fgsshinyhoard:

Oh um

wow uh Bart that

that’s kind of hilarious to me but also um wow I really hope you’re okay cuz Stewie is bad enough

I dont get why people keep thinking this is a molestation joke, wouldnt it make more sense that someone ELSE pranked the camp counselor first by pulling his pants down or something?

(Source: fyspringfield.com)

1,924 notes

ultrafacts:

Source If you want more facts, follow Ultrafacts

Fuck those guys, Rin Tin Tin was great. Damn award snubbing

ultrafacts:

Source If you want more facts, follow Ultrafacts

Fuck those guys, Rin Tin Tin was great. Damn award snubbing

4,320 notes

kaysheep:

sideshowcomics:

kerplunktehmunk:

spcsnaptags:

wolvensnothere:

kurtiswiebe:

This perfectly summarizes why I love the Simpsons and hate Family Guy. 

Yup.

So this.

I watched that episode with my family and I could just feel how uncomfortable everyone was. Honestly, it was a really jarring, unpleasant episode.

Homer is a terrible dad. So is Peter. But Homer’s saving grace has always been that he tries—he’s bad at it and he fucks it up a lot, but he loves his family and he wants to be better than he is.

One of my favorite Homer moments is in “Diatribe of a Mad Housewife.” Tl;dr Marge writes a steamy romance novel starring herself and Ned, and when Homer finds out, he chases down Ned and, rather than attack him, asks him to teach him how to be a better husband.

There’s some part of his stupid self that wants to do better.

I never got that impression with Peter. Instead, the family has gotten more and more abusive towards Meg. It’s really unsettling for me when I started realizing that’s what happens sometimes in abusive families. Abusers sometimes single out one child to abuse, and quite often the other family members take the abuser’s side. After all, it’s easier to side with an abuser than to run the risk of becoming the target yourself.

There’s never really a point where it seems like Peter cares at all that his shitty behavior impacts his family. It actually seems to have gotten worse over the years. He expects everyone to clean up his messes because that’s always what happens; there’s really no reason for him not to be shitty.

And it’s easy to see how Meg is affected. She doesn’t have much of a character, really, because so much her screen time is devoted to being abused. The bits of character development all seem to hinge on her being this sad, neglected person who’s trying her best but never really gets any help from anyone. Quite the opposite; there have been a lot of episodes where her family sabotages any attempts to be herself.

It can be easy to forget how awful this behavior is when the only context is the show itself (frankly, everyone on Family Guy is kind of terrible). Seeing it played against the Simpsons, who are a flawed and dysfunctional but ultimately loving family, was painful to watch.

"After all, it’s easier to side with an abuser than to run the risk of becoming the target yourself."

This is the most real and most important thing in all of human history.

Problem is, earlier seasons of the show DID have a similar characer development for Peter as Homer had, but the shows went in different directions. Now, obviously, the shows treatment of Meg is reprehensible, but I have to say… I find that kind of funny. Not abuse in particular, but just how awful, selfish and cruel everyone is, I find it a refereshing change from the relentless cheerfullness of the Simpsons. Something that always bugged me about the Simpsons is the way they escalate the characters stupidity and other negative character traits, but never really deal with the fact that you cant just explain it all away with “its who they are”. Family Guy on the other hand did this as well. The difference is that they stopped the pretensions. Peter isnt portrayed as a caring father, Lois isnt portrayed as a good mother, Meg, Stewie and Chris are all tremendously flawed, disturbed children. And no one does anything, because thats how the world actually works. There’s no lessons to learn, no morals to grow with, just a group of miserable people who treat eachother like crap because its the only way they can feel remotly okay with life. Meg getting zeroed in on because she fails some sort of physical standard is a perfect example of black comedy, they genuinely tear down this person and make her life a living hell because she doesnt appeal to them. And this happens in real life as well.

There isnt always going to be happy endings or positive resolutions. Hell, most of the time you’re just stuck running out the clock with the little slice of misery life saw fit to deal you.

