#Innovate Now

[apna04counsellor]

All Scholarship Details for Maharashtra Students

State-Level Scholarships (Maharashtra): Rajarshi Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Shikshan Shulk Shishyavrutti YojnaApplication Link: MahaDBT PortalDeadline: Generally open from August to December 2024 (check the portal for updates). Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Hostel Maintenance AllowanceApplication Link: MahaDBT PortalDeadline: Same as above. Post Matric Scholarship for Minority CommunitiesApplication…

[ilovedthestars]

A thought I’ve been having: While it's important to recognize the long history of many current queer identities (and the even longer history of people who lived outside of the straight, cis, allo “norm”) I think it's also important to remember that a label or identity doesn't have to be old to be, for lack of a better word, real.

This post that i reblogged a little while ago about asexuality and its history in the LGBTQ+ rights movement and before is really good and really important. As i've thought about it more, though, it makes me wonder why we need to prove that our labels have "always existed." In the case of asexuality, that post is pushing back against exclusionists who say that asexuality was “made up on the internet” and is therefore invalid. The post proves that untrue, which is important, because it takes away a tool for exclusionists.

But aromanticism, a label & community with a lot of overlap & solidarity with asexuality, was not a label that existed during Stonewall and the subsequent movement. It was coined a couple decades ago, on internet forums. While the phrasing is dismissive, it would be technically accurate to say that it was “made up on the internet.” To be very clear, I’m not agreeing with the exclusionists here—I’m aromantic myself. What I’m asking is, why does being a relatively recently coined label make it any less real or valid for people to identify with?

I think this emphasis on historical precedent is what leads to some of the attempts to label historical figures with modern terminology. If we can say someone who lived 100 or 1000 years ago was gay, or nonbinary, or asexual, or whatever, then that grants the identity legitimacy. but that's not the terminology they would have used then, and we have no way of knowing how, or if, any historical person's experiences would fit into modern terminology.

There's an element of "the map is not the territory" here, you know? Like this really good post says, labels are social technologies. There's a tendency in the modern Western queer community to act like in the last few decades the "truth" about how genders and orientations work has become more widespread and accepted. But that leaves out all the cultures, both historical and modern, that use a model of gender and sexuality that doesn't map neatly to LGBTQ+ identities but is nonetheless far more nuanced than "there are two genders, man and woman, and everyone is allo and straight." Those systems aren’t any more or less “true” than the system of gay/bi/pan/etc and straight, cis and trans, aro/ace and allo.

I guess what I’m saying is, and please bear with me here, “gay” people have not always existed. “Nonbinary” people have not always existed. “Asexual” people have not always existed. But people who fell in love with and had sex with others of the same gender have always existed. People who would not have identified themselves as either men or women have always existed. People who didn’t prioritize sex (and/or romance) as important parts of their lives have always existed. In the grand scheme of human existence, all our labels are new, and that’s okay. In another hundred or thousand years we’ll have completely different ways of thinking about gender and sexuality, and that’ll be okay too. Our labels can still be meaningful to us and our experiences right now, and that makes them real and important no matter how new they are.

We have a history, and we should not let it be erased. But we don’t need a history for our experiences and ways of describing ourselves to be real, right now.

[oof-ow-my-bone]

twiddles my thumbs uhh umm.. started watching gravity falls ahah…

[f0point5]

[ikjun]

Mr. Hades is a mighty king Must be making some mighty big deals Seems like he owns everything

PARK SUNG-WOONG as KIM MYEONG-GIL BLOODHOUNDS / 사냥개들 dir. Kim Joo-hwan

[aj-lenoire]

for a supposed genius anna really is a dumbass, falling for this exact trick twice in a row

[lady-raziel]

actually every pundit is wrong about who the Democrats should choose to replace Biden. There's only one right answer.

That's right--

HOWARD DEAN FOR PRESIDENT 2024 REDEMPTION ARC

[danikoshi-doodles]

Beloved snake oil horse scammers!

[woodsywarbler]

The summer we earned our wings.

[dungeons-and-dragon-age]

solas approving of june's constant questioning is so funny bc he Will be regretting all his life choices about it later

[identityquest]

some rapo girlies 💖

[bonesandpoemsandflowers]

honestly, I feel like Dave McKean's work elevated Neil Gaiman way more than the other way around and we don't distribute credit for that properly. I truly don't think--and, critically, never have thought--the early Sandman writing was so good that it would have gotten far without the heavy hitting art lending it such an air of respectability. McKean's work is so visually distinct still, let alone 20 years ago, let alone 30. "This is serious art for serious stories for serious people," those mixed media paintings say when they're surrounded by pen and ink put out on a brutal schedule. "I am a serious person with sophisticated tastes," the buyer says, given permission to be pretentious and smug as hell, which is very alluring to many people.

[vacueye]

my old man tenth class ocs all together! + the girls are fightinggggg

[gumihoe]

i think men should be banned from creating magical girl series. especially """""dark and subversive"""" magical girl series. just fundamentally i don't think they respect the genre enough to be subverting it or really going anywhere near it

[divinekangaroo]

One thing I adore about PB is Tommy's approach towards modernity. Straddling the non-industrial past and the industrial/modern present; constantly positioning himself on the cutting edge, if not quite bleeding edge, of period/era technology. Cars, manufacturing, shipping, phones, typewriters. Medicine, psychology, and even bringing in incredibly modern concepts into politics in that era. He is constantly grabbing at the future. It's this striking characteristic in him, all the way from S1 when they install the phone in the Garrison - ~if only we knew someone else with a phone, we could call them~ - through to S6's final episode when he even wangles a seat on an airplane to get to Canada without wasting time. So uncommon at the time, but he just went: I need to get there with least time lost, and matched requirement to a borderline experimental non-consumer-available insider technology to do so.

(Sidestep: Such an interesting juxtaposition of all that, with the constant representation of the pre-industrial-era Romani threads in S6, too: Esme, the hills, the horse, the curse, the mythology, the vardo, all that slamming up against an actual cutting edge submachinegun, so ‘contemporary’ it’s actually anachronistic by a few years (if my research was right, it’s a WWII weapon that submachinegun, not to get on the symbolism, but). Arguably, Ruby in hospital having the most contemporary medical treatment available while Tommy goes walkabout to lift a curse is another notable juxtaposition.

There’s also an interesting slant of his modernity balanced against what I call his hoarding habit — the most cutting edge piece of tech or modernity in 1923 he’s still hanging onto in 1933. But yeah, even with that the juxtapositions are interesting because they can only happen if the forward reaching/modernity focus is there)

So, when I see contemporary-modern!AU takes of Tommy that are like, representing him as a relatively humdrum part of the capitalist consumer status quo, or even as a luddite who can't and won't use an Iphone, I scratch my head. I do think he’s *not* much of an innovator, but he is absolutely a considered first-gen adopter and recognises (and takes) opportunity regarding tech innovation with little concern for risk.

I have contemplated would rich modern!AU Tommy with disposable income finance startups if they pitched well: probably yes, because he takes gambles; with a personally vested interest in the innovators in the same way he had that vested interest in Bonnie. Startups as horses or boxers on a diff playing field, win some, lose some, etc.

[ofshivelight]

attended a webinar about jewish books and learned that jews in the sixteenth century had to request permission from the pope to print books in hebrew with the caveat that nothing in it could offend christian readers, which, wow. censorship was rampant in these communities as they tried to cultivate literacy amongst themselves while being under constant christian surveillance. i can't help but wonder how jewish communities could have flourished, historically, if they didn't have to constantly seek approval and endorsement from christians to innovate and transmit creativity through print