Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

November 03 2017

7513 2ce3 500


the coolest

instagram // facebook

October 31 2017


I’m alone tonight. Just like every night.

October 26 2017


It’s never just dysphoria on its own. I just have to compare myself to others, especially this one person. It makes me feel like a loser but I keep doing it. What do I even want, though?



trans ppl reblog this and write in the tags the name(s) you considered before choosing your current name

October 23 2017

7326 bf27 500





Don’t think any of my followers are German nor do I think my followers actually exist, but spreading for visibility anyways

This is actually a fairly common practice for fascists. Never tear down their propaganda with your bare hands, always use a pocket knife or something

Yeah this has been happening in America too, if you can then I recommend bringing your own anti-nazi stickers to put over the nazi ones

This is very valuable info!



• You don’t have to be feminine to be a woman.

• You don’t have to be masculine to be a man.

• You don’t have to be androgynous to be non binary.

• That’s all.




has there been any new su news

No the soviet union is still gone

October 22 2017

7344 9469 500

October 21 2017


This just in!



Cis women and trans women are the same gender.

To anyone confused: this is bc “cis” and “trans” are adjectives! A blonde woman and a red headed woman are also the same gender! A mean woman and a nice woman are the same gender!

Thank you for joining this quick grammar lesson

7383 9813

October 20 2017



Hey so something very subtle but meaningful cis people can do when describing their pronouns is saying she/her or he/him pronouns instead of saying “female” or “male” pronouns

October 18 2017


Popular design guides are responsible for plague of grey type #1yrago


A series of recent, influential design books and articles have convinced the web’s designers to go for grey-on-white type, despite the fact that many people can’t read low-contrast type (and it’s even worse on mobile devices, which are often read in very bright sun, on screens that have been dimmed to save battery)

Ironically, these design guides – The Typography Handbook, this article by Adam Schwartz, and others – warn that designers should beware of reducing the contrast, but designers, seated before giant, well-calibrated monitors in well-lit offices, took their advice as permission to dial contrast down to illegibility for people with poor low-contrast vision.

I’m one of those people, for the record. I use a browser extension to let me turn grey type black (alas, the plugin defaults to white on black type, which I also can’t read very well, and requires a lot of clicking to get to black-on-white), without which many sites would be literally unreadable for me.

Kevin Marks, who ran down the trend’s origins, makes an excellent case for why grey type is bad news, and offers an alternative idea:

When you build a site and ignore what happens afterwards — when the values entered in code are translated into brightness and contrast depending on the settings of a physical screen — you’re avoiding the experience that you create. And when you design in perfect settings, with big, contrast-rich monitors, you blind yourself to users. To arbitrarily throw away contrast based on a fashion that “looks good on my perfect screen in my perfectly lit office” is abdicating designers’ responsibilities to the very people for whom they are designing.

My plea to designers and software engineers: Ignore the fads and go back to the typographic principles of print — keep your type black, and vary weight and font instead of grayness. You’ll be making things better for people who read on smaller, dimmer screens, even if their eyes aren’t aging like mine. It may not be trendy, but it’s time to consider who is being left out by the web’s aesthetic.





hey writers if you want to make a metaphor for racism, please maybe remember that racism is literally based on nothing. Africans weren’t enslaved en masse because the Robo-Musa threatened to destroy the world, they were enslaved because it was economically rewarding and politically convenient. If at any point your allegory for racism includes “so <oppressed group> did this major catastrophe and” then you have not only missed the point but you are literally reinforcing the ideas that racism have let racism self-perpetuate (that e.g. black people are naturally dangerous and violent and must be contained or begrudgingly accepted by the Nice White People)

Just a personal note on this, ‘cause I’ve had some folks ask me how orogenes in the Broken Earth trilogy can be an allegory for oppressed groups, given that orogenes actually are dangerous.