Hell of a point there…

I still prefer the Simpsons and this is…actually pretty frustrating and unenjoyable to watch.  Ugh.  Seth called out how the episode was going to feel in the first minute.  Not wrong.  Doesn’t really excuse it.

I actually liked the episode, but its possible thats because I prefer Family Guys style of comedy over present-day Simpsons. It was sort of jarring the way the differences clashed, but not enough to be a dealbreaker. I thought the bit where Bart gets upset at Stewie for kidnapping Nelson, Jimbo and Apu and torturing them was pretty good, because it shows how different the tone of the shows actually are.

(Source: fyspringfield.com)

168,396 notes

kerplunktehmunk:

spcsnaptags:

wolvensnothere:

kurtiswiebe:

This perfectly summarizes why I love the Simpsons and hate Family Guy. 

Yup.

So this.

I watched that episode with my family and I could just feel how uncomfortable everyone was. Honestly, it was a really jarring, unpleasant episode.

Homer is a terrible dad. So is Peter. But Homer’s saving grace has always been that he tries—he’s bad at it and he fucks it up a lot, but he loves his family and he wants to be better than he is.

One of my favorite Homer moments is in “Diatribe of a Mad Housewife.” Tl;dr Marge writes a steamy romance novel starring herself and Ned, and when Homer finds out, he chases down Ned and, rather than attack him, asks him to teach him how to be a better husband.

There’s some part of his stupid self that wants to do better.

I never got that impression with Peter. Instead, the family has gotten more and more abusive towards Meg. It’s really unsettling for me when I started realizing that’s what happens sometimes in abusive families. Abusers sometimes single out one child to abuse, and quite often the other family members take the abuser’s side. After all, it’s easier to side with an abuser than to run the risk of becoming the target yourself.

There’s never really a point where it seems like Peter cares at all that his shitty behavior impacts his family. It actually seems to have gotten worse over the years. He expects everyone to clean up his messes because that’s always what happens; there’s really no reason for him not to be shitty.

And it’s easy to see how Meg is affected. She doesn’t have much of a character, really, because so much her screen time is devoted to being abused. The bits of character development all seem to hinge on her being this sad, neglected person who’s trying her best but never really gets any help from anyone. Quite the opposite; there have been a lot of episodes where her family sabotages any attempts to be herself.

It can be easy to forget how awful this behavior is when the only context is the show itself (frankly, everyone on Family Guy is kind of terrible). Seeing it played against the Simpsons, who are a flawed and dysfunctional but ultimately loving family, was painful to watch.

"After all, it’s easier to side with an abuser than to run the risk of becoming the target yourself."

This is the most real and most important thing in all of human history.

Problem is, earlier seasons of the show DID have a similar characer development for Peter as Homer had, but the shows went in different directions. Now, obviously, the shows treatment of Meg is reprehensible, but I have to say… I find that kind of funny. Not abuse in particular, but just how awful, selfish and cruel everyone is, I find it a refereshing change from the relentless cheerfullness of the Simpsons. Something that always bugged me about the Simpsons is the way they escalate the characters stupidity and other negative character traits, but never really deal with the fact that you cant just explain it all away with “its who they are”. Family Guy on the other hand did this as well. The difference is that they stopped the pretensions. Peter isnt portrayed as a caring father, Lois isnt portrayed as a good mother, Meg, Stewie and Chris are all tremendously flawed, disturbed children. And no one does anything, because thats how the world actually works. There’s no lessons to learn, no morals to grow with, just a group of miserable people who treat eachother like crap because its the only way they can feel remotly okay with life. Meg getting zeroed in on because she fails some sort of physical standard is a perfect example of black comedy, they genuinely tear down this person and make her life a living hell because she doesnt appeal to them. And this happens in real life as well.

There isnt always going to be happy endings or positive resolutions. Hell, most of the time you’re just stuck running out the clock with the little slice of misery life saw fit to deal you.

