thetrolliestcritic:

nkhamiltons:

Because it’s still happening, i’m making this post

STOP USING THAT MILKY WASHED OUT PSD ON PEOPLE WITH OLIVE/BROWN/DARK SKIN

not only is it ugly anyway, but it lightens skintone, and that’s obviously a problem. that psd is only made for pale people and its meant to only compliment pale people - do not use it on brown/black! this is problem not only found in the 5h fandom, but all around tumblr as well. you need to understand that whitewashing poc is wrong and if you honestly don’t know why please google it.

don’t be afraid of vibrance and high saturation, it doesnt matter if it was a 2011 trend or w/e, it looks better than those milky psds. use more yellows and reds in your curves - brighten your colors!

i’ve made two things to help people edit less like this and here are the links:

tutorial on coloring edits with dark skinned people

psd that doesn’t lighten dark skinned people

if you want another psd or tutorial you can request me, i’ll do it

JUST STOP USING THAT UGLY MILKY WASHED OUT PSD

Y’all remember that time when I told these roleplay helpers to stop whitewashing people of color’s skin when they make edits, and lost some friends over it? Yep.

sun-thief-rai:


rainaweather:


Then and now

But notice how this headline from the civil rights era is more sympathetic to the victims than most you’d see today. 

^^^^ The ABOVE COMMENT.

sun-thief-rai:

rainaweather:

Then and now

But notice how this headline from the civil rights era is more sympathetic to the victims than most you’d see today. 

^^^^ The ABOVE COMMENT.

(Source: talented10th)

thisiseverydayracism:

dynastylnoire:

lakotapeopleslawproject:

Please share this post and become a MEMBER at http://lakotalaw.org/donate-new to effect permanent change for the Lakota children. The Lakota People’s Law Project and the Lakota tribes of South Dakota have been working on achieving the permanent solution to the corruption of South Dakota’s Department of Social Services by rerouting federal money from the state and getting it directly to the tribes. For this to happen the Lakota tribes will have to overcome many hurdles and organize their own foster care and other family planning programs. Although we have worked on this struggle for over 8 years, we are finally breaking through and creating the system that will prevent Lakota children from being kidnapped by the state of South Dakota and taken from their communities. 8 of the 9 Lakota tribes have applied for federal funding to assist them in planning for the installation of these programs and the Department of Justice, in conjunction with the ACLU, has just released an amicus brief supporting the Lakota children and condemning the practices of South Dakota. The full brief can be read here: https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/122-1amicusbriefoftheunitedstates8-14-2014.pdf  Please help make this solution a reality by donating to help the Lakota children remain with their families!

boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooost!


SIGNAL BOOST

thisiseverydayracism:

dynastylnoire:

lakotapeopleslawproject:

Please share this post and become a MEMBER at http://lakotalaw.org/donate-new to effect permanent change for the Lakota children.

The Lakota People’s Law Project and the Lakota tribes of South Dakota have been working on achieving the permanent solution to the corruption of South Dakota’s Department of Social Services by rerouting federal money from the state and getting it directly to the tribes. For this to happen the Lakota tribes will have to overcome many hurdles and organize their own foster care and other family planning programs.

Although we have worked on this struggle for over 8 years, we are finally breaking through and creating the system that will prevent Lakota children from being kidnapped by the state of South Dakota and taken from their communities. 8 of the 9 Lakota tribes have applied for federal funding to assist them in planning for the installation of these programs and the Department of Justice, in conjunction with the ACLU, has just released an amicus brief supporting the Lakota children and condemning the practices of South Dakota. The full brief can be read here: https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/122-1amicusbriefoftheunitedstates8-14-2014.pdf

Please help make this solution a reality by donating to help the Lakota children remain with their families!

boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooost!

SIGNAL BOOST

lastrealindians:

Police officers who shot Indian teen get medals by Brandon Ecoffey

CLINTON, Okla. — Two recipients of the Oklahoma Sheriff’s Association Medal of Honor were also involved in the shooting death of Mah-hi-Vist GoodBlanket. The parents of GoodBlanket feel that both the shooting of their son and the awards given are unjustified.