I was completely aware of the Unfortunate Implications of orogenes as black people/Jewish people/closeted queer people/neuroatypical people and having Special Powers. That was the point, actually. At the time I was early in THE FIFTH SEASON, I was watching Ferguson unfold, and listening to Darren Wilson’s bullshit about how Mike Brown seemed superhuman (or subhuman) to him.  And the whole time I kept thinking, “So-the-fuck-what if he was a demon? He was still an unarmed 18 year old whom you shot 10 times while he was running away.” From that to stories of doctors assuming black people aren’t capable of feeling pain to the same degree as white people – I was just done with it.  Fucking done.

Because it should not matter if we are big, or dark-skinned, or wearing “villain clothing” like hoodies, or whatever. All that shit’s just an excuse anyway; racist white people are scared of us when we’re small and light-skinned and wearing business suits.  The problem isn’t us. The problem is chickenshit white people and the imaginary monsters they carry around inside them.

And over the course of the Broken Earth trilogy I poked at this notion. The society of the Stillness could at any point choose to accommodate orogenes in a way that is safe for all… but it chooses not to. Orogene parents have no trouble raising orogene kids. Orogenes in communities police each other the same way non-orogenes do – because at the end of the day, they’re all people. Even if some of those people are extraordinary, they can live together if there is respect.

Black people are extraordinary in so many ways. Not superhuman, obvs – but we aren’t white, which is what this society insists upon calling “normal.” We will never be white, and that’s fine. We will never be “ordinary” in the eyes of racists – and we shouldn’t have to pretend otherwise. We shouldn’t have to stoop if we’re naturally tall, or speak softly if we’re naturally deep-voiced, just so that small-minded people will be less afraid in our presence.  Our children shouldn’t have to think and act as if they’re older than they are, just because white people misjudge their ages. The problem isn’t us. And a good, diverse society, one that actually accommodates and respects all of its members, should be able to handle both the ordinary and extraordinary with no trouble.

So: I agree with the OP; don’t reinforce racist notions in your worldbuilding. Or if you do, make sure you interrogate the fuck out of them, and make it clear that the problem is still racists, not race.

7404 69a8 500


Reblog to be blessed by her little kitty thumbs

October 16 2017

7418 1017 500




If you can’t reblog this, unfollow me now.

Fight me assholes. Never reblogged so fast.

Every single one of my followers better reblog this or we’re gonna have a fuckin problem and you better unfollow me right now


Reblog if it's okay to befriend you, ask questions, ask for advice, rant, vent, let something off your chest, or just have a nice chat.

October 14 2017


Click here to support Miss Major's Monthly Giving Circle by Major Griffin-Gracy


Just a friendly reminder to please support this amazing woman in her time of need.

October 13 2017













We don’t say “I love you” in Finland.

 And I think that’s beautiful.

What do you say?

we don’t


#can you confirm? 

Confirmed: we really don’t.

In English it’s normal to say “I love” for many things you consider super enjoyable (food, music, cats etc.) or of people, but in Finnish “minä rakastan” is quite exclusively for your romantic partner.
I hear it more commonly used sarcastically (”Oh I just LOVE it when people don’t clean after themselves”) than in a serious context, and even then it’s very rare.

And even when we do want to say “I love/minä rakastan” it’s ridiculously awkward and just sounds wrong. It is more likely to say “you are loved/olet rakas” because that just sounds better and can be used by friends and family too.

But none of this actually tells us why they do not say “I love you” nor what they say instead.

we literally don’t say it because we don’t like the way it sounds in Finnish, and either we don’t say it at all or use the English version.

It’s kind of difficult to explain. Like, the words for “I love you” are so uncomfortably formal, in a sense. It doesn’t roll out of the mouth in the slightest. 

Linguistics isn’t my forté, but I’ll try to expand on this; 

  1. Words really do have more meaning and weight in Finnish than they do in English. Finnish words are precise to another level. You mean exactly what you say. There are no take-backs.  

    I am not kidding. There are synonyms, but even synonyms come with heavy connotation on what the tone of a word is. There are words that come with decades worth of baggage for you to even begin to understand how deeply ingrained their meanings are. We are talking almost N-word levels of ingrained meaning and connotation. When a newspaper journalist makes a mistake and tries to do a take-back, you could never sound as fake is it sounds to a Finnish speaker. You know exactly what you said and meant. 

