenglers image of the West as a strikingly vibrant culture driven by a type of personality overflowing with expansive, disruptive, and creative impulses. Spengler designated the West as a Faustian culture whose prime-symbolwas pure and limitless space.This soul type was first visible in medieval Europe, starting with Romanesque art, but particularly in the spaciousness of Gothic cathedrals; the heroes of the Grail and Arthurian and Siegfried sagas, ever roaming in the infinite; and the Crusades, including the Hohenstaufen in Sicily, the Hansa in the Baltic, the Teutonic Knights in the Slavonic East, [and later] the Spaniards in America, [and] the Portuguese in the East Indies.
Fighting,”“progressing,”“overcoming of resistances, battling against what is near, tangible and easy”—these are some of the terms Spengler uses to describe this soul. This Faustian being was animated with the spirit of a proud beast of prey, like that of an eagle, lion, [or] tiger. Much like Hegels master, who engages in a fight to the death for pure prestige, for this being the concerns of life, the deed, became more important than mere physical existence.
This spirit infused every cultural sphere of Western life. As John Farrenkopf puts it: “the architecture of the Gothic cathedral expresses the Faustian will to conquer the heavens; Western symphonic music conveys the Faustian urge to conjure up a dynamic, transcendent, infinite space of sound; Western perspective painting mirrors the Faustian will to infinite distance; and the Western novel responds to the Faustian imperative to explore the inner depths of the human personality while extending outward with a comprehensive view.”

As for why none of you idiots ever heard of Zheng He, maybe it’s because you’re uninquisitive morons? I was taught about Zheng He, but then again I was in the International Baccalaureate, so I’m not a retard. You probably did learn about him briefly, but forgot, cos y’know… you’re fucking thick. And again, Zheng He was not an explorer or discoverer.

As for why you’ve never heard of Muslim travel writers, why have you never heard of Eudoxus of Cyzicus, the first Greek to sail to India in 118 BC, and possibly the first man to attempt to circumnavigate Africa?

Greeks and Roman ships sailing to India were common by 50 BC. In fact Romans sent an embassy all the way to China by sea in 166 and continued to do so until the 7th century (Showing again how Zheng He’s route was long and well used). Why have you never heard of this? 

Why have you never heard of Scylax of Caryanda, a Greek explorer of India who sailed down the Indus in the 6th and 5th centuries BC?

Or of Pytheas, who’s exploration of the Northern Europe helped influence Eratosthenes conceptualization of the Earth as a sphere, his estimated size within 5% accuracy?

Or of Roman traveler Maes Titianus, who reached China?

Or of William of Rubruck, a 13th century traveler through central Asia all the way to the Khan’s court at Karakorum?

Or of Afansy Nikitin, early 15th century Russian traveler to Persia and India, who wrote Journey Beyond Three Seas?

Or of Niccolo de Conti an early 15th century traveler to China?

Or of Viking raids, conquests and explorations as far East as the southern Caspian Sea in modern day Azerbaijan and Iran?

Answer:

  1. There’s a lot of travelers in history.
  2. Only some of them make a consequential impact.

Marco Polo was one who made an impact. His tales of China and Asia fascinated Europeans, so much that it helped spur the Age of Exploration. Christopher Columbus carried a copy of his book with him across the Atlantic. His works also helped create the Catalan Atlas and the Fra Maruo world map:

Niccolo de Conti also influenced the Genoese map:

Why weren’t any great new world maps made of the areas visited by Zheng He? The Guang Yutu was an atlas of forty sailing maps that focused only on the coastlines of places Zheng He visited, but it made no attempt at a world map. And it failed to be popular:

This much we know: On the eve of the first Anglo-Chinese War of 1839-42, Jesuit-influenced world maps of the sort produced by individuals such as Cao Junyi and Zhuang Tingfu were at best a dim memory for most Chinese scholars and officials. From the late seventeenth century into the nineteenth, the vast majority of Chinese mapmakers ignored Jesuit constructions of the world almost entirely. Most did not even choose to pattern their cartographic productions after Luo Guangxian’s grid-oriented Guang Yutu. Far more popular were maps of the Tianxia quantu variety, which depicted India, Europe and even Africa as small entities sitting on the extreme western margins of China.

Above is an example of a map from the Guang Yutu.