In December of 2013, the GoodBlankets had called the police to their home after their son Mah-hi-Vist (18) had raised alarm after slipping in to what they have called an Oppositional Defiant Disorder episode.

“We called the police to protect him,” said his mother Melissa. “By the time the police had arrived he had calmed down and was in there with his girlfriend.”

The GoodBlankets were waiting in their car when police deputies first arrived at their home. According to them, two officers entered the home through a broken window and then within seconds exited through the same window. The GoodBlankets say that there was then a second entry that ended with the shooting of Mah-hi-Vist seconds after officers breached the house.

The officers have claimed that Mah-hi-Vist had threatened officers with a knife and that they were forced to shoot him.

The GoodBlankets say that the claims of officers do not reflect what they saw happen from their vantage point in the driveway where they say they could see in to the windows of the home. Custer County Sheriffs had been accompanied by two Oklahoma Highway Patrolmen in the final moments of Mah-hi-Vist’s as he was in the home with his girlfriend. Autopsy reports show that Mah-hi-Vist was shot 7 times, once in the head, and twice by a Taser gun.

“His girlfriend came running out on the yard screaming that they had shot him,” said Melissa GoodBlanket, the mother of Mah-hi-Vist.

Melissa says that the shooting was an example of excessive force and feels that the shooting was unnecessary.

READ THE REST HERE: http://lastrealindians.com/police-officers-who-shot-indian-teen-get-medals-by-brandon-ecoffey/

medievalpoc:

barbotrobot submitted to medievalpoc:

FRAGRANT CONCUBINE ALERT!!!

From the link:

Chinese Government Tries to Quell Unrest with an Animated Princess

Uighers are an ethnic minority in western China, largely Muslim, who have been protesting the Chinese government for its discriminatory policies against them over the past several years. Now the Chinese government hopes to appease the protesters with a bizarre princess story.

Historically, China has been ruled by the dominant Han ethnicity. But in the country’s western regions, there are many Islamic groups with a different ethnic heritage — their ancestors likely came from various parts of the middle east over 1500 years ago, and they have been uneasily assimilated into Chinese society ever since. In the early twentieth century, Soviet leaders dubbed these many different groups “Uighurs,” naming them after a vanished tribal society that once aided the Chinese in quelling the deadly rebellion of the short-lived Yan Empire during the middle ages.

Writing in the New York Times, Edward Wong explains the backstory of how the animated tale of Princess Fragrant came to be made:

Now there is 10-year-old Princess Fragrant, with her girlish braids, embroidered red dress and flowing silk head scarf.

She is the Han vision of a Disney princess transplanted to Xinjiang. Animators in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen are creating a 104-episode cartoon series loosely based on a historical Qing Dynasty imperial consort, the Fragrant Concubine, a Uighur woman who is shrouded in myth. Working under contract with the government of the oasis city of Kashgar, the site of occasional violent episodes, these animators have said their aim is to paint a portrait of ethnic harmony and paper over bloody conflicts in Xinjiang.

The plot of the series, which is expected to be broadcast in 15-minute-long episodes over two seasons, follows the adventures of Princess Fragrant, her brother and their ethnic Han and Kazakh friends as they travel across Xinjiang to rescue the princess’s father from the clutches of a greedy Western explorer.

Read More

….interesting.

Read more about Xiang Fei (Fragrant Concubine) at Medievalpoc

red-lipstick:

Nicolas Demeersman aka Pretty Punk (b. 1978, Seclin) Worldwide ongoing Fucking Tourist series 2009-2014 Captures The Resentment Of Locals With A Simple Gesture. (Info with each pic)

(Source: jolipunk.over-blog.com)

blqsucculents:

blackourstory:

rebelbaes:

My black year: Maggie Anderson at TEDxGrandRapids

Chicago family Buys Black for a year. Maggie Anderson, shares her experience with that experiment.

