[not] hollietree

hey, i'm hollie. 25. games artist, residing in london town. almost too gay to function

werewolfau:

bbybirdbarton:

jodiamandis:

lightspeedsound:

High School Fads, 1944

Ok so now I’m on the look out for lesbians with hair bows in the back

This ^^^

I just like how the bow on the left is a ‘signal and a chllange’ it’s like yeah, Betty’s been going steady with Tommy for a few weeks now, but let’s see if Ronny can step up his game before Betty becomes a right bow kind of girl

can i use ‘she wears her bow in the back’ as a euphemism now?

(via diamondlily)

bribryontour:

On the same day that same sex marriage began in England, this rainbow appeared above London.
The world is perfect sometimes.

bribryontour:

On the same day that same sex marriage began in England, this rainbow appeared above London.

The world is perfect sometimes.

(via youmightbealesbianif)

designcloud:

Graphic Icons: Visionaries Who Shaped Modern Graphic Design.

Who are history’s most influential graphic designers? 

In this fun, fast-paced introduction to the most iconic designers of our time, author John Clifford takes you on a visual history tour that’s packed with the posters, ads, logos, typefaces, covers, and multimedia work that have made these designers great. You’ll find examples of landmark work by such industry luminaries as El Lissitzky, Alexander Rodchenko, A.M. Cassandre, Alvin Lustig, Cipe Pineles, Paul Rand, Saul Bass, Milton Glaser, Wim Crouwel, Stefan Sagmeister, John Maeda, Paula Scher, and more. 

Who coined the term graphic design? Who turned film titles into an art? Who pioneered information design? Who was the first female art director of a mass-market American magazine? In Graphic Icons: Visionaries Who Shaped Modern Graphic Design, you start with the who and quickly learn the what, when, and why behind graphic design’s most important breakthroughs and the impact their creators had, and continue to have, on the world we live in.

Your favorite designer didn’t make the list? Join the conversation at www.graphiciconsbook.com 
See details here: http://amzn.to/1cY5Syb
mnlmnz:

askfordoodles:

napoleon-and-the-bonapartes:

This bird knows he looks amazing.

Frogmouths are indeed very handsome devils…

Until they open their mouth…

and you realize they are basically bird muppets.

… no comment…
For extra lulz check out these awesome birds’ awkward baby photos:


I WAS NOT EXPECTING THE HEAD TO BODY RATIO TO BE SO CLOSE TO JUST 1:1

mnlmnz:

askfordoodles:

napoleon-and-the-bonapartes:

This bird knows he looks amazing.

Frogmouths are indeed very handsome devils…

Until they open their mouth…

and you realize they are basically bird muppets.

… no comment…

For extra lulz check out these awesome birds’ awkward baby photos:

I WAS NOT EXPECTING THE HEAD TO BODY RATIO TO BE SO CLOSE TO JUST 1:1

(via addictedtochai)

To be white, or straight, or male, or middle class is to be simultaneously ubiquitious and invisible. You’re everywhere you look, you’re the standard against which everyone else is measured. You’re like water, like air. People will tell you they went to see a “woman doctor” or they will say they went to see “the doctor.” People will tell you they have a “gay colleague” or they’ll tell you about a colleague. A white person will be happy to tell you about a “Black friend,” but when that same person simply mentions a “friend,” everyone will assume the person is white. Any college course that doesn’t have the word “woman” or “gay” or “minority” in its title is a course about men, heterosexuals, and white people. But we call those courses “literature,” “history” or “political science.”

This invisibility is political.

Michael S. Kimmel, in the introduction to the book, “Privilege: A Reader” (via thinkspeakstress)

(via thebicker)

That said, stereotypes aren’t so much about people totally projecting things that completely aren’t there but about people having a framework with which they interpret things that actually are there. It’s not that racism causes people to see (for example) belligerent teenage boys where there are none, but that a white belligerent teenage boy is just seen as himself while a black belligerent teenage boy is part of a pattern, a script, and when people blindly follow the scripts in their head that leads to discrimination and prejudice. So yeah, it is a fact, I think, that I was a bit off-putting in my Jeopardy! appearance—hyper-focused on the game, had an intense stare, clicked madly on the buzzer, spat out answers super-fast, wasn’t too charming in the interviews, etc. But this may have taken root in people’s heads because I’m an Asian and the “Asian mastermind” is a meme in people’s heads that it wouldn’t have otherwise.Look, we all know that there’s a trope in the movies where someone of a minority race is flattened out into just being “good at X” and that the white protagonist is the one we root for because unlike the guy who’s just “good at X” the protagonist has human depth, human relationships, a human point of view—and this somehow makes him more worthy of success than the antagonist who seems to exist just to be good at X. So we root for Rocky against black guys who, by all appearances, really are better boxers than he is, because unlike them Rocky isn’t JUST a boxer, he has a girlfriend, he has hopes, he has dreams, etc. This comes up over and over again in movies where the athletic black competitor is set up as the “heel”—look at the black chick in Million Dollar Baby and how much we’re pushed to hate her. Look at all this “Great White Hope” stuff, historically, with Joe Louis. So is it any surprise that this trope comes into play with Asians? That the Asian character in the movie is the robotic, heartless, genius mastermind who is only pure intellect and whom we’re crying out to be defeated by some white guy who may not be as brainy but has more pluck, more heart, more humanity? It’s not just Flash Gordon vs. Ming the Merciless, it’s stuff like how in the pilot episode of Girls Hannah gets fired in favor of an overachieving Asian girl who’s genuinely better at her job than she is (the Asian girl knows Photoshop and she doesn’t) and we’re supposed to sympathize with Hannah. Okay, here’s one more comment from the Internet that kind of encapsulates it. The kind of un-self-awareness of what someone is saying when they say they’d prefer I not win because I try too hard at the game, work too hard at it, care too much about it, and that they’d prefer that a “likable average Joe” win. This is disturbing because it amounts to basically an attack on competence, a desire to bust people who work very hard and have very strong natural gifts down in favor of “likable average Joes”—and it’s disturbing because the subtext is frequently that to be “likable” and “average” you have to have other traits that are comforting and appealing to an “average Joe” audience, like white skin and an American accent.

- Arthur Chu to Ken Jennings (via pushinghoopswithsticks)

My duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.

(via cordjefferson)

Science, Mr. White

(via nickdouglas)

I’m a HUGE Jeopardy fan (shut up) and I’ve loved watching Arthur Chu kick the game’s ass. He’s absolutely on the mark about all this stuff.

(via thebicker)

(via thebicker)