Here is what Chinese world maps looked like before Europeans arrived:

As you can see Chinese world maps speak of Chinese insularity and disinterest with the rest of the world. Cartographic skill was devoted to smaller maps for navigation, world maps grew more inaccurate with time. European  Jesuits created increasingly detailed detailed and accurate world maps for the Imperial Court, but again they failed to be popular.

This Korean map dramatically inflates the size of Korea:

Some better maps were actually deliberately destroyed by the Chinese imperial authorities.

The Muslim travel writers also failed to have such an impact, either in cartography or inspiring adventure, even the great Ibn Battuta. They themselves were not inspired by adventure, being mostly emissaries. They mostly visited Muslim lands, unlike European travelers who were attracted to the alien. Also notable that on that link of Muslim travel writers, two merely made pilgrimage to Mecca, a third was Greek, a fourth a late nineteenth century scholar who traveled to England and Zheng He is also on the list. So out of a list of 13 only 8 Muslim travel writers can be said to be actual travelers. Battuta himself visited only Muslim countries aside from China and even there he stayed with Muslims as he did wherever he went, and in his own words was motivated by “overmastering impulses” to visit “illustrious sanctuaries” not the alien, unknown and dangerous. Muslim geography would culminate in the Tabula Rogeriana and would advance no further. These men simply did not have the impact that Marco Polo had, nor the same motivation to visit the far off and unknown.

In the same vein it’s insane to suggest that Zheng He’s voyages were of the same consequence as Christopher Columbus’ discoveries. Columbus sailed where no man had gone before initiating the conquest and colonisation of the Americas. Zheng He was erased from history by his own people and the world promptly forgot him as if he never was, his voyages mere legends in the lands he visited. No one could have erased Columbus, Cortes, Magellan or de Vasca if they wanted to.

I could write more but I think this suffices.

"fuck western history?" No, Fuck you.

Edit: I knew I would remember something to add something: Rangaku. Europeans set out to conquer, but we were willing to learn and trade knowledge with other peoples as well, our curiosity of them initiating the sciences of anthropology and ethnography.

I fucking love it when tumblr gets schooled and I learn something new in the process 

(Source: romancingalbion)

113,837 notes

daddyandlittleblog:

bridgefrombelow:

dominantlife:

Infographic: Difference Between BDSM & Abuse

—-

more articles in the Library For Kinksters.

I will rebolg this every time it shows up on my dashboard

~Princess Little.

(Source: dizhang)

136,264 notes

cloudywithachanceofpokey:

kittengrin:

Goddamn.  Smart woman for thinking of the “ordering a pizza” thing, and smart dispatcher for picking up on it.

I know this is a reblog and I have a separate blog for reblog nonsense but this isn’t nonsense. THIS IS EXTREMELY USEFUL and I wish so hard that I worlds had this knowledge two years ago.
I know that several of my followers have been and/or currently are in abusive relationships and I need to reblog this for them.

cloudywithachanceofpokey:

kittengrin:

Goddamn.  Smart woman for thinking of the “ordering a pizza” thing, and smart dispatcher for picking up on it.

I know this is a reblog and I have a separate blog for reblog nonsense but this isn’t nonsense. THIS IS EXTREMELY USEFUL and I wish so hard that I worlds had this knowledge two years ago.

I know that several of my followers have been and/or currently are in abusive relationships and I need to reblog this for them.

(Source: afro-thunder-knotting-it-up)

148,094 notes

possessed-night-guard:

marauders4evr:

It’s just a flesh wound.

The single greatest scene in cinematic history.

(i dont reblog things on this blog but this was a keeper)

105,248 notes

thespectacularspider-girl:

So, I apologize in advance for the massive post, but I don’t want to cut this off. It needs to be seen.

So, with Gamergate now fully under way, many individuals like to claim Gamergate is about misogyny and the desire for ethics is just a thin veil to harass…

238 notes

re-re-reanimated:

cosmicallycosmopolitan:

a-kat-astrophe:

we can all agree that Dumbledore is kind of an asshole, right?

