Video

coolkitten24:

im literally so fucking sick right now
please go spam this video with hate dislikes bad comments whatever you want to do

fucking destroy this video and this man  

but warning: transphobia, rape/non con-ish stuff, flashing lights, the word “bitch”, and garbage 

Ah, the creators of “the stereotype song”.  This video sucked for entertainment value. 1/10 would not rewatch

(via heckiedamn)

Source: coolkitten24
Link

http://livingtombstone.tumblr.com/post/73679021785/dnotive-so-word-reached-me-that-apm-got-hit

dnotive:

So, word reached me that APM got hit with a C&D after enough people prompted Hasbro to take action on the subject. This is likely to be the only thing I will say in response to it, unless I get prompted for more, so here ‘goes.

Folks, the fandom is changing.

We can no longer…

Source: dnotive
Video

grubsnuggle:

kermit-the-frog:

mrasayf:

are you fucking kidding me

"it doesnt matter what tool the artist uses, but the skill of the artist themselves determines how well a piece is"

At first I was like “cool speedpaint” then I looked at the toolbar at the top.

this makes me iRATIONALLY ANGRY

(via browningtons)

Source: mrasayf
Text

mspbandj:

radgreymon:

Tumblr is the place losers can come to be the bullies they’ve always wanted to be

this is so accurate i want to punch everyone in the face

(via nadaatall)

Photo

wsswatson:

Another three episodes. Another series finished. Another set of surprises. Another cliffhanger.

As is to be expected, fans have been going wild, theories have been spreading like wildfire, and conversation is roaring.

I have a few theories of my own, and after a few rewatches, I’m ready to lay them all out. I’m going to try to lay them out chronologically so that you can consider them as and when you rewatch the episode, but some jumping about will be necessary.

So, here we go:

THESES: The woman we know as Mary Morstan was in cahoots with Moriarty. Sherlock was lying about trusting her. Mycroft saved Sherlock’s life.

Mary first.

Let’s have a think about the scene in which Mary shoots Sherlock. The first thing that leaped out at me was her clothing. Mary is dressed in the clothing of an assassin. People have been arguing that Mary has changed and left that life behind her. Has she really? She kept the clothes, and the gun. She kept them hidden from John, too. Even if she’s no longer ‘in business’, she hasn’t retired, either.

Now, let’s take a look at the shooting itself. Just before it takes place, the following dialogue occurs:

SHERLOCK: “Mary, whatever he’s got on you, let me help.”

MARY: “Oh, Sherlock, if you take one more step, I swear I will kill you.”

SHERLOCK: “No, Mrs Watson.* You won’t.”

*An appeal to Mary’s sentiment by referencing their shared connection to John?

Then, of course, she shoots him, and notice the look of surprise on Sherlock’s face:

His last word before he falls unconscious is “Mary?”

He was not expecting that, which supports my theory that she really did shoot to kill (bear with me).

Sherlock, in an attempt to save himself, enters his mind palace, where one of the first things that the Molly of his imagination says is: “You’re almost certainly going to die, so we need to focus.”

Then we have Mycroft: “It’s all very well having a mind palace, but you’ve only three seconds of consciousness left to use it.”

Then Mycroft says “What was directly behind you when you were murdered?”

Sherlock says “I haven’t been murdered yet!” to which Mycroft replies “Balance of probability, little brother.”

Now, remember that Molly and Mycroft are not really present - all of this takes place in Sherlock’s head. Conclusion? Sherlock thinks that Mary shot to kill.

She succeeded, too. His heart stopped. The surgeons moved away, they gave up. Sherlock died.

What saved him?

John arrived and spoke to him.

Then Moriarty, in Sherlock’s mind palace, said “…And John will cry buckets and buckets. It’s him I worry about the most. That wife! You’re letting him down, Sherlock. John Watson is definitely in danger.

Again, remember that Moriarty is not really the one speaking. This is all in Sherlock’s head. Sherlock fought his way back to life because he believed John to be in danger from Mary. Sherlock does not trust Mary, and he certainly doesn’t trust her with his best friend.

Then there’s what John said at the hospital: “His first word when he woke up? ‘Mary’!

He woke up thinking of her. He definitely does not trust her.

Look how she reacts to hearing that he’s alright, too:

That is not a look of relief.

Then Mary visits him, and says: “You don’t tell him. Sherlock! You don’t tell John. … Look at me, and tell me you’re not going to tell him.

If she was sorry, she would’ve said so. If she was sorry, there would have been at least a hint of remorse in her tone. There was not. Her tone was threatening. She didn’t ask him not to tell John, she told him, and by this point, we and Sherlock both know what she is capable of doing to people.