  2. Though we often say that “Finnish is spoken as it is written”, we mean pronunciation. No one speaks written Finnish. Why? Because written Finnish is extremely formal and rigid. 

    There are vast differences between the spoken and written variants of Finnish. Written Finnish is the standardized, default written format of Finnish. Most published books, like those in school and in shelves are written in that format. That way every Finnish-speaker can understand, even though most dialects can be understood by everyone regardless. It’s the one we are taught in school.

    Written language was sort of developed separately from the spoken language, and that shows. It doesn’t quite behave like the spoken language. Spoken Finnish often drops entire words, syllables, vowels, you name it. Meaning and direction of conversation is provided by the speaker and what is spoken, many things can be left unsaid. That’s partly why Finnish personal pronouns are genderless. Since Finnish is an agglutinative language, words bend tremendously and allow for new, understandable words to be created on whim. A lot of dialects affect consonants and vowels, yet it still remains perfectly understandable. Figure that one out.

    The way written Finnish behaves sounds incredibly odd in many cases. Written Finnish is clunky. Personal pronouns sound out of place when following the proper format. It doesn’t allow for letters or words to drop. The order of words also seems very stiff when compared to the spoken language. It has some inconsistencies. Very business-y. Because of that, it’s usage is strictly on non-spoken formats. Hence it’s specifically called the written Finnish. No one talks written Finnish.

    To perhaps illustrate how rigid written Finnish is, news are read either in local dialect or in plain Finnish (selkosuomi). It’s our language’s equivalent of plain English. It’s on the formal end, but you can actually speak it and not sound like an alien invader. Trust me, we’ll know.

    The best way to compare this is if an English-speaking native heard Middle-English. That is how different the tones and verbs behave and sound between spoken and written Finnish.

    No one talks like that. I cannot re-iterate that enough. It’s very grating to the ears. Personally, I find Finnish audio-books unpleasant to listen to for that same reason written Finnish is not spoken.

So now that you know these two basic concepts of Finnish language, I can explain why we don’t say “I love you”.

Saying “I love you” in Finnish sounds weird, because “Minä rakastan sinua” is written Finnish

No one speaks written Finnish.

It’s not meant to be said.  

Therefore, the words for “I love you” are never spoken in that particular format. 

Even though that is the literal translation, it sounds like “It is I that loves you”. The nearest you might hear is where you drop the “I” from “I love you”, which, actually, still translates to “I love you”, because of how Finnish verbs and conjugation works. “Rakastan sinua” instead of “Minä rakastan sinua” sounds better, because it drops the formal “I”, bringing it a little closer to a spoken format. The word “you”, “sinua” is still in it’s formal version here, but since that is something  you cannot exclude, you have to say “Rakastan sinua” or resort to a spoken variant of “you”, so it becomes “Rakastan sua”. To which one would reply the equivalent of “So do I” or ”I too (love) you” “Minäkin (rakastan) sinua”, where the word “love” can be dropped out because the meaning is carried from the previous sentence. 

However, It’s still rarer to use.

Instead of “I love you”, we usually say that “You are loved” or “you are dear (to my heart)”“olet rakas”, because that’s how our language and culture works. 

English does not have words for “rakas” that could bring the heart-felt implications like Finnish does. Connotation is everything. Closest you can translate to is “dear” but it’s a very hollow in comparison to “rakas”. It comes with heavy romantic, endearing and sickly sweet connotations. That’s why it’s often supplemented with additional words if you don’t mean it as a declaration of undying romantic love. But the heaviness still remains.

Like, if a friend calls me “rakas ystävä”, “a dear/loved friend”, that is a huge fucking deal. The implications of that level of endearment means that it’s ride or die.

By all means, when a Finnish person says that they love you, it means a hell of a lot more than it does in English. Personally, I find the heaviness of those words intimidating, in a sense. 

It’s like a declaration of war but with roses and cuddles. 