The fact that he only really pays attention to students like Harry kind of shows a lot about his character. He didn’t really bother to talk to Ron or…

16 notes

malicious-sapient-wartortle:

konponerri:

anti-feminism-pro-equality:

callingoutbigotry:

mildlyamused:

Guys heads up. When women try to talk to you about rape culture and you start deflecting with hypothetical gray situations, all we hear is you trying to convince…

20,941 notes

endgaem:

nadia-fortune:

endgaem:

juicybrain:

endgaem:

Remember when I talked about feminists who look for reasons to be offended? This is exactly what I was talking about.
It’s one thing to enjoy playing video games and happen by a scene which is genuinely fucked up (I mean chances are it was intended to be fucked up; it’s like people complaining about the violence and drug use in Far Cry games), but it’s entirely another thing to grind through something you don’t even enjoy for a demographic you evidently dislike playing content that you barely understand, removing context and information, just so you can have a reason to take offence. It’s pathetic.

That’s called research my friend. How the hell is she supposed to talk about something if she does not do research ?! If she didn’t, you’d be first in line to say so. I bet thinking and researching a subject before you talk is not a problem you must run into too often is it ?

No, it’s called confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. Good try, though.

Except calling her research into her proposed /argument/ ‘confirmation bias’ and ‘intellectual dishonesty’ is absolutely ridiculous.

No, it isn’t, because it’s backed up by fact. Just because you don’t want to hear it doesn’t mean it is automatically rendered ridiculous or invalid. Do you understand what confirmation bias is? It is having a hypothesis, and then only looking for things that support that hypothesis, and either ignoring or refusing to research anything that contradicts that hypothesis. It is any good researcher or analyst’s worst enemy, and evidently something Anita Sarkeesian doesn’t give a shit about.

You’re expecting someone who is arguing a point not to be swayed by personal belief, as if firstly an argument cannot be created unless in complete isolation from all personal influence; two, that both sides of this entire debate aren’t influenced by personal belief and three, her argument and research is any less valid than the other side just because her evidence relies on something gained through thoroughness.

This argument is complete bullshit. I never said she shouldn’t have her own personal bias; we all do in every aspect of our lives. But her job as an analyst is to put that aside and not be swayed by personal belief as it can, and if you allow it to, will get in the way of your results, and skew them beyond belief. For you to try and excuse being swayed by personal bias is juvenile, and apparently a misunderstanding of how proper analysis works.

Sure she finds one example in a videogame to prove her point and sure it isn’t useful for her argument, but to infer that it is nitpicking discredits the entire basis of an interpretation based on passages, sources and evidence. Although this is hardly an established academic setting, this is exactly how academic papers are created.

Are you joking? Of course nit-picking and cherry-picking call her argument into question. It’s called nit-picking or cherry-picking because it removes the point being argued from the context in which it originally existed, thereby removing any chance of properly understanding the circumstances around it, and effectively misrepresenting it. She did this with Hitman: Absolution, she did this with her critique of Bayonetta, she did this with her critique of the casting for the Hunger Games, and how you cannot understand how that qualifies as intellectual dishonesty is baffling to me.

'Removing context'? Although I cannot vouch for FremFreq's analysis entirely, I think the context created is entirely set in the society we live in - a sexist scene might seep into a game due to notions already established in society, which is being attacked by FremFreq for upholding them. The 'Hitman' example comes to mind, in which a woman's corpse is used as a distraction.

I already addressed this in a link above, but you’re penalized for interacting with the prostitute with a points deduction, which later affects how you, as an assassin, can buy equipment for the next mission, and it also affects your stats. This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say intellectual dishonesty, so thank you for giving me a prime example of it.

What context is needed here apart from the established argument that women are objectified?

If you want to make an argument, then use one that you don’t have to manipulate. Simple as that. The example she gave of being “rewarded” for objectification is nullified by the fact that 1. You are effectively penalized for it and 2. You can do the same exact thing, and worse, to the male guards in the game (i.e. strip them almost naked) and 3. the context of the mission, where you’re there to kill the strip club owner.

A thing proven time and time again through examples in the media outside of videogames?

But we’re not talking about examples outside of video games, we’re talking about video games, so this is completely irrelevant.

You’re attempting to tackle a praxis by looking at things that Anita says in isolation; in relation to only videogames and denying that sexism elsewhere in the media can’t possibly seep into the Videogame Industry.