Maggie Anderson also Author of the Book based on the experiment:

"Our Black Year"

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Black-Year-Americas-Racially-ebook/dp/B0078XE0FS/ref=la_B001JPCU3U_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409138343&sr=1-1

Where are the notes??? I mean, this is THE answer, according to much of pro-Black tumblr, so I’d expect more cosigns…

apps like “around the way” are doing a great job in pin pointing black businesses in nyc, but there needs to be much more than that. hopefully, everyone will watch this.

insideinsight:

micdotcom:

55 Twitter photos from space that will fill you with ethereal wonder

Reid Wiseman is a national treasure.

Follow micdotcom 

Hi Mama Earth. You flawless. Ladies, tell ‘em.

prokopetz:

sixsaltysweets:

thetremblingofmyhand:

escapedosmil:

noelledino:

deductionhunters:

chocolateist:

i-want-cheese:

bakaandty:

i-want-cheese:

blogorgtfo:

assbutt-in-the-garrison:

Back when I was younger and more ignorant and misinformed than I am now, one of my exes literally made me feel guilty sometimes when he got a boner and I didn’t want to “take care of him”. He claimed that it caused him a lot of pain and he said that his doctor had actually said he couldn’t leave himself in that state or else he could damage himself…. So made me feel like I HAD to give him relief even when I really did not desire to. And that sucked.

Wait… it DOESN’T hurt them?

Boys get boners all the time for no reason. No, it doesn’t hurt them. If any boy tries to tell you otherwise, run away as fast as you can because he’s lying to you for the sake of his penis.

No penis is more important than you because you are a whole person and a penis is just a spongy flab o’ flesh. 

Hahaha deff not I get boners constantly.
Math
Driving
Light
Anything causes them

Favorite answer so far.

Math.

Dicks can seriously be ridiculous at times

Hell sometimes a brisk breeze can set them off

Reblogging this for all of the girls and guys that DO NOT KNOW THIS INFORMATION.  Because this is extremely important.

HEY!!! 

HEYYYYYY!!!!

The term ‘blue balls’ isn’t actually a fucking thing. 

It was created by giant flopping douche canoes to con girls into rubbing their little dingadongs. 

I literally get 10 boners a day and never get blue balls. 

Next time someone tries to shame you into a handy, kick them in the balls and tell them “NOW YOU HAVE BLUE BALLS”

Sorry but, coming from a woman, “blue balls”  (ie pain caused by temporary fluid congestion) can be a thing, it’s just that not all men experience it, it will not cause any damage if not “treated”, and no woman should be obliged to “relieve” a guy with this problem. 

this is glorious and hilarious and informative thank you

Also, consider the following:

  1. "Blue balls" is caused by referred pain from vascular congestion of erectile tissue.
  2. Vascular congestion of erectile tissue is, in turn, caused by prolonged arousal that does not result in orgasm.
  3. This is not a gendered phenomenon; just about every configuration of genitals has erectile tissue that can become painfully congested in this fashion.
  4. In general, clitoral erectile tissue is both more nerve-rich and more internalised than penile erectile tissue (90% of the clitoral shaft lying within the body).
  5. Women are much more likely not to get off from sex than men are.

The upshot is that, if you’re a heterosexual dude, in all balance of probability you’ve “blue balled” your partner both more frequently and more severely than she’s ever done to you - and you don’t hear her complaining, do you?

totallynotabadvirus:

I just bought my Wonder Woman comic and these were the last two pages. Wonder woman makes me extremely happy.

loscannbruthmar:

theangryblackwoman:

caramelblackness:

visionarywateringhole:

thaxted:

nerdfaceangst:

theafrocentricasian:

World’s languages traced back to single African mother tongue: scientists.
New Zealand researchers have traced every human language — from English to Mandarin — back to an ancestral language spoken in Africa 50,000 to 70,000 years ago.
Scientists say they have traced the world’s 6,000 modern languages — from English to Mandarin — back to a single “mother tongue,” an ancestral language spoken in Africa 50,000 to 70,000 years ago.
New research, published in the journal Science, suggests this single ancient language resulted in human civilization — a Diaspora — as well as advances in art and hunting tool technology, and laid the groundwork for all the world’s cultures.
The research, by Quentin Atkinson from the University of Auckland in New Zealand, also found that speech evolved far earlier than previously thought. And the findings implied, though did not prove, that modern language originated only once, an issue of controversy among linguists, according to the New York Times.
Before Atkinson came up with the evidence for a single African origin of language, some scientists had argued that language evolved independently in different parts of the world.
Atkinson found that the first populations migrating from Africa laid the groundwork for all the world’s cultures by taking their single language with them. “It was the catalyst that spurred the human expansion that we all are a product of,” Atkinson said, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Atkinson traced the number distinct sounds, or phonemes — consonants, vowels and tones — in 504 world languages, finding compelling evidence that they can be traced back to a long-forgotten dialect spoken by our Stone Age ancestors, according to the Daily Mail.
Atkinson also hypothesized that languages with the most sounds would be the oldest, while those spoken by smaller breakaway groups would utilize fewer sounds as variation and complexity diminished.
The study found that some of the click-using languages of Africa have more than 100 phonemes, or sounds, whereas Hawaiian, toward the far end of the human migration route out of Africa, has only 13, the Times reported. English has about 45 phonemes.
The phoneme pattern mirrors the pattern of human genetic diversity as humans spread across the globe from sub-Saharan Africa around 70,000 years ago.
Source: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/science/110415/language-science-linguistics-mother-tongue-english-chinese-mandarin-africa

This gives me LIFE from people who insist all languages (ALL no matter what) derive from latin bases.

Reblogging this for three reasons:
1) It’s awesome and worth knowing
2) It makes sense when you think about, you know, the whole history of human development (from a NOT white supremacist perspective at least)
3) To add that if anyone ever tries to say that all languages are derived from Latin [insert choked sound of disbelief and anger] you can inform their ignorant (probably racist) asses of this: Latin, as far as languages go, is an INFANT. It’s part of a subset of Indo-European languages and MOTHERFUCKER EVEN ENGLISH ISN’T ONE OF ITS DERIVATIVES. (French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, and Portuguese are, as well as lots of their related languages and dialects, that’s it.) Latin isn’t even remotely old enough to be a mother language. It’s like saying alpacas were the original dinosaurs or some bullshit.

HUH! You dont FUCKING SAY?
WILL YOU LOOK THE FUCK AT THAT! 

Not surprising, but this is cool information!

Loveeeeee

This is not only wrong, it’s also really bad science. And I know every field has problems with misreporting of new research discoveries, but I think linguistics gets a particularly rough time of it, in part because the public in general knows next to nothing about how linguistics works as a field, but also there seems to be a lot of anti-linguist bias in this kind of reporting (which might be the result of anti-Chomsky bias?). But you see it here, and in other similar articles, where “scientists” have some new approach to global-scale language studies, and in contrast, linguists (who apparently don’t count as scientists) are painted as these backwards, anti-technology luddites stuck in our ways and unwilling to accept new research like this. And that annoys me because there are very good reasons to be against new research like this *and* still be interested in technology and new approaches to linguistics.
A big part of the problem is that these “exciting new discoveries about language” come out of studies led by biologists, computer scientists, and mathematicians/statisticians without any input from linguists, who actually study language and are familiar with the field, its methods, and what works versus what doesn’t. So these studies don’t take into account really basic facts about how language differs from genetic material. You don’t just inherit a language from your parents (or whoever raised you) and that’s it. Pronunciation shifts over time in individual speakers, kids are more sensitive to the pronunciation of their peers than their parents, and it’s generally environmentally-sensitive in ways that make it differ from biology. But over the past couple hundred years of research, historical linguists have come up with ways to work with these facts in methodologically-sound ways. 
But then “scientists” can’t be bothered to learn any of this before diving right in to work on language. And apparently they can’t be bothered to use good scientific principles either. The globalpost article says:

"Atkinson also hypothesized that languages with the most sounds would be the oldest, while those spoken by smaller breakaway groups would utilize fewer sounds as variation and complexity diminished."