Finnish is like a heavy, carved boulder. You move it only with precise intention. English is like conveniently small pebbles, easy to throw around all willy-nilly. Effortless. You can’t take “I love you” back, but it sounds lighter and gets the meaning across. Me saying that in Finnish takes years of careful planning, support structures, proper tones and a future intent. It’s almost more accurate to say that in Finnish, you carve a whole new boulder for every single person you say it to. Hence, you usually don’t say it.

It’s also a cultural thing. I’m under the impression that Japanese words and meanings for “I love you” are also very complex for English speakers, due to linguistic and cultural differences. 

There are many ways to tell someone that you love, care and cherish them, ranging from platonic to romantic, we just don’t say it in the same clear-cut format as English speakers do. 

And to us, love is more about “show, don’t tell.”

I feel a need to butt in… (Emotion linguistics is kind of my thing.)

@solemnrosary is not completely lost, but I’d like to make a few notes on what they’ve written here.

First of all - every language holds meaning. No language has more or less meaning than the other. That’s like saying that speakers of one language don’t understand their feelings! English love is just as strong as Finnish. I’ll return to this in a moment.

It’s true that written and spoken Finnish are really different from each other and there are actual historical reasons behind that (shortly, basically written Finnish, the standard language, was COMPLETELY MADE UP based on the western and eastern dialects and meshing them together. Most of the conjugation comes from the west, lot of vocabulary was taken from the east and so on). But I don’t think that’s the reason behind not saying I love you. I mean, no one speaks standard Finnish anyway, no one says “Minä ostin kaupasta maitoa”, they say “mä/mää/mie ostin kaupast maitoo” or something along those lines. But this holds true to many other languages as well. There are accents in English, for example, and many different ways of saying things other than just the standard. Ain’t? That’s not “proper” English. In Finnish there are many ways to express liking or loving someone/something: tykätä, pitää, rakastaa, arvostaa, välittää… and some of these work better as spoken, some as written.

But then. Back to Finnish love and “it holding more meaning”. Well, yes and no. Languages categorize stuff differently. For example, colours. There are languages with only two colour names in them. That doesn’t mean they don’t see colours, they have just ended up naming only two parts into the large spectrum. In some languages turqoise is blue or green and there is no word for it. Languages categorize differently. I like to think of emotions as a spectrum as well, and there are linguists who agree. I think Kövecses has written something along those lines (or at least mentioned someone, I think I read about this in his book), but I can’t remember for certain and I’m too lazy to check, sorry. ANYWAY. Feelings are a spectrum, just like colours. And we can name different parts of it. This part is anger, this part is grief, this part in indifference, this part is like, this part is love.

Now, how I see it (and this is nothing official, for I’m but a student working towards my master’s), is that here English and Finnish differ.

English “love” covers a piece of the spectrum that in Finnish is covered by “tykätä” or “pitää” (usually translated as “like”) as well as the dreaded “rakastaa”. So, English love has a larger portion of the spectrum than Finnish rakastaa. In English, you can love your favourite food, you can love your socks, you can love your significant other. In Finnish, people most often say “tykkään” when they talk about food of clothes or yes, people. Rakastaa is the most intense kind of love, the one reserved for those closest around you: your family. Your parents, your siblings, your children and your significant other. Maybe your pet as well.

But Finns don’t often say that word, rakastaa, and if they do, they are usually in private and in very emotional moments. This is a cultural thing. Now I have read some folklore studies but not about this, so I can’t really say much on the why. Finnish people are known to be shy and silent, and big emotions are private things (or expressed when drunk) - at least that’s the stereotype. It may have something to do with it, or it may not.

just putting my two cents into the conversation.

This is going pretty off-topic, but ACTUALLY the language we use absolutely  DOES affect the way we see colors! I know it wasn’t the point of the previous writer, but it’s a cool fact that deserves to get corrected. I’ve read quite a bit about the subject and googling more is easy in case you want to learn more, so I’ll only leave one link to back my words up: https://eagereyes.org/blog/2011/you-only-see-colors-you-can-name



If your vegan “activism” involves holocaust comparisons you owe me a $50 Amazon gift card and a 2,000 word essay explaining why you think Jews are comparable to cattle
Goyim reblog (esp. if you’re vegan)

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!