(Source: fyspringfield.com)

168,396 notes

 You’d think after 9-10 or so massacres, you’d think they’d stop trying to reopen that goddamn camp. What, is there some massive shortage of ramshackle wooden cabins in the US so every creepy old summer camp has to be restored?


You’d think after 9-10 or so massacres, you’d think they’d stop trying to reopen that goddamn camp. What, is there some massive shortage of ramshackle wooden cabins in the US so every creepy old summer camp has to be restored?

4 notes

wilwheaton:

kngdmcat:

worthless-wolf:

blacksapphiredragon:

down-sizing:

Let’s remember, Jesus was a Jewish man of color, born homeless to an unwed teenager, who spent his formative years as an illegal immigrant before returning to his home country to hang out with twelve men, prostitutes, and socially untouchable tax collectors while he taught a radical social doctrine of equality, love, and forgiveness that included paying taxes, free healthcare, and the sharing of resources within a community.

#CANON JESUS IS SIX MILLION TIMES BETTER THAN FANON JESUS

Canon Jesus

Jesus called somebody an ass once because they where being rude to a crippled little old lady if you don’t think that’s the tightest shit then get out of my face.

Pretty sure that Jesus was also the first person to say, “don’t be a dick.”

Jesus hasnt been a revolutionary since Christianity was adopted as the official faith of the Roman empire. Ever since then, he’s been portrayed as little more than a mouthpiece for the rich and powerful, and of course, portrayed as the physical ideal of the culture du jour. 
Though I’d like to remind everyone that while Jesus was in many ways a progressive, especially by the standard of the time, he was a religious leader. It does both yourselves and the teachings of christianity a disservice to portray Jesus as a love-everyone pacifist hippie, he was neither. He was a revolutionary leader standing up both to the established elders of the time, and the rule of Rome. I find that both conservative and liberal christians tend to take liberties with how Jesus is portrayed. While his divinity can be debated, I dont belive in it myself, he was neither the condemning jerk the conservatives like to wheel out to affirm their beliefs, be they protestant, orthodox or catholic, nor was he the happy-go-lucky everydude the liberal side presents. He was a prophet during a time of religious and political upheaval, like Moses before him, and Mohammed after him. He preached a radical departure from established scripture and was clearly prepared to fight for it.

wilwheaton:

kngdmcat:

worthless-wolf:

blacksapphiredragon:

down-sizing:

Let’s remember, Jesus was a Jewish man of color, born homeless to an unwed teenager, who spent his formative years as an illegal immigrant before returning to his home country to hang out with twelve men, prostitutes, and socially untouchable tax collectors while he taught a radical social doctrine of equality, love, and forgiveness that included paying taxes, free healthcare, and the sharing of resources within a community.

Canon Jesus

Jesus called somebody an ass once because they where being rude to a crippled little old lady if you don’t think that’s the tightest shit then get out of my face.

Pretty sure that Jesus was also the first person to say, “don’t be a dick.”

Jesus hasnt been a revolutionary since Christianity was adopted as the official faith of the Roman empire. Ever since then, he’s been portrayed as little more than a mouthpiece for the rich and powerful, and of course, portrayed as the physical ideal of the culture du jour.

Though I’d like to remind everyone that while Jesus was in many ways a progressive, especially by the standard of the time, he was a religious leader. It does both yourselves and the teachings of christianity a disservice to portray Jesus as a love-everyone pacifist hippie, he was neither. He was a revolutionary leader standing up both to the established elders of the time, and the rule of Rome. I find that both conservative and liberal christians tend to take liberties with how Jesus is portrayed. While his divinity can be debated, I dont belive in it myself, he was neither the condemning jerk the conservatives like to wheel out to affirm their beliefs, be they protestant, orthodox or catholic, nor was he the happy-go-lucky everydude the liberal side presents. He was a prophet during a time of religious and political upheaval, like Moses before him, and Mohammed after him. He preached a radical departure from established scripture and was clearly prepared to fight for it.