But you can’t have a hypothesis as one of the basic assumptions of your study. A hypothesis is something you *test*. So, if you wanted to hypothesize that languages with the most sounds are the oldest, you would take data from language families that are pretty well worked-out, like Indo-European or Austronesian or Algonquian, and see if the languages that branched off first (the so-called ‘oldest’) really do have the most phonemes. And then if that works and gets you results close to the results that philologists and linguists have worked out using tried methods, *then* you apply your method to the entire world. 
But this is all apparently based on an earlier study that found that “the number of phonemes in a language increases with the number of people who speak it.” And that’s kind of interesting, but it’s important to think about *why* that might be the case. I suspect it’s because in today’s world, if a language has a lot of speakers, it’s because it’s a trade language or a language of colonialization. And both of those mean that there will be many speakers for whom it’s a 2nd (or greater) language, and they’ll carry over a lot of pronunciation habits from their first language. For example, there are cool things going on with retroflexion in Indian Englishes, so you could say that retroflex consonants are phonemes of (varieties of) English. But this study seems to assume that it’s like, once you reach a certain number of speakers, a voice from the heavens comes down and says “Congratulations, you have unlocked aspiration! Enjoy your /tʰ/.” And then when smaller groups branch off and their speech evolves to the point that it can be considered a new language, we’re supposed to assume they suddenly lose a lot of phonemes because they don’t have the speakers to support them, which is utter nonsense. Languages lose and gain phonemes for a lot of reasons over time. 
On top of these methodological concerns, it’s not even that straightforward how to count phonemes, especially in languages which seem to have a lot of them. Like, the “African click languages” that the articles mention as having the most phonemes, some linguists think that some of the clicks should be counted as made up of clusters of phonemes, and if you count them that way, these languages have about the same number of phonemes as the Caucasian languages (like Ubykh). I would also be interested to know how and if they counted suprasegmental phonemes like contrastive stress, pitch, or tones. 
The sounds of a language are also *highly* subject to change based on the sounds of neighboring languages. Like, these Khoisan languages with the clicks, they aren’t even thought to be related to each other, which I think is pretty damaging for a theory of a single south African origin of language. And the clicks spread to neighboring Bantu languages as well as some other unrelated languages, which gives them a higher phoneme count without being closely related or the same “age”. 
These problems with phonemes are why they’re never used as basis for showing which languages are related. They’re highly unstable. Like, if you can show regular sound correspondence in related words, that’s helpful, but you can still get thrown off if two languages have a lot of borrowings. I think shared morphology is used as the gold standard these days. I’m pretty disappointed that Don Ringe and Brian Joseph we’re quoted saying positive things about this study in the NYT article. But neither of them is a phonologist, so I guess that’s the problem. And I think they’re both a little too excited about statistical/mathematical models of language, and don’t remember to be critical too.
So, apparently this study is pretty old, and some other linguists officially debunked it a couple of years ago. They re-ran the experiment with the original data, and found that it points to a number of different origins for language. You can read their full article in all its glory.  
Also, I’ll add that it was super classy of globalpost to use a picture of a random South Sudanese boy for their article about the origin of language being in a completely different part of Africa. (Two whole bars away, by the NYT map graphic.)
And I kind of wonder if publishing the original article (& follow-ups) was just Science going after click-bait. Surely someone in the article review process must’ve noticed how messed up it was. 

loscannbruthmar:

theangryblackwoman:

caramelblackness:

visionarywateringhole:

thaxted:

nerdfaceangst:

theafrocentricasian:

World’s languages traced back to single African mother tongue: scientists.