Don’t straw man arguments, it isn’t flattering. Nobody has argued that no tropes have ever existed; of course they do, and they have, you’d have to be completely obtuse to deny it. But arguing the entire video game industry is misogynistic for having video games with perceived misogyny in them would be to argue that a library is anti-Semitic for having a copy of Mein Kampf in it. Doesn’t make sense.

Besides which, to complain that someone who goes through a medium. of which they are not a casual consumer, and points out social issues is being petty is ridiculous.

My complaint is that she evidently understands so little about the games she is criticizing. If you’re going into a medium of which you are not a casual consumer, the obvious thing to do would be to conduct copious amounts of research, and whether or not that research supports or rebuts your claim you stick with it. That is what analysis entails. It also highlights one of my biggest issues, though, and that is the apparent influx of social issues being injected into websites that are about video games. Naturally it wouldn’t be wrong to point out certain things from time to time, but websites like Kotaku have become social issue-charged, reactionary and absurd clickbait shitholes that incorporate issues that, in many cases, have nothing to do with video games at all. You can go through Patricia Hernandez’s articles to see that much.

You claim that she is under confirmation bias when you use her example to tar all feminists as easily offended - you picked out a cultural critic investigating a new medium in this case.

Don’t put words in my mouth. When did I ever say anything about “all feminists”? Find it. But you won’t, because I didn’t. Fuck off with your flimsy fallacies.

On belief - if anything, her being divorced from the subject in any way is better for her critique because she is not swayed by nostalgic notions of video games.

It would be great if this were actually the case, but she went in with a preconceived notion about video games. Before she even started Tropes vs. Women she is on record as stating that she would play video games, but and I quote: “doesn’t want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads”. Because apparently before she started, that is what she believed video games consisted of; she didn’t even seem aware that there are genres of video games. 

However, her detractors constantly cite cultural critics such as herself as bringing about a degeneration in videogames, claiming that they want games to be apolitical and wishing for some status quo, at least in the removal of the influences of these critics. That entire argument is swayed by belief - it is an inherently reactionary/conservative stance on games that comes about due to a perception that before games were questioned, it was better.

I love this argument because it’s one parroted by all of Sarkeesian’s supporters: That her opponents are either reactionary, conservative or more specifically “ultra-right Republicans”. Because God forbid someone who isn’t your political opponent disagree with someone you support. Alienating arguments you disagree with is a very poor tactic. Reflects badly on you. 
There is a valid point being made on the “conservative” part, though: Video games aren’t about politics; why inject them into it? If you have a legitimate claim to be made, then fair enough, but turning video games and websites into social justice issues? That doesn’t strike you as the least bit absurd?

The constant complaint that feminists whom critique gaming are just biased is ridiculous - the buzzword ‘truth’ is constantly thrown around when dealing with the Gamergate issue in that those who propose the ideas of the campaign are trying to deliver an unbiased and inherently true version of events. No matter how you look at it, both sides are in an argument that is jettisoned by political belief and you cannot get away from that by claiming to be apolitical, which is a common tactic.

Gamergate is about politics because it was made political; provided this slacktavism and websites like Kotaku had never partaken in the activities that they did, that wouldn’t be a point. But it’s why we are where we are; journalistic integrity. And when you talk journalism, politics will undoubtedly follow.

Gamergate is a conservative movement, as evidenced by the fact that the same people who denounce Anita are throwing their hats in with literal Breitbart.com writers.

Jesus Christ could you sound more pathetic? What is the purpose of generalizing a group as “conservative”? Does it make your argument more valid? Obviously not, it just makes you look juvenile.

Also ‘scenes that are supposed to be fucked up,’ yeah that’s something, but when the argument rests on the idea that games are doing fucked up stuff all the time to certain groups, it falls down, doesn’t it? The argument that sexism remains in video games is partially propped up on the idea of sexism’s normality, however subtle or blatant it is.

No, because the games being called into question are doing it indiscriminately. God of war is brought up because of how he treats the women in the game, conveniently ignoring the fact that he tortures and mutilates everyone in Olympus indiscriminately. Hitman: Absolution is brought up because of how he treats the prostitutes, ignoring the fact that you can not only do worse to the men, but that you are actively penalized for it. Someone even brought up Assassin’s Creed II for the prostitute mission where an “escort” is killed, ignoring the fact that your mission is to save her, and if you don’t you fail the mission. 
Bottom line is if you need to remove context from something to support your argument, your argument was flimsy and questionable to begin with.

endgaem:

nadia-fortune:

endgaem:

juicybrain:

endgaem:

Remember when I talked about feminists who look for reasons to be offended? This is exactly what I was talking about.