This is also proof of just how selfish Mary’s love for John is. When you love someone, really love them, your priority is their safety. Mary’s priority is not John’s safety - if she has such a dangerous past, the safest thing for John would be to come clean, because at some point, it’s possible that John might be targeted because of her (just as he has been because of Sherlock, and it was through Mary that Magnussen observed Sherlock’s reaction to John being placed in the fire).

It’s not “I’m sorry that I shot you. Even if I didn’t care about you one bit, I know that my husband does, and I am sorry to have caused him any pain through harming you.”

It’s “Don’t you dare tell my husband what I did, because then he will leave me.”

She loves John, certainly, but she is very, very selfish about it.

Of course, Sherlock’s still drowsy at that point. A little later, though, Janine visits, and just before she leaves, she says: “I’ll give your love to John and Mary.”

At this point, Sherlock’s face becomes determined, and he turns down the morphine tap. He gets ready to make his escape.

Cut to the mind palace, and look how Mary appears:

She’s dressed as she was the day she and Sherlock met. Which, by the way was suspicious in itself, as she appeared to have no idea who Sherlock was - “John? John, what is it? Oh, no, you’re- [Sherlock].” Sherlock was all over the papers. Everyone knew what he looked like, and someone so close to John certainly would. That implies to me that she knows more about him than she was willing to let on, and so pretended to know nothing at all. Liar.

Then look at how she reacts to discovering Sherlock’s ‘number 1 bolthole’:

That is a look of pure suspicion and trepidation. Not only does Sherlock not trust Mary, she doesn’t trust him either.

Now let’s talk about the dialogue back in 221b:

JOHN: “He knew who shot him. The bullet wound was here, so he was facing whoever it was.”

LESTRADE: “So why not tell us? Because he’s tracking them down himself-“

JOHN: “Or protecting them?”

LESTRADE: “Protecting the shooter - why?”

JOHN: “Protecting someone, then. But why would he care? He’s Sherlock. Who would he bother protecting?”

And this is the shot as he finishes speaking:

In this shot, if only very partially, is John, Lestrade and Mrs Hudson, the three people Sherlock risked his life to save when he jumped off the roof of Bart’s. If you want some subliminal messaging that Sherlock was not protecting the shooter, but, as John said, ‘someone’, there it is. At the center of the shot is John, who then, of course, comes to a realisation: he’s sitting in my armchair. He then asks:

"Mrs Hudson, why did Sherlock think I’d be moving back in here?"

The realisation hits him then. Sherlock was not protecting the shooter. He was protecting his best friend.

Let’s skip along a little bit. Mary goes to Leinster Gardens, where Sherlock calls her. He brings her to his bolthole. How does he describe that bolthole?

"The empty houses."

Let’s take a look at an extract from The Adventure of the Empty House:

I had imagined that we were bound for Baker Street, but Holmes stopped the cab at the corner of Cavendish Square. I observed that as he stepped out he gave a most searching glance to right and left, and at every subsequent street corner he took the utmost pains to assure that he was not followed. Our route was certainly a singular one. Holmes’s knowledge of the byways of London was extraordinary, and on this occasion he passed rapidly and with an assured step through a network of mews and stables, the very existence of which I had never known. We emerged at last into a small road, lined with old, gloomy houses, which led us into Manchester Street, and so to Blandford Street. Here he turned swiftly down a narrow passage, passed through a wooden gate into a deserted yard, and then opened with a key the back door of a house. We entered together, and he closed it behind us.

The place was pitch dark, but it was evident to me that it was an empty house. Our feet creaked and crackled over the bare planking, and my outstretched hand touched a wall from which the paper was hanging in ribbons. Holmes’s cold, thin fingers closed round my wrist and led me forward down a long hall, until I dimly saw the murky fanlight over the door. Here Holmes turned suddenly to the right, and we found ourselves in a large, square, empty room, heavily shadowed in the corners, but faintly lit in the centre from the lights of the street beyond. There was no lamp near, and the window was thick with dust, so that we could only just discern each other’s figures within. My companion put his hand upon my shoulder and his lips close to my ear.

“Do you know where we are?” he whispered.

“Surely that is Baker Street,” I answered, staring through the dim window.

“Exactly. We are in Camden House, which stands opposite to our own old quarters.”

“But why are we here?”

“Because it commands so excellent a view of that picturesque pile. Might I trouble you, my dear Watson, to draw a little nearer to the window, taking every precaution not to show yourself, and then to look up at our old rooms–the starting-point of so many of your little fairy-tales? We will see if my three years of absence have entirely taken away my power to surprise you.”

I crept forward and looked across at the familiar window. As my eyes fell upon it, I gave a gasp and a cry of amazement. The blind was down, and a strong light was burning in the room. The shadow of a man who was seated in a chair within was thrown in hard, black outline upon the luminous screen of the window. There was no mistaking the poise of the head, the squareness of the shoulders, the sharpness of the features. The face was turned half-round, and the effect was that of one of those black silhouettes which our grandparents loved to frame. It was a perfect reproduction of Holmes. So amazed was I that I threw out my hand to make sure that the man himself was standing beside me. He was quivering with silent laughter.