(Source: worshipyeezus)

366,013 notes

ultrafacts:

Source If you want more facts, follow Ultrafacts

You want to know the really ironic part? Since they were the rulers of Sweden in peacetime, they have by far been the longest-reigning royal house in the history of the country. 200 years and still running. Even the beloved Vasa line didnt last more than a century or so.

ultrafacts:

Source If you want more facts, follow Ultrafacts

You want to know the really ironic part? Since they were the rulers of Sweden in peacetime, they have by far been the longest-reigning royal house in the history of the country. 200 years and still running. Even the beloved Vasa line didnt last more than a century or so.

4,812 notes

Think about anyone who has come out as bisexual in the media. Megan Fox, Billie Joe Armstrong, Margaret Cho, Anna Paquin, Megan Mullally, David Bowie, Angelina Jolie.

Their sexuality is usually glossed over — often times, the media decides the person is either gay or straight, depending the relationship they are currently in or the relationship they get into in the future. If a man comes out as bisexual and in the future gets into a relationship with another man, people generally define him as homosexual (such as Alan Cumming). It’s important to note both homosexual and heterosexual people are monosexual and only attracted to one gender. In saying someone is straight or gay based on who they are currently with totally negates an individual’s identity.

Several people throughout have been classified as monosexual, despite identifying as bi. Marlon Brando himself was bisexual and he’s well-known as a “manly” man, it’s no surprise that people would want to erase his sexuality to fit their perception of him. Anne Frank was also bisexual; she wrote about having a love for girls and wanting a girl to date in her diaries. Angelina Jolie is one of the most well-known bisexuals and she still gets marked under a monosexual title because of her long term relationship with Brad Pitt. Yet, in doing this, people are neglecting her identity.

Bisexual Erasure: What It Is and How to Avoid It

(via meggannn)

Seriously, in the modern world Bisexuals don’t even exist and it’s dismissed as just a “phase of being indecisive” or “greedy” and it’s insulting as fuck.

(via fgsshinyhoard)

The really insulting part is that when it IS acknowledged as an actual preference, it usually falls into two categories - if its a woman, its used as fanservice for the men in the audience, rather than as a personality trait. They couldnt give less of a shit about her as a character, they just like the idea of two attractive women hooking up with the added bonus of them thinking they can get in on that as well. Which of course is just adding to the stereotype that bisexuals are insatiable horndogs. Now, if its a MAN who is shown as bisexual, which does happen on occasion, two things might happen. It will be played for comedy, showing the guy as a drooling sex addict who will hump anything that stands still for too long, think “The Todd” in Scrubs, or he will be portrayed as a depraved pervert. This happens even in purportedly LGBT friendly media, since there is a good deal of biphobia in the gay rights community. Bisexuals are often outcasts among outcasts, shunned by people who should know better.

(via sideshowcomics)

Or they literally just say it doesn’t exist like they did in “Glee” because guess what, some people are fucking liars about being as open-minded as they actually are.

Seriously out of all the fucking groups to get shit from, this is fucking insulting to both people like me and to people like themselves.  Thanks for being the same assholes that told you being gay was a choice, fuckheads.

(via fgsshinyhoard)

Unsurprisingly, victims of harassment are not necessarily all that nice either. I’ve seen some gay people resnt bisexuals because they think theyre “cheating” and not comitting to the scene properly, because apparently, having an alternative sexuality now requires you to pass an iniation test about who is being opressed the most. The logic seems to be that since bisexuals technically have the option of only dating the opposite gender, they’re not “real” LGBT and dont deserve the same considerations.

(Source: positivelysmitten)

57,884 notes

damnaveragesheep:

muffinworry:

You can keep your lattes.

Are any of these any good though?  I have had such awful luck with pumpkin ales.  The New Holland Ichabod wasn’t terrible-

I just realized that last one is chocolate pumpkin porter whatever I’m doing in my life is wrong because that sounds fucking amazing.

Dude, screw the flavor, I’d buy them justfor the labels. Its not like the beer I usually drink taste all that good anyway

(Source: coffinworry)

140 notes