It’s one thing to enjoy playing video games and happen by a scene which is genuinely fucked up (I mean chances are it was intended to be fucked up; it’s like people complaining about the violence and drug use in Far Cry games), but it’s entirely another thing to grind through something you don’t even enjoy for a demographic you evidently dislike playing content that you barely understand, removing context and information, just so you can have a reason to take offence. It’s pathetic.

That’s called research my friend. How the hell is she supposed to talk about something if she does not do research ?! If she didn’t, you’d be first in line to say so. I bet thinking and researching a subject before you talk is not a problem you must run into too often is it ?

No, it’s called confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. Good try, though.

Except calling her research into her proposed /argument/ ‘confirmation bias’ and ‘intellectual dishonesty’ is absolutely ridiculous.

No, it isn’t, because it’s backed up by fact. Just because you don’t want to hear it doesn’t mean it is automatically rendered ridiculous or invalid. Do you understand what confirmation bias is? It is having a hypothesis, and then only looking for things that support that hypothesis, and either ignoring or refusing to research anything that contradicts that hypothesis. It is any good researcher or analyst’s worst enemy, and evidently something Anita Sarkeesian doesn’t give a shit about.

You’re expecting someone who is arguing a point not to be swayed by personal belief, as if firstly an argument cannot be created unless in complete isolation from all personal influence; two, that both sides of this entire debate aren’t influenced by personal belief and three, her argument and research is any less valid than the other side just because her evidence relies on something gained through thoroughness.

This argument is complete bullshit. I never said she shouldn’t have her own personal bias; we all do in every aspect of our lives. But her job as an analyst is to put that aside and not be swayed by personal belief as it can, and if you allow it to, will get in the way of your results, and skew them beyond belief. For you to try and excuse being swayed by personal bias is juvenile, and apparently a misunderstanding of how proper analysis works.

Sure she finds one example in a videogame to prove her point and sure it isn’t useful for her argument, but to infer that it is nitpicking discredits the entire basis of an interpretation based on passages, sources and evidence. Although this is hardly an established academic setting, this is exactly how academic papers are created.

Are you joking? Of course nit-picking and cherry-picking call her argument into question. It’s called nit-picking or cherry-picking because it removes the point being argued from the context in which it originally existed, thereby removing any chance of properly understanding the circumstances around it, and effectively misrepresenting it. She did this with Hitman: Absolution, she did this with her critique of Bayonetta, she did this with her critique of the casting for the Hunger Games, and how you cannot understand how that qualifies as intellectual dishonesty is baffling to me.

'Removing context'? Although I cannot vouch for FremFreq's analysis entirely, I think the context created is entirely set in the society we live in - a sexist scene might seep into a game due to notions already established in society, which is being attacked by FremFreq for upholding them. The 'Hitman' example comes to mind, in which a woman's corpse is used as a distraction.

I already addressed this in a link above, but you’re penalized for interacting with the prostitute with a points deduction, which later affects how you, as an assassin, can buy equipment for the next mission, and it also affects your stats. This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say intellectual dishonesty, so thank you for giving me a prime example of it.

What context is needed here apart from the established argument that women are objectified?

If you want to make an argument, then use one that you don’t have to manipulate. Simple as that. The example she gave of being “rewarded” for objectification is nullified by the fact that 1. You are effectively penalized for it and 2. You can do the same exact thing, and worse, to the male guards in the game (i.e. strip them almost naked) and 3. the context of the mission, where you’re there to kill the strip club owner.

A thing proven time and time again through examples in the media outside of videogames?

But we’re not talking about examples outside of video games, we’re talking about video games, so this is completely irrelevant.

You’re attempting to tackle a praxis by looking at things that Anita says in isolation; in relation to only videogames and denying that sexism elsewhere in the media can’t possibly seep into the Videogame Industry.