New Zealand researchers have traced every human language — from English to Mandarin — back to an ancestral language spoken in Africa 50,000 to 70,000 years ago.

Scientists say they have traced the world’s 6,000 modern languages — from English to Mandarin — back to a single “mother tongue,” an ancestral language spoken in Africa 50,000 to 70,000 years ago.

New research, published in the journal Science, suggests this single ancient language resulted in human civilization — a Diaspora — as well as advances in art and hunting tool technology, and laid the groundwork for all the world’s cultures.

The research, by Quentin Atkinson from the University of Auckland in New Zealand, also found that speech evolved far earlier than previously thought. And the findings implied, though did not prove, that modern language originated only once, an issue of controversy among linguists, according to the New York Times.

Before Atkinson came up with the evidence for a single African origin of language, some scientists had argued that language evolved independently in different parts of the world.

Atkinson found that the first populations migrating from Africa laid the groundwork for all the world’s cultures by taking their single language with them. “It was the catalyst that spurred the human expansion that we all are a product of,” Atkinson said, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Atkinson traced the number distinct sounds, or phonemes — consonants, vowels and tones — in 504 world languages, finding compelling evidence that they can be traced back to a long-forgotten dialect spoken by our Stone Age ancestors, according to the Daily Mail.

Atkinson also hypothesized that languages with the most sounds would be the oldest, while those spoken by smaller breakaway groups would utilize fewer sounds as variation and complexity diminished.

The study found that some of the click-using languages of Africa have more than 100 phonemes, or sounds, whereas Hawaiian, toward the far end of the human migration route out of Africa, has only 13, the Times reported. English has about 45 phonemes.

The phoneme pattern mirrors the pattern of human genetic diversity as humans spread across the globe from sub-Saharan Africa around 70,000 years ago.

Source: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/science/110415/language-science-linguistics-mother-tongue-english-chinese-mandarin-africa

This gives me LIFE from people who insist all languages (ALL no matter what) derive from latin bases.

Reblogging this for three reasons:

1) It’s awesome and worth knowing

2) It makes sense when you think about, you know, the whole history of human development (from a NOT white supremacist perspective at least)

3) To add that if anyone ever tries to say that all languages are derived from Latin [insert choked sound of disbelief and anger] you can inform their ignorant (probably racist) asses of this: Latin, as far as languages go, is an INFANT. It’s part of a subset of Indo-European languages and MOTHERFUCKER EVEN ENGLISH ISN’T ONE OF ITS DERIVATIVES. (French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, and Portuguese are, as well as lots of their related languages and dialects, that’s it.) Latin isn’t even remotely old enough to be a mother language. It’s like saying alpacas were the original dinosaurs or some bullshit.

HUH! You dont FUCKING SAY?

WILL YOU LOOK THE FUCK AT THAT! 

Not surprising, but this is cool information!

Loveeeeee

This is not only wrong, it’s also really bad science. And I know every field has problems with misreporting of new research discoveries, but I think linguistics gets a particularly rough time of it, in part because the public in general knows next to nothing about how linguistics works as a field, but also there seems to be a lot of anti-linguist bias in this kind of reporting (which might be the result of anti-Chomsky bias?). But you see it here, and in other similar articles, where “scientists” have some new approach to global-scale language studies, and in contrast, linguists (who apparently don’t count as scientists) are painted as these backwards, anti-technology luddites stuck in our ways and unwilling to accept new research like this. And that annoys me because there are very good reasons to be against new research like this *and* still be interested in technology and new approaches to linguistics.

A big part of the problem is that these “exciting new discoveries about language” come out of studies led by biologists, computer scientists, and mathematicians/statisticians without any input from linguists, who actually study language and are familiar with the field, its methods, and what works versus what doesn’t. So these studies don’t take into account really basic facts about how language differs from genetic material. You don’t just inherit a language from your parents (or whoever raised you) and that’s it. Pronunciation shifts over time in individual speakers, kids are more sensitive to the pronunciation of their peers than their parents, and it’s generally environmentally-sensitive in ways that make it differ from biology. But over the past couple hundred years of research, historical linguists have come up with ways to work with these facts in methodologically-sound ways. 