“Well?” said he.

“Good heavens!” I cried. “It is marvellous.”

“I trust that age doth not wither nor custom stale my infinite variety,” said he, and I recognized in his voice the joy and pride which the artist takes in his own creation. “It really is rather like me, is it not?”

“I should be prepared to swear that it was you.”

“The credit of the execution is due to Monsieur Oscar Meunier, of Grenoble, who spent some days in doing the moulding. It is a bust in wax. The rest I arranged myself during my visit to Baker Street this afternoon.”

“But why?”

“Because, my dear Watson, I had the strongest possible reason for wishing certain people to think that I was there when I was really elsewhere.”

“And you thought the rooms were watched?”

“I knew that they were watched.”

“By whom?”

“By my old enemies, Watson. By the charming society whose leader lies in the Reichenbach Fall. You must remember that they knew, and only they knew, that I was still alive. Sooner or later they believed that I should come back to my rooms. They watched them continuously, and this morning they saw me arrive.”

The specific enemy in question, who Holmes and Watson apprehend, is Colonel Sebastian Moran, the late Moriarty’s right-hand man, described thus:

Moran, Sebastian, Colonel. Unemployed. Formerly 1st Bangalore Pioneers. Born London, 1840. Son of Sir Augustus Moran, C. B., once British Minister to Persia. Educated Eton and Oxford. Served in Jowaki Campaign, Afghan Campaign, Charasiab (despatches), Sherpur, and Cabul. Author of Heavy Game of the Western Himalayas (1881); Three Months in the Jungle (1884). Address: Conduit Street. Clubs: The Anglo-Indian, the Tankerville, the Bagatelle Card Club.

On the margin was written, in Holmes’s precise hand:

The second most dangerous man in London.

A trained assassin, currently unemployed, who Holmes and Watson confront in an empty house. Remind you of anyone?

Let’s add to that her very suspicious behaviour regarding apparently not recognising Sherlock on the day they met. May she, like Moran, have known that Sherlock was alive, and have been watching him?

Here, again, Sherlock demonstrates that he does not trust Mary: “Remind you of anyone, Mary? A façade?”

His later demonstration of apparent trust is most certainly an act.

Almost as soon as Mary enters the building, her hand goes to her gun:

She certainly doesn’t have any qualms with killing Sherlock. She confirms this herself not long afterwards:

MARY: “You were very slow.”

SHERLOCK: “How good a shot are you?”

MARY: “How badly d’you wanna find out?”

Now, of course she doesn’t then actually kill him - that would ruin the narrative; the shooting of the coin has to serve as a suitable alternative. She of course shoots it excellently. Now, here comes the odd bit:

SHERLOCK: “And yet over a distance of six feet you failed to make a kill shot. That wasn’t a miss. It was surgery. I’ll take the case.”

And yet, it wasn’t a miss. It was a very good shot. Sherlock died. So why say it? I’ll come back to that.

MARY: “What case?”

SHERLOCK: “Yours. Why didn’t you come to me in the first place?”

MARY: “Because John can’t ever know that I lied to him. It would break him and I would lose him forever, and Sherlock, I will never let that happen. Please, understand, there is nothing in this world I would not do to stop that happening.”

Like killing one of the most intelligent and observant men in the world who also happens to be his best friend, for instance? Your selfishness is showing again there, Mary.

Now let’s take a look at the confrontation between Sherlock, John and Mary back in 221b:

JOHN: “You… What have I ever done? Hm? My whole life… to desrve you.”

SHERLOCK: “Everything.”

JOHN: “Sherlock, I’ve told you… Shut up.”

SHERLOCK: “No, I mean it, seriously, everything. Everything you’ve ever done is what you did.”

JOHN: “Sherlock, one more word and you will not need morphine.”

SHERLOCK: “You’re a doctor who went to war; you’re a man who couldn’t stay in the suburbs for more than a month without storming a crack den, beating up a junkie. Your best friend is a sociopath who solves crimes as an alternative to getting high. That’s me by the way - hello! Even the landlady used to run a drug cartel. […] John, you are addicted to a certain lifestyle. You’re abnormally attracted to dangerous situations and people. So is it truly such a surprise that the woman you fall in love with conforms to that pattern?”

JOHN: “But she wasn’t supposed to be like that! Why is she like that?”

SHERLOCK: “Because you chose her.”

At first, this seems cruel. It seems as though Sherlock is forcing the blame of the situation on John, and certainly, that’s how John takes it - “Why is everything… always… MY FAULT?”

