#incontrovertible proof

[fideidefenswhore]

The earldom of Ormond passed through the general line rather than being limited to heirs male. Hunsdon's claim was, therefore, based on the assumption that the earldom should have passed from himself to his father by virtue of their descent from Thomas Boleyn's eldest daughter, Mary. [...] The earldom, therefore, consisted of a title only, to which Elizabeth had no claim because she was 'daughter and heir of Anne, youngest daughter of said Sir Thomas Bullen, late Earl of Ormond.' Hundson reiterated that, since his grandmother was the eldest daughter, his earldom ought to descend to him. [...] Such evidence is compelling. Had he been mistaken [...] Elizabeth [I] could easily have corrected him and claimed the earldom for herself to dispose of as she pleased.

Mary Boleyn: The True Story of Henry VIII's Favourite Mistress, Josephine Wilkinson

[submarinerwrites]

you will never convince me that walter skinner wasnt in hopeless doomed love with dana scully. bc he was.

[aldieb]

sometimes i get sad that i didn’t try for a fulbright bc i was too sickcrazy. then i feel fine again bc it was 2020 so it would’ve sucked regardless. then i end on sad bc le guin met her husband when they were both on fulbright in france and that is both adorable and a cool flex

[musical-chick-13]

No one:

Me: THE "UNSEX ME HERE" LINE IS NOT LADY MACBETH ENGAGING IN GENDER FUCKERY OR SHATTERING THE GENDER BINARY, SHE IS EXPERIENCING INTERNALIZED MISOGYNY AND SAYING THAT SHE WANTS ALL OF HER """FEMININE""" QUALITIES TO BE SUPERNATURALLY REMOVED SO THAT SHE CAN COMMIT MURDER WITHOUT GUILT OR SHAME OR FEAR BECAUSE SHE ASSOCIATES THOSE EMOTIONS WITH BEING A WOMAN PLEASE JUST GO WATCH AS YOU LIKE IT OR TWELFTH NIGHT

[themaresnest-dumblr]

For those people interested in proofs for the theory of evolution, as you can see the above creature is a direct ancestor of Mallory from the Canadian TV show Heartland:

Hey, here's a guar dancing a little jig for whoever needs it.

[opencommunion]

someone in the tags on one of my posts about the ICJ case said "this is all a farce," and I agree that the ICJ is enmeshed with western imperialism and that the UN doesn't seem to be capable of much beyond political theater, but I think dismissing the entire case is incredibly disrespectful to South Africa's legal team, and to the Palestinians they're intervening on behalf of, who have a right to have their oppressors charged in every single court with jurisdiction, regardless of how we feel about those courts. the UN itself may be a joke but I didn't see anything farcical about the way South Africa's team presented their case. this trial is unprecedented in the history of the Palestinian liberation struggle and regardless of how the court rules, it's going to expose both the incontrovertible proof of genocide and the failure of western legal and governmental bodies to prevent it, and that will have repercussions

[lacerta26]

I’ve crossed the borderline of weightless

Explicit | Buddie | 8.8k | Tags: pining, getting together, strength kink

It’s not like it’s a surprise. He knows Eddie can take his weight, he’s watched him for years carrying heavy equipment and lifting patients. He knows what Eddie benches at the gym. It’s just– it’s one thing to be conceptually aware of something and another to be handed incontrovertible proof of it. Plus, this is Buck at his biggest, his broadest, his strongest. He’s tall and heavy, he isn’t an easy man to carry, most people would find it impossible and lots more would struggle, and here’s Eddie, catching him like it’s nothing.

Buck discovers Eddie is strong enough to take his weight and then proceeds to be really normal about that fact, repeatedly.

Read on Ao3

[dataentryspecialist]

The fact that Data had an entire library of psychologists at his disposal (from not just earth but a multitude of other planets and cultures) and went with Sigmund Freud of all people--the guy known for making EVERYTHING about sex--is incontrovertible proof that that android is a slutty little freak

[grison-in-space]

That's five Republican cosponsors of the Senate bill to make all Presidential tariffs illegal if not ratified by Congress within 60 days. One of which is Mitch fucking McConnell. Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Don't get too excited yet; to get a veto proof majority you need two thirds of the Senate, which means you need 67 total votes for the bill. We have 47 Dems, so we would need fifteen more GOP senators to cross lines.