Don’t straw man arguments, it isn’t flattering. Nobody has argued that no tropes have ever existed; of course they do, and they have, you’d have to be completely obtuse to deny it. But arguing the entire video game industry is misogynistic for having video games with perceived misogyny in them would be to argue that a library is anti-Semitic for having a copy of Mein Kampf in it. Doesn’t make sense.


Besides which, to complain that someone who goes through a medium. of which they are not a casual consumer, and points out social issues is being petty is ridiculous.

My complaint is that she evidently understands so little about the games she is criticizing. If you’re going into a medium of which you are not a casual consumer, the obvious thing to do would be to conduct copious amounts of research, and whether or not that research supports or rebuts your claim you stick with it. That is what analysis entails. It also highlights one of my biggest issues, though, and that is the apparent influx of social issues being injected into websites that are about video games. Naturally it wouldn’t be wrong to point out certain things from time to time, but websites like Kotaku have become social issue-charged, reactionary and absurd clickbait shitholes that incorporate issues that, in many cases, have nothing to do with video games at all. You can go through Patricia Hernandez’s articles to see that much.

You claim that she is under confirmation bias when you use her example to tar all feminists as easily offended - you picked out a cultural critic investigating a new medium in this case.

Don’t put words in my mouth. When did I ever say anything about “all feminists”? Find it. But you won’t, because I didn’t. Fuck off with your flimsy fallacies.

On belief - if anything, her being divorced from the subject in any way is better for her critique because she is not swayed by nostalgic notions of video games.

It would be great if this were actually the case, but she went in with a preconceived notion about video games. Before she even started Tropes vs. Women she is on record as stating that she would play video games, but and I quote: “doesn’t want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads”. Because apparently before she started, that is what she believed video games consisted of; she didn’t even seem aware that there are genres of video games. 

However, her detractors constantly cite cultural critics such as herself as bringing about a degeneration in videogames, claiming that they want games to be apolitical and wishing for some status quo, at least in the removal of the influences of these critics. That entire argument is swayed by belief - it is an inherently reactionary/conservative stance on games that comes about due to a perception that before games were questioned, it was better.

I love this argument because it’s one parroted by all of Sarkeesian’s supporters: That her opponents are either reactionary, conservative or more specifically “ultra-right Republicans”. Because God forbid someone who isn’t your political opponent disagree with someone you support. Alienating arguments you disagree with is a very poor tactic. Reflects badly on you. 

There is a valid point being made on the “conservative” part, though: Video games aren’t about politics; why inject them into it? If you have a legitimate claim to be made, then fair enough, but turning video games and websites into social justice issues? That doesn’t strike you as the least bit absurd?

The constant complaint that feminists whom critique gaming are just biased is ridiculous - the buzzword ‘truth’ is constantly thrown around when dealing with the Gamergate issue in that those who propose the ideas of the campaign are trying to deliver an unbiased and inherently true version of events. No matter how you look at it, both sides are in an argument that is jettisoned by political belief and you cannot get away from that by claiming to be apolitical, which is a common tactic.

Gamergate is about politics because it was made political; provided this slacktavism and websites like Kotaku had never partaken in the activities that they did, that wouldn’t be a point. But it’s why we are where we are; journalistic integrity. And when you talk journalism, politics will undoubtedly follow.

Gamergate is a conservative movement, as evidenced by the fact that the same people who denounce Anita are throwing their hats in with literal Breitbart.com writers.

Jesus Christ could you sound more pathetic? What is the purpose of generalizing a group as “conservative”? Does it make your argument more valid? Obviously not, it just makes you look juvenile.

Also ‘scenes that are supposed to be fucked up,’ yeah that’s something, but when the argument rests on the idea that games are doing fucked up stuff all the time to certain groups, it falls down, doesn’t it? The argument that sexism remains in video games is partially propped up on the idea of sexism’s normality, however subtle or blatant it is.

No, because the games being called into question are doing it indiscriminately. God of war is brought up because of how he treats the women in the game, conveniently ignoring the fact that he tortures and mutilates everyone in Olympus indiscriminately. Hitman: Absolution is brought up because of how he treats the prostitutes, ignoring the fact that you can not only do worse to the men, but that you are actively penalized for it. Someone even brought up Assassin’s Creed II for the prostitute mission where an “escort” is killed, ignoring the fact that your mission is to save her, and if you don’t you fail the mission. 