However, might this not be more evidence for the Mary-as-Moriarty’s-ex-right-hand-(wo)man theory? She’s not dangerous because John chose her or vice versa, but she put herself in John’s path because he’s caught up in that dangerous lifestyle, and with Sherlock.

She is, after all, a nurse, and does that suit her? Presumably she’s taken innocent lives. If she had only taken the lives of bad people, why would John care? He’s done exactly the same, as she presumably knows - he was, after all, in the army in a protective role. Mary is not an altruist. She does not have a personality suited to nursing. She presumably trained as a nurse during her five years since taking Mary Morstan’s identity, too, and not an NHS nurse, either - she works privately at John’s clinic. Less background checks, then. It seems to me that Mary intentionally put herself in John’s path. The Moriarty connection is looking likelier and likelier.

Let’s go a bit further.

SHERLOCK: “John, listen, be calm and answer me. What is she?”

JOHN: “My lying wife.”

SHERLOCK: “No, what is she?”

JOHN: “And the woman who is carrying my child who has lied to me since the day I met her.”

SHERLOCK: “No. Not in this flat, not in this room, right here, right now, what is she?”

JOHN: “Okay. Your way. Always your way. Sit.”

MARY: “Why?”

JOHN: “Because that’s where they sit! The people who come in here with their stories. The clients - that’s all you are now, Mary. You’re a client. This is where you sit and talk and this is where we sit and listen. Then we decide if we want you or not.”

In this scene, John completely places his trust in Sherlock and disowns Mary. He also mentions that she is carrying his child. Let’s continue.

Mary hands John a memory stick:

SHERLOCK: “A.G.R.A. What’s that?”

MARY: “My initials. Everything about who I was is on there.”

Oh, really? You said you would do anything to prevent John from finding out the truth about you, and yet you just happened to be carrying all of the information about your past with you?

Liar.

For those of you who aren’t away, the initials are a reference to a Great Agra Treasure of The Sign of Four, which turns out to be missing, the case empty:

“That is all over,” I answered. “It was nothing. I will tell you no more gloomy details. Let us turn to something brighter. There is the treasure. What could be brighter than that? I got leave to bring it with me, thinking that it would interest you to be the first to see it.”

“It would be of the greatest interest to me,” she said. There was no eagerness in her voice, however. It had struck her, doubtless, that it might seem ungracious upon her part to be indifferent to a prize which had cost so much to win.

“What a pretty box!” she said, stooping over it. “This is Indian work, I suppose?”

“Yes; it is Benares metal-work.”

“And so heavy!” she exclaimed, trying to raise it. “The box alone must be of some value. Where is the key?”

“Small threw it into the Thames,” I answered. “I must borrow Mrs. Forrester’s poker.”

There was in the front a thick and broad hasp, wrought in the image of a sitting Buddha. Under this I thrust the end of the poker and twisted it outward as a lever. The hasp sprang open with a loud snap. With trembling fingers I flung back the lid. We both stood gazing in astonishment. The box was empty!

No wonder that it was heavy. The ironwork was two-thirds of an inch thick all round. It was massive, well made, and solid, like a chest constructed to carry things of great price, but not one shred or crumb of metal or jewellery lay within it. It was absolutely and completely empty.

“The treasure is lost,” said Miss Morstan calmly.

I don’t think that that memory stick contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, do you?

Then let’s look at this speech of Sherlock’s:

"By your skill set, you are or were an intelligence agent. Your accent is currently English but I suspect you are not. You’re on the run from something. You’ve used your skills to disappear, Magnussen knows your secret, which is why you were going to kill him, and I assume you befriended Janine in order to get close to him.”

'Are' is not looking likely. Look what MI6 has to say about that role:

'What about secrecy? Well obviously the details of your work will be secret and we ask you not to discuss your application with anybody. That said, once you join us you'll be able to disclose your role to one or two close friends or family. We'll help you create a credible cover story for everyone else.'

So why haven’t you disclosed your role to John, Mary? Where’s your credible cover story? No, she’s not an intelligence officer anymore.

She has disclosed her role to someone, though. Remember how quickly she said “Oh, he would have needed a confidante!” in reference to Sherlock going on the run? You’re on the run too, Mary. Who’s your confidante?

Then there’s this:

MARY: “The stuff Magnussen has on me - I would go to prison for the rest of my life.

JOHN: “So you were just gonna kill him?”

MARY: “People like Magnussen should be killed, that’s why there are people like me.”

JOHN: “Perfect. So that’s what you were? An assassin? How could I not see that?”

MARY: “You did see that. And you married me. Because he’s right. It’s what you like.

She’d go to prison for the rest of her life? Not if she was still with the secret service. She worked for much nastier people than that.