However. If you have a Republican senator, get the fuck on those phone lines now. Emphasize the economic disaster on the horizon. You tell them that these shitwits are going to tank your jobs, your businesses, your homes and your communities. You tell them that their names are on this economic disaster. Hound them like coonhounds baying down the trail after frightened game, and tell them how hungry you are for their misfortune already; imagine how hungry you will be when your families can't afford to eat.

These fuckers blink when we get angry. We got the NOAA back yesterday, at least temporarily. RFK is claiming he is trying to rehire a bunch of our fired federal workers in HHS which was "always the plan" despite internal confirmation that there is no such plan. These thieving rats in the grain house are frightened of us already and they flinch when we howl!

They are probably lying about their plans, but they are at least frightened enough to lie. Our job is to harass them in every moment of their lives until they panic and break. Make these Russian traitors afraid again.

If you can, come to the Hands Off! protests today. There are virtual options and options for every state and many many many cities. That's an unfakable, incontrovertible statement of unified anger, and the sheer weight of numbers frightens politicians. Showing up will help provide leverage. It will also be great practice if we need to run a general strike for more leverage.

Let's get to work!

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/more-us-senate-republicans-voice-support-congressional-oversight-tariffs-2025-04-04/

[hassibah]

"A police report and an interview with a former Zionist operative form the basis of Avi Shlaim's claim that he has uncovered "undeniable proof" of Israeli involvement in bombings which drove Jews out of Iraq in the early 1950s, the British-Israeli historian told Middle East Eye.

Shlaim's autobiography Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew, published earlier this month, details his childhood as an Iraqi Jew and subsequent exile to Israel.

It also includes research about a number of bombings in Iraq which prompted a mass exodus of Jews from the country between 1950 and 1951, most of whom, like he and his family, ended up in Israel.

On Sunday, Shlaim told Middle East Eye that he had uncovered "incontrovertible evidence of Zionist underground involvement in the bombs". 

As part of the evidence, the historian cited an extensive interview he carried out with Yaakov Karkoukli, a former member of the Zionist underground in Baghdad in the 1950s. "

[my-deer-friend]

Words fail us almost immediately when we try to discuss any kind of human behaviour, especially when those words are trying to create artificial categories or oppositions. Still, we need terminology, however imperfect, to create a common basis for explaining what we're talking about. This is an especially tricky problem in "queer history", because both what has historically been considered sexually and romantically non-normative and how those things were named and understood has varied so much – even, as you say, within the last fifty years.

'Queer' is one of those modern words that is both useful and hazardous to apply to the past – useful because it's a good shorthand umbrella term for a range of non-normative sexual and romantic acts or desires, hazardous because it's vague and anachronistic and requires us to have a good understanding of the historical context before we can begin to apply it. It's not a word I think I would use in formal academic writing, but it serves me here as a contrast to "normative", and allows me to sidestep the problem we have both mentioned of rigidly structured social categories.

In the same breath, we can end up getting so tangled in nuances and definitons and ahistoricity that we devote all our time to trying to define exactly what we mean (trying, also, not to offend anyone - impossible) and leave less space and time to focus on the actual human behaviours we came here to examine.

At some point, we just have to choose a word so that we can move to the next step, and 'queer' is the imperfect word I've chosen (at least, for the purposes of this Tumblr post).

I really should have defined this earlier, though. I'm using "queer" to mean "same-sex romantic or sexual desire that fell outside the normative bounds of social acceptability in the 18th century". That's not the only kind of queerness that existed (obviously), but that's my specific focus. The most common other words for this are "gay" (which comes with its own package of contemporary characteristics that I find unhelpful to understanding, and masks bisexuality) or homosexual (which privileges the "sex" part and thus doesn't help my core argument).

Now, as for what I meant about inherent queerness versus homosexuality above...

Two soldiers sharing a bunk and engaging in mutual masturbation, or sailors taking part in consensual sodomy aboard ship, are performing a homosexual act without necessarily feeling any particular same-sex attraction or desire (just like your closeted gay man having sex with his wife is not evidence of his heterosexual desire). The act itself might be transgressive, or illegal, and thus one might say it's "queer" on that basis – but equally we could argue that some degree of homosexual activity in these contexts was tolerated, so long as it stayed within acceptable and understood bounds. There are many great analyses out there on, e.g., sodomy among sailors that could make this point much better than I can.