Bottom line is if you need to remove context from something to support your argument, your argument was flimsy and questionable to begin with.

3,830 notes

johndarnielle:

shrimpojess:

clittyslickers:

very into charts about naps

Nap charts guys.

want the NASA nap, but fear I would get stressed out by its proximity time-wise to the Bad Nap

johndarnielle:

shrimpojess:

clittyslickers:

very into charts about naps

Nap charts guys.

want the NASA nap, but fear I would get stressed out by its proximity time-wise to the Bad Nap

(Source: itsaisha5hah)

198,459 notes

tequilamockingbird2015:

1. If we ask you if you’re mad at us, or if you’re still friends with us, please realize that it is NOT a reflection of you. You didn’t do anything wrong. Our illness is constantly telling us you’ll leave us, or that you see us as burdens. Sometimes we need to hear confirmation from you to ease our anxiety. So please, please don’t be upset with us.

2. Recognize that it’s hard for us to maintain contact with others, even our best friends. Again, our illnesses tell us that if you really want to spend time with us, you’ll ask us. We’re terrified that you just hang out with us out of pity. So when you text us first or ask us to hang out first, that’s proof to us that you actually want to see us.

3. Text us every once in a while. Little gestures like that remind us that you still consider us your friends. And receiving a message like that, even if it’s something simple like a silly anecdote, really makes our day.

4. Understand that our mood swings are very difficult to manage. Even when we know it doesn’t logically make sense for us to be depressed/anxious/angry/etc about something, we can’t control our emotions, no matter how hard we try. Trying to use logic to show that our emotions are irrational doesn’t help. So be patient with us, while recognizing that you aren’t responsible for managing our emotions.

5. Sometimes we decide to take breaks from drinking, so please keep that in mind before asking us to drink. Alcohol can worsen our symptoms if we drink too much, especially when we relapse. I only drink if I feel it’s safe for me to do so. But sometimes I won’t drink for months because I’m not doing well and I know alcohol will only make it worse. If I tell you I’m not drinking for personal reasons because I’m struggling with my illness, please don’t forget that and definitely don’t pressure me.

6. Help us set boundaries with you. Sometimes I’ll be clingy and want your attention all the time. Other times I’ll be distant and need space from everyone. These changes might be confusing for you because they happen without reason. Be honest with us and let us know if we’re too far on either extreme.

7. For reasons I don’t completely understand, a lot of us with BPD hate being touched. This is also true for some survivors of sexual assault or abuse, and a lot of people with BPD have been sexually assaulted or abused before. Ask us if it’s okay for you to put your arm around us or hug us, especially when we’re in distress.

8. If you’re making plans with mutual friends of ours but aren’t inviting us, please don’t talk about these plans in front of us. It may well be that you aren’t inviting us because we’re busy and can’t make it anyway, or you know we won’t enjoy the outing (for example, if you’re going to hike and we hate exercise of any kind). However, if you’re getting a group together of people we know and could hang out with, we’ll feel especially isolated when we aren’t invited. We’re constantly looking for signs that our friends will abandon us, or don’t want us around, or secretly hate us. We’ll wonder why we weren’t invited, and this is especially triggering for us.

9. If we text you something that warrants a response (like a question or a personal issue), please do your best to text us back as soon as you can. When a friend doesn’t reply, especially a friend who frequently checks their phone, I interpret this as evidence that I’m worthless to them. It may well be that they’re busy, or that they didn’t receive the message, or that they just forgot to respond. Again, though I recognize that these are the most likely scenarios, I can’t stop myself from feeling this is a sign that she’s going to abandon me.

10. Not everyone with BPD will act out (like accusing you of abandoning us or starting an argument) or use manipulating behaviors, but some of us do. And we feel extremely bad about this. Right after we start an argument, we spiral into self-loathing about it. We know that acting out is bad. We don’t actually want to hurt or manipulate you. We struggle with our overwhelming emotions and while we can’t suppress these emotions, with help we CAN learn to express and manage them in healthy ways. And again, not everyone with BPD will act out. There are mentally healthy people who manipulate others and feel perfectly fine in doing so, and there are mentally ill people who act out under extreme distress, feel immensely guilty about it, and do what they can to stop these behaviors.

3,389 notes