Here we also see another nasty trait of Mary’s come to light: she’s emotionally abusive. She turns the blame of the situation away from herself and onto John. She did say she’d do anything to prevent him from leaving her.

Look at John’s face, how he responds:

He is devastated, furious, he certainly doesn’t look like he plans to forgive her. So why do we see him do exactly that?

Well, for one thing, she’s carrying his child. He evidently cares about that - when she falls unconscious, he says to Sherlock: “Did you just drug my pregnant wife?” Emphasis on the ‘pregnant’.

For another, Sherlock tells him to: “John, John! Magnussen is all that matters now. You can trust Mary. She saved my life.”

Prior to that, he claimed that she fired “One precise shot to incapacitate [him] in the hope that it would give [her] time to negotiate [his] silence.” Yet again, she quite literally killed him. There is no proof that she really did call an ambulance, either - the scene in which we see her doing so is a reconstruction of Sherlock’s claim, and I used to have a horse. I saw lots of accidents. Multiple people would call an ambulance, and upon doing so, later people to call would be told that an ambulance had already been sent out to that particular incident. That didn’t happen to John. Perhaps there was good traffic that day, or an ambulance happened to be in the area. Besides, Sherlock fell unconscious within three seconds, went into shock (which can cause memory loss) and was dosed with morphine (which causes disorientation). Hardly the right circumstances to provide for a thorough analysis of the situation.

So why does Sherlock insist that Mary is trustworthy when he quite obviously doesn’t trust her? My guess is that he wants to placate her. He does, after all, say this in her presence. He wants to lull her into a sense of false security. We know that he wants what Magnussen has on her - “I want everything you’ve got on Mary”; “In return for the password, you will give me any material in your possession pertaining to the woman I know as Mary Watson” - but we don’t know why. Is it really to protect her? Or is it because he wants to know her secret?

John may be in on that - after all, he and Mary did undergo “months of silence”, and the timing of their ‘reconciliation’, just before the drugs took effect and everyone fell unconscious, was fortunate. I’m sure Sherlock invited John AND Mary to Christmas dinner for a reason. Perhaps John is just burdened by guilt and a sense of duty, and really is trying to forgive her, but the evidence suggests that he’s highly suspicious of her, too.

There’s also the fact that, when reconciling with her, he says “I’ve thought long and hard about what I want to say to you. These are prepared words, Mary. Chosen these words with care.” He also later says “I am very pissed off and it will come out now and then.”

John is not a good liar. Sherlock established this in The Empty Hearse:

JOHN: “One word, Sherlock, that is all I would’ve needed! One word to let me know that you were alive!”

SHERLOCK: “I’ve nearly been in contact so many times but I worried that, you know, you might say something indiscreet… You know, let the cat out of the bag.”

Now, nobody sounds natural when they speak from rehearsal. John’s repeated claim that that is what he’s doing, as well as letting Mary know that he will lose his temper with her in the future, is the perfect cover for an act by a not particularly good actor.

The editing of this section is important, too. It cuts between the confrontation scene in 221b and the reconciliation scene. That, to me, suggests that we are not supposed to buy into John’s forgiveness. It’s hard to, when we’ve just seen him so devastated and fuming.

So, onto the Magnussen scene. He really solidifies my theory that she was in cahoots with Moriarty. Let’s look at some of the things he says about her:

"I’m not a murderer, unlike your wife.”

'Murderer' is an interesting choice of word. It suggests worse than working with the secret service. If that was all he meant, presumably he would've said 'killer'. There are implications behind the word 'murderer' - implications of immorality.

"Oh, she’s bad, that one. So many dead people. You should see what I’ve seen."

Again, suggestions of immorality.

And my favourite:

"All those wet dots for the CIA. Ooh! She’s gone a bit freelance now, bad girl. [laughter] Oh, she’s so wicked. I can really see why you like her.”

She clearly worked for someone who was not at all moral. Again, my bets are on Moriarty.

So why did Sherlock shoot Magnussen?

Well, let’s take a look at his expression upon discovering that Magnussen apparently keeps all of his blackmail material in his mind:

He looks horrified. Why? Because he cannot obtain the information and hence protect Mary? Or because he cannot obtain the information and hence learn her secret and hence protect John?

Then let’s consider what Magnussen says to John shortly before Sherlock shoots him:

"I know who Mary hurt and killed. I know where to find people who hate her. I know where they live. I know their phone numbers. All in my mind palace. I could phone them right now and tear your whole life down. And I will. Unless you let me flick your face."

After that, killing Magnussen seems to be Sherlock’s safest bet at protecting John. Mary may well be a risk to him, but so are all the people who hate her. John would be be fighting a war on two fronts if Magnussen set Mary’s enemies on her.