On the other end of the spectrum we have people like Thomas Gray, Johann Wilhelm Ludwig Gleim and Johannes von Müller, who cultivated wide homosocial networks, and formed male-male friendships that they expounded on effusively, in deeply romantic language. There's no evidence of them engaging in homosexual acts, but their written works and behaviours signal their yearning for same-sex relationships (sexual or otherwise) that bordered on the socially transgressive – even if they themselves never transgressed those bounds. Contrast, also, the letters between George Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette on one hand, and Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens on the other. Both sets contain expressions of romantic affection, but the former is generally understood to take the style of a typical, normative romantic friendship, while the latter is increasingly accepted to be indicative of more transgressive – queer – same-sex desire.

And of course, all of these examples contain a degree of speculation and invite exceptions. There were certainly many homosexual men who joined the navy because it provided an outlet for their sexual desires, and homoromantic people who hid one-sided or mutual romantic love within the conventions of "regular" friendship.

Since we can't ever know exactly what any of these people really meant or felt, this is the point at which historians must shift to interpretation and analysis. Interpretations are not all equally valid, can and should evolve over time, and are always a function of our own biases, knowledge and access to evidence.

I don't think it's perpetuating harmful or oppressive structures to study queerness in historical context, inelegant though our language sometimes is. What does seem harmful and dated to me is requiring at least a suggestion of sexual desire (homoerotic) if not proof of sexual consummation (homosexual) before a relationship is considered "genuinely queer".

I have now rambled at length, and I'm not even sure I've properly addressed your question! But thanks nevertheless for the impetus to frame my thinking in more detail.

Homosocial – homoromantic – homoerotic – homosexual

A lot of people who talk about 18th century queerness treat these concepts as existing on a linear scale of "straight" to "gay", or as a progression of increasing queerness.

But that kind of framing isn't accurate. There's no line that we can draw here beyond which things become definitively queer. There were homosexual acts that had very little queerness to them, and homoromantic relationships that were fundamentally queer without ever (to our knowledge) straying beyond the emotional.

[definitelymaybeahuman]

One really frustrating thing about SNW's bio-essentialist approach to Vulcans is that it's something the series has explored with far more nuance in the past.

Vulcans have been established as having stronger emotions than humans. The use of logic is a coping mechanism. Even TOS had Surak's reaction to Spock showing emotion be "It's fine, I get it, nothing to worry about" and everything since has shown Vulcan's losing control of their emotions as more like a psychological break than a sudden mutation.

It's still a Planet of Hats, which has bio-essentialism all but baked into it. But there's plenty of room for nuance, with the idea that there's no universal baseline and different cultures form around norms relative to where they formed. Both humans and vulcans admire those who suppress their worst tendencies.

Which is where you could actually do something interesting with Spock turning human. He still has all those Vulcan values, but not the biological tendencies. Explore him getting to "relax" as he now finds his emotions easier to control. Contrast it with him now struggling as he no longer feels passionate about anything. Show his in-laws still criticising him for perceived outbursts, as any minor transgression is still incontrovertible proof of their worst biases.

The Original Series showed Spock struggling more with melancholy than rage for a reason. He's someone getting tugged in two directions at once. If he shows emotion then he's vindicating anyone who dismissed him as half-human. If he doesn't, he gets dismissed like he didn't have to subdue a maelstrom just to speak. That should be what SNW is exploring, not the same shallow interpretation that let Into Darkness down.

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

So Disney's apparently removing the "offensive content" warnings from some of their old films. I'm glad to see some sanity returning to the world but it honestly makes me wonder - why are they suddenly reversing all these decisions?

There has been a very rapid sea change the past few months, ultimately hinged upon and epitomized by the re-election of Donald Trump. Even the biggest proponents of DEI/wokeness/political correctness have been offered incontrovertible proof that their agenda is a minority position increasingly being rejected ever-more-firmly by the public, and so making that agenda the focus of their business will only result in bankruptcy.

On top of that, they know DOGE is coming to audit them and expose where the money funding that agenda was coming from.

[canichangemyblogname]

Like, be so fucking for real. The insistence that one’s name is some sort of covenant with the truth and can never, ever be changed or else you are LYING has nothing, actually, to do with what is or isn’t “truth.” Being barred from a gendered name change has everything to do with preserving legal, administrative, and cultural cues about your sex caste assigned at birth. To keep men as men and women down.