But then “scientists” can’t be bothered to learn any of this before diving right in to work on language. And apparently they can’t be bothered to use good scientific principles either. The globalpost article says:

"Atkinson also hypothesized that languages with the most sounds would be the oldest, while those spoken by smaller breakaway groups would utilize fewer sounds as variation and complexity diminished."

But you can’t have a hypothesis as one of the basic assumptions of your study. A hypothesis is something you *test*. So, if you wanted to hypothesize that languages with the most sounds are the oldest, you would take data from language families that are pretty well worked-out, like Indo-European or Austronesian or Algonquian, and see if the languages that branched off first (the so-called ‘oldest’) really do have the most phonemes. And then if that works and gets you results close to the results that philologists and linguists have worked out using tried methods, *then* you apply your method to the entire world. 

But this is all apparently based on an earlier study that found that “the number of phonemes in a language increases with the number of people who speak it.” And that’s kind of interesting, but it’s important to think about *why* that might be the case. I suspect it’s because in today’s world, if a language has a lot of speakers, it’s because it’s a trade language or a language of colonialization. And both of those mean that there will be many speakers for whom it’s a 2nd (or greater) language, and they’ll carry over a lot of pronunciation habits from their first language. For example, there are cool things going on with retroflexion in Indian Englishes, so you could say that retroflex consonants are phonemes of (varieties of) English. But this study seems to assume that it’s like, once you reach a certain number of speakers, a voice from the heavens comes down and says “Congratulations, you have unlocked aspiration! Enjoy your /tʰ/.” And then when smaller groups branch off and their speech evolves to the point that it can be considered a new language, we’re supposed to assume they suddenly lose a lot of phonemes because they don’t have the speakers to support them, which is utter nonsense. Languages lose and gain phonemes for a lot of reasons over time. 

On top of these methodological concerns, it’s not even that straightforward how to count phonemes, especially in languages which seem to have a lot of them. Like, the “African click languages” that the articles mention as having the most phonemes, some linguists think that some of the clicks should be counted as made up of clusters of phonemes, and if you count them that way, these languages have about the same number of phonemes as the Caucasian languages (like Ubykh). I would also be interested to know how and if they counted suprasegmental phonemes like contrastive stress, pitch, or tones. 

The sounds of a language are also *highly* subject to change based on the sounds of neighboring languages. Like, these Khoisan languages with the clicks, they aren’t even thought to be related to each other, which I think is pretty damaging for a theory of a single south African origin of language. And the clicks spread to neighboring Bantu languages as well as some other unrelated languages, which gives them a higher phoneme count without being closely related or the same “age”. 

These problems with phonemes are why they’re never used as basis for showing which languages are related. They’re highly unstable. Like, if you can show regular sound correspondence in related words, that’s helpful, but you can still get thrown off if two languages have a lot of borrowings. I think shared morphology is used as the gold standard these days. I’m pretty disappointed that Don Ringe and Brian Joseph we’re quoted saying positive things about this study in the NYT article. But neither of them is a phonologist, so I guess that’s the problem. And I think they’re both a little too excited about statistical/mathematical models of language, and don’t remember to be critical too.

So, apparently this study is pretty old, and some other linguists officially debunked it a couple of years ago. They re-ran the experiment with the original data, and found that it points to a number of different origins for language. You can read their full article in all its glory.  

Also, I’ll add that it was super classy of globalpost to use a picture of a random South Sudanese boy for their article about the origin of language being in a completely different part of Africa. (Two whole bars away, by the NYT map graphic.)