Then there’s the fact that Mycroft’s present (and in control). I think Sherlock suspects that Mycroft would protect him, and therefore allow him to continue to protect John. After all, as he said at the cottage: “Your loss would break my heart.” Indeed, he immediately commands: “Do not fire! Do not fire on Sherlock Holmes! Do not fire!”

In fact, I believe that Mycroft is the hero of this story.

Earlier on, at the cottage, he said to Sherlock:

"I have, by the way, a job offer I should like you to decline. […] MI6. They want to place you back into Eastern Europe. An undercover assignment that will prove fatal to you in, I think, about six months."

This is, of course, the assignment that Mycroft arranges for Sherlock to be sent on rather than being sent to prison for killing Magnussen. Now, would Mycroft do that without a plan? Would he really rather send Sherlock to his death than have him in prison? After all, “There will always come a time when we need Sherlock Holmes.”

Remember, too, how much Mycroft knows. He’s more intelligent than Sherlock, and Sherlock invited Mary to the family home when Mycroft was there. I suspect that Mycroft is well aware that something is up with Mary.

So, what does he do? Stages Moriarty’s resurrection. Brings back Sherlock, and, if Mary was in cahoots with him, smokes her out (she does sound suspiciously tense upon being told that Moriarty is still alive). Kills two birds with one stone. Yes, he reacts with surprise to the news, but he does so over the phone. He could very well be acting. He responds very calmly, after all.

I think Sherlock was counting on Mycroft. This dialogue is very suggestive:

JOHN: “The game is over.”

SHERLOCK: “The game is never over, John. But there may be some new players now. That’s okay. The east wind takes us all in the end.

JOHN: “What was that?”

SHERLOCK: “It’s a story my brother told me when we were kids. The east wind, this terrifying force that lays waste to all in its path. Seeks out the unworthy and plucks them from the earth.

Are you expecting the east wind to pluck Mary from the earth, Sherlock?

Then, when Mycroft calls Sherlock and asks how his exile is going, he replies “I’ve only been gone four minutes.”

We’ve seen him pass comment on Mycroft’s timing before - in the Baskerville labs in The Hounds of Baskerville and in Mycroft’s office in The Empty Hearse. Was he expecting to return? Quite possibly. So soon? Possibly not.

Perhaps Mycroft’s not slipping as much as Sherlock thinks he is.

I think I’m gonna cry

(via kurosakitten)

Source: wsswatson
Text

I FUCKING FOUND IT FINALLY HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Text

There needs to be a fucking way to search your dashboard because trying to find one fucking post that you forgot to reblog/like when it was on there is fucking impossible.

I’ve literally spent the past hour trying to find one damn post that I STILL CAN’T FIND FUCK YOU TUMBLR

Photo Set

spiceandlemonade:

ludicrouscupcake:

adriofthedead:

This was one of the best things to ever happen on television

OH. MY. GOD.

Best insult ever…

(via saxypone)

Source: beeishappy
Quote

"You realize you are not alone, right? No one in their twenties has life figured out. It’s okay to be a mess. You’re living."

- Things my therapist told me today that almost made me burst out into tears. I need to remember this more often. (via michaelassbendr)

(via cyrilthewolf)

Source: betterfailings
Link

Okay everyone needs to read this if you care about the internet

as-lightning-strikes:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/fcc-free-speech-ruling

Try to imagine this scenario

"One day, those sites take ten times longer to load than they did before. What if you called your Internet service provider and their answer was, “Verizon now throttles…

(via heckiedamn)

Photo

dnotive:

toksyuryel:

lackadaisycats:

kqedscience:

What To Know About The Net Neutrality Ruling

"Without a net neutrality requirement, service providers could turn internet connections into a toll road, charging companies like Netflix or Google extra money to deliver their packets with a higher priority than others. This, in turn, could also slow down the loading of sites that couldn’t or refused to pay. The biggest fear is a "cable-ization" of the internet, where certain internet providers only provide service to certain sites, in much the way that cable channels are packaged and sold separately."

Learn more from Popular Science

Forgive me for posting political things instead of art, but the apparent end of net neutrality is probably something online artists and their creative ilk ought to at least be aware of (if not irate about).  While I don’t mean to be hyperbolic (immediate sweeping changes aren’t likely) there’s some worrisome potential here for major ISPs to bleed parti-colored shades of dreadful all over the free and open internet as we know it.  

For instance, as a denizen of a non-neutral internet, access to certain sites and services could be cut off or limited by your provider, depending on what sort of access package you’re willing to pay for.  As a freelancer, independent innovator, or start up entrepreneur, you could be left in the lurch with limited traffic if you aren’t in a position to pay providers to grant their customers free, open access to your site (as large online corporate entities might be expected to do).

It might not make all or any difference, but if the vaporization of net neutrality doesn’t sit well with you, consider petitioning the FCC to fix its error and reinstate it correctly this time.