Because changing a name is actually a lot like changing an address. You gotta contact your financial institutions to make sure you get your mail to the right place. And once you have mail delivered there, you gotta bring that to the DMV and show them your two pieces of mail addressed to you so that you can change the address on your license. Then you gotta go and change the address listed for your car insurance. Then you have to go get a plate renewal. Because if your plate, insurance, and license are addressed to different locations, this does actually get you in trouble (legally and administratively). Then you have to register to vote for your new location, bringing that license and two pieces of mail addressed to you. And then, somehow, you realize months later—after changing your address with the IRS and the county records—that your rewards card at the discount grocer still sends your coupons to your old address.

But imagine that as you go through this process and start telling people that you’ve moved, their response is something like:

“You can’t change your address; where you grew up is an immutable, biological fact!”

“That cant be where you live! What’s your REAL address??”

“I know that’s not your legal address!”

Like. That is, in fact, where you now live. Administratively. Legally. Socially. You live there. So, it is so, so abundantly clear that the people saying these things actually take issue with a transgression of some norm. They think that changing your address is some sort of deception meant to manipulate them into regarding you differently (a.k.a. not according to your god-given geographical caste). Because they fundamentally believe—say—that humans *shouldn’t* ever move out of the home they were born in (no 🙅‍♂️ right to self-determination) and don’t have a right to movement (no 🙅‍♂️ right to bodily autonomy). For a myriad of reasons. Some will argue that moving into your own place “destroys” family values and that migration without a mandate from god is an affront to nature and the way “He” made you. Others will say doing so makes you a geography traitor or maybe a “fake” intending to invade someone else’s rightful geographical space.

And they’ll claim the proof of your BIOLOGICAL DESTINY, “deception,” and “rightful place” in a geographical caste system is a 20 y/o expired credit card for a closed account on your credit report that still lists that old address.

People who honest to fuck insist that sex is purely biological, not legal and administrative, will purposefully play dumb about name changes as if they’ve forever lived at the hospital they were born at or never moved from their childhood home.

[lacerta26]

Happy WIP Wednesday-Thursday!!

I’m a bit late but was tagged by @muddiedfoxglove so here’s a sneak peak of Buck being insane about the fact Eddie can take his weight 💪🏼

They’re in the middle of a rope rescue, their first together since before Eddie left, Chim and Ravi working the winches, halfway to reaching some hikers that slipped off their trail trying to get a selfie. Eddie has paused on a rocky outcrop, parallel to Buck, hanging midair in front of the sheer sides of the canyon. There isn’t that far to go to the bottom, Buck can see the hikers, both alert, one lying down, leg most likely broken, the other standing, waving at them somewhat frantically.

The day has been pretty still so far and the gust of hot, dry wind comes out of nowhere, funnelled through the canyon and right to Buck, swinging him on his rope and into Eddie.

Into Eddie, who catches him by his hips and holds them both steady, his feet planted, knees slightly bent.

‘You okay?’

Goosebumps skitter across Buck’s skin, even with all their gear they feel impossibly close, Eddie’s hands are still on his waist, Buck’s ass sat in the cradle of his pelvis. Buck’s line is slack, Eddie bearing all his weight. He can feel Eddie breathing, warm and damp against his cheek, feel the in-out pull of his ribs. The wind seems to have died down as quickly as it came and now neither of them are moving, both suspended, a held breath, a taut rope.

‘Yeah, sorry,’ Buck’s heart is beating so fast and it’s only partly the adrenaline.

‘Not your fault,’ says Eddie.

‘You boys okay?’ Bobby’s voice comes crackling through their radios, breaking the tension, and Buck scrambles to reach his own.

‘We’re good, Cap, wind knocked us about a bit but we’re fine. Over’

‘You think you can continue down?’

‘Yeah, n-no problem.’

‘Copy that. Once you reach the vics we’ll send down the backboard.’

Eddie gives Buck’s hips a squeeze, looking up and over his shoulder to check their lines aren’t tangled. The movement seems to reverberate through Buck, aware of every inch of his skin and Eddie’s in proximity. It’s not like it’s a surprise. He knows Eddie can take his weight, he’s watched him for years carrying heavy equipment and lifting patients. He knows what Eddie benches at the gym. It’s just, it’s one thing to be conceptually aware of something and another to be handed incontrovertible proof of it. Plus, this is Buck at his biggest, his broadest, his strongest. He’s tall and heavy, he isn’t an easy man to carry, most people would find it impossible and lots more would struggle, and here’s Eddie, catching him like it’s nothing.

I think everyone I could tag already has been but if you see this and want to post please do!!

[rubysapphrald]

many comic panels can be considered incontrovertible proof of booster gold’s homosexuality but this one’s the funniest