And I kind of wonder if publishing the original article (& follow-ups) was just Science going after click-bait. Surely someone in the article review process must’ve noticed how messed up it was. 

hammeneggs15 said: Seriously though could you send me some medicine journals or something? Just want to see someone else's opinion on abortion.

apersnicketylemon:

Here is the Journal of the American Medical Association on how fetuses do not feel pain

Here is the UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists review of it that confirmed the findings and furthered evidence that even at 24 weeks fetuses feel nothing.

Here is Guttmachers report on the facts of abortion in the USA including how many used protection and even WHY people have abortions (Hint, the number one reason is financial reasons!)

Here is Guttmachers report on abortion world wide including the fact that the legality of abortion does not a damn thing to change the rates.

Here are some posts I did researching the effects of abortion. The ‘negative’ ones that pro lifers insist always happen or that happen to the majority. Each is sourced to mayo, webmd, guttmacher, or the cancer society.

Here is a nice artical about how consciousness in humans does not exist until after birth.

Here is a post I made a few months ago detailing how abortion is not murder according to legal definitions.

Here is the American Psychological Association on how post abortion syndrome doesn’t exist.

Here is a post I did explaining why a fetus doesn’t have bodily autonomy and why even if they did it still wouldn’t matter.

Here is what bodily autonomy is.

If you’re still pro life even after reading all of that then you honestly do just hate DFAB people and are wilfully ignorant at that point. Hope all of that helps though.

maddylouboo:

sighdrogen:

 

ghostflo:

cognitivedissonance:

youngblackandvegan:

astoldbywhit:

youngblackandvegan:

nuttyproff:

Timing. 

hey, baby’s gotta eat
black mommy excellence

I don’t support breast feeding in public places. Sorry not sorry. I just think there is a time and place for everything.

the time is when the baby is hungry
and the place is where the mother is able to feed the baby
everyone is always critiquing black motherhood and here we have a black woman not only graduating but giving her baby the nourishment it needs 
i think there’s a time and place for your negativity
and it’s not now and it’s not on this picture

BOOM

people don’t realize that when they say parents shouldn’t breast feed in public they’re really saying “my discomfort and objectification of breasts is more important than your child’s health and survival.” all you fuckers who say this shit should be charged with neglect. you can’t forbid people from feeding their children just cause boobs give weak dudes boners.



Badass!

maddylouboo:

sighdrogen:

 

ghostflo:

cognitivedissonance:

youngblackandvegan:

astoldbywhit:

youngblackandvegan:

nuttyproff:

Timing. 

hey, baby’s gotta eat

black mommy excellence

I don’t support breast feeding in public places. Sorry not sorry. I just think there is a time and place for everything.

the time is when the baby is hungry

and the place is where the mother is able to feed the baby

everyone is always critiquing black motherhood and here we have a black woman not only graduating but giving her baby the nourishment it needs 

i think there’s a time and place for your negativity

and it’s not now and it’s not on this picture

BOOM

people don’t realize that when they say parents shouldn’t breast feed in public they’re really saying “my discomfort and objectification of breasts is more important than your child’s health and survival.” all you fuckers who say this shit should be charged with neglect. you can’t forbid people from feeding their children just cause boobs give weak dudes boners.

Badass!

coketalk:

"An Illustrated Guide to American Personhood" by Sarah Baker

coketalk:

"An Illustrated Guide to American Personhood" by Sarah Baker

thesoundsilence said: A new study of oral contraceptives via catholicvote(.)org is saying that they lead to a high increase in breast cancer. While I don't trust them or their sources what are the risks of breast cancer or really any cancer being increased while taking oral contraceptives. (Honestly is was just a shaming scare tactic article but reliable info helps keep the public sane!)

pro-choice-or-no-voice:

The short [answer]: pills commonly used in the 1960s and 70s may have, but today’s pills don’t.” (Source.)

And here’s some studies showing no correlation between hormonal birth control and cancer. [x] [x] “Even the small percentage of [DFAB people] with genetic risk factors for breast cancer don’t have increased risk from using the pill." Hope this helps! - Paige