Don’t scroll past this, shit’s important yo.

The only glimmer of hope is that Google has been ardently opposed to this kind of stuff from the get-go, and if Google Fiber can become widespread enough other ISP’s will likely drop their bullshit ‘tiered’ structures to keep from losing all of their customers.

Source: kqedscience
Text

quarterclever:

especiallygoodfinder:

nepeter:

australians dont have sex

australians mate

I spat out my coffee

sorry about your image

(via nadaatall)

Source: shalrath
Photo Set

daisyazuras:

moisn:

daisyazuras:

asksweetcheeks:

anuvia:

obfuscatingdeity:

the thing to realize here is that conservatives find the idea of paying workers a livable wage so absurd that they make hyperbolic comparisons like this

because fifteen dollars and hour and a hundred thousand dollars an hour both mean the same thing to them; more than you deserve

Actually, there is a reason why statements like this are made. Constantly raising minimum wage is NOT a solution for helping the low income; it’s going to make the low income the NO income.

When you raise minimum wage, where does it come from? The state/government isn’t paying those wages, it’s businesses. For one thing, think about the difference in $8.00 and $15.00 per hour.

$8.00 per hour on a full time job = roughly  $15k a year before taxes.

$15 per hour on a full time job = roughly $29k per year before taxes.

That is a roughly a $14k difference. Now, if you’re the employee, sure that’s great! But if you’re the business, that’s awful. NOW, I know you’re thinking “WHY DO I CARE ABOUT THE BUSINESS?”, let me tell you. First of all, I bet you’re a person who hates big corporations and doesn’t like how much control they have over the world economy, right? I don’t, for sure. Well congrats, you just made them even more powerful. Most small businesses can’t afford that difference in pay for each employee; Especially when tax rates continue to rise for business owners and no cuts or relief are issued for small business. The laws that tax/restrict/control business do not change or alter depending on the size of the business, believe it or not. I know this as my family owns a restaurant here in CA. In fact, California actually makes it mandatory that waitresses and waiters be paid minimum wage on top of their tips as opposed to most of the country where they have a reduced minimum wage. That hurts a business pretty hard, because restaurants are not an easy gig; The overhead costs are pricey and only getting pricier with the cost of produce/meat/ect rising constantly.

So where am I going with this? How does this effect you? Simple. Small businesses will either cut their employees to stay open or close their doors completely from being unable to put out all the increases in pay. This effects you, because that’s now a large chunk of jobs that are no longer on the market in an already barren wasteland. Finding a job right now is TOUGH; Imagine how tough it will be when a large chunks of the jobs available are gone, kaput, bye bye.

SO, You need a job! WELL, I guess you can work for a big company! Since we eliminated most small business, the corporations are the only ones who are still around and can afford to function. Sure, you hate them but money is money, right?

But wait, big corporations don’t want to shell out $14k extra every year for each employee either. I mean, looks at companies like Walmart who have up to (or even more) 100+ employees on their payroll. That makes each location pay $1,400,000 per each store. WHOA, that’s a big number right? Now multiply that number by the total number of Walmart stores:

There are 4,170 stores in the USA.

Multiply the increased cost of operation JUST from the wage increase with an average of 100 employees per location:

$1,400,000 X 4,170 =

$5,838,000,000

HOLY CRAP, RIGHT? That’s ALOT of money that Walmart isn’t going to want to give out.

WELL THINK ABOUT THIS:

After doing a quick google search, those fancy self checkout machines only cost about $20,000 each for a simple machine! Now, these machines don’t ask for vacations, they don’t ask for maternity leave, they don’t belong to unions and they cost less to install than it does to hire a worker at a $15 per hour rate annually. Even if you factor in the cost of repairs/downtime, they can replace a worker with less fuss and less cost. It’s much cheaper to hire a few workers to oversee the machines and replace the rest of your cashiers with these machines.

Big corporations don’t care about you, they don’t care about how you feed yourself or your family; they care about making profit margins. They won’t hesitate to replace workers if it means a drop in operations fees. So now that the small business is gone, the big corporations own the economy completely and have laid off their workers and are no longer hiring more, where does that leave you?

Jobless. Well at least you can collect on unemployment, EBT, food stamps and other state/government funded aid, right? For a time, sure.  But remember, you’re not the only one in this position. In fact, MOST people are now and when it comes time for them to contribute taxes to fund these programs, guess what? The money won’t be there. Especially when we all have to pay into social security to support the generation prior to us (the baby boomers) who outnumber us greatly.

Well look at that, we just crashed the economy, raised the unemployment rate sky high and now everyone is broke and has zero.

THIS is why people (not just republicans, btw) have issue with the $15 minimum wage. I’d also like to explain why jobs at minimum wage exist. There was a time in this country when jobs like Mcdonald’s, Walmart, Clothing stores, ect were meant to be “in between” jobs. They are not careers, not intended to be the total income for a family. Over the years, the job market has crashed in such a way that now college graduates with degrees are working in fast food, families working in retail to make ends meet and all manner of educated folks being forced to take these blue collar jobs. How did this happen?

One of the major problems is that we have too many people going to college. I know, that sounds like it’s a good thing, right? WELL, unfortunately, many of us folks in our 20’s-30’s right now came of age in a time when we were told that we would make nothing of ourselves if we didn’t go to college. Parents pressured us into going when many of us didn’t know what we even wanted to do, and even many of us didn’t want to go at all. But the pressure and expectations our family and society hold over us forced us into expensive loans, years of education and the markets we looked to work in became saturated. The world is a very competitive place these days because the number of “qualified” people for each career has exploded exponentially in industries where the jobs just weren’t there. There is an unfortunate fact of life; We need blue collar workers.

So yes, there is a quick and rough run down of why some people don’t like the minimum wage increase. No, we’re not evil monsters that want to keep the low income as low income; It’s that we have the foresight to see what the consequences will be when these things happen; What sounds great in the moment may not be beneficial in the long run. Sometimes, even the most well intentioned actions can cause a very awful reaction and we want to prevent that.

But you know, I bet no one will reblog my commentary because it’s not what people want to hear. *shrug*

As much as I would love to have an increased paycheck for myself (holy crap would I love a bigger paycheck), I know that it would cause a lot of economic problems down the road.

You know what would fix a lot of the problems? Smaller government that spends less on special interests and bureaucracies and thus don’t need 50% of everyones income just to maintain itself.

If the rich and in many cases the business owners didn’t have to pay most of their profits to the government mob they could in turn build bigger businesses and hire more employees and maybe even start hiring full time employees.

Full time is something that needs to be addressed in this country. Our current business laws make it unfavorable to hire people for full time positions. The required benefits of full time employment in jobs that are meant to be low skilled starter jobs makes it impossible for employers to hire full time employees. As a result, high school and college kids don’t make enough money working a single job to afford to go to school and live on their own.

If you can’t make enough from a single job to risk school or ambition to acquire a better job due to living paycheck to paycheck, you end up living at home and working part time or 2 part time jobs and all your money goes to required medical insurance which should be paid for by our taxes.

I have no actual schooling in economics or knowledge of how the tax system and government work, but as a person struggling to survive who sees the politicians and lawyers feeding upon like sharks, I sort of feel like something is wrong.

I don’t think we need to sue over everything. I don’t think we need to pay politicians more than minimum wage for their services. And I don’t think we need to pay different percentages in taxes just because you become successful.

Tax us for what we use and realize that no matter how much we pay the rich are paying for most of us. It’s time to change everyones incentives from feeding off others and back to building ourselves up into successes.

Helping others is key but not by handing out money. That’s how you keep an addict from recovering. What you do is spend money of programs designed to get people back to work and make them productive rather than sinking money into them just to stay home. 

""it will destroy the economy!"

Denmark: The average minimum wage for all private and public sector collective bargaining agreements was 109 kroner ($19) per hour. Combine that with universal healthcare and free college education that actually pays the students to go to school, with a 25% corporate tax rate and 50% individual rate.

Denmark must be a horrible horrible place to live with no jobs or economy to speak of since their taxes are so high and the minimum wage is so much.

… wait what? Denmark is actually a great place to live? and Nordic countries all have similar systems in place? and they all are doing great?

but… but… freedom. Since they have all of the they must be oppressed because of the lack of free markets and all the government control!

What do you mean that they have more chances to get a better job then merica! And they have more press freedom.

So tell me if other countries can successfully care for their population and have a high standard of living for everyone then why cant everybody else? because people like you are greedy. “I don’t want to be taxed more even though I profit from this society that made it possible for me to earn so much.” If you want to see how a society functions if the government doesn’t do much look at Somalia.

Very true except for the part where you forgot about america’s corrupt Political system. Our system is set up to take all the money but put none of it back. We should have universal healthcare and free schooling with students being compensated during their college years so they can actually leave school, work, buy a house and contribute to the taxes that sustain the system. But in America our government likes to take the tax money and then hide it. Our schools require us to pay large amounts to attend if we want even basic educations and our healthcare system is a sham. Everyone just sues everyone else and money goes only to politicians and lawyers.

America is dying a slow death. Mexico has fallen, if Canada isn’t careful they could be next.

I don’t want to live in America anymore…

Source: -teesa-
Text
Photo Set

ijustwant2playthegame:

pokemex:

¿Quien necesita Pokémon legendarios cuando tienes a Beyonce?

Who needs legendary Pokémon when you have Beyonce?

(via livingtombstone)

Source: sheegahnissuhyo