1. wingnutsadboys-union:

    maybe the real Death Grips was the friends you made along the way

    (Source: dingdongmadtoys-union, via dixiewetsworth)


  4. performance-sofa:

    which Swans album is this from???


    (Source: painttoolsai, via unimpressed2chainz)


  5. teenally:



    i want a relationship but i want them to be like a friend to me, i dont want the relationship to be all about kissing, making out and sex i just wanna hang out with them, and go places, and just have fun wherever we go

    this is how normal relationships are i hope you know

    uh just for once in my life i want a relationship where it’s not literally non-stop 24/7 turbo sex deluxe………..

    (Source: trust)

  6. ihouseyou:

    Paradise Garage.

    (Source: movingdeep, via nickminichino)


  7. "

    Guess what? When people are surrounded by fear-mongering news media, they get anxious. They fear the wrong things. Moral panics emerge. And yet, we as a society believe that it’s totally acceptable for news media – and its click bait brethren – to manipulate people’s emotions through the headlines they produce and the content they cover. And we generally accept that algorithmic curators are perfectly well within their right to prioritize that heavily clicked content over others, regardless of the psychological toll on individuals or the society. What makes their practice different? (Other than the fact that the media wouldn’t hold itself accountable for its own manipulative practices…)

    Somehow, shrugging our shoulders and saying that we promoted content because it was popular is acceptable because those actors don’t voice that their intention is to manipulate your emotions so that you keep viewing their reporting and advertisements. And it’s also acceptable to manipulate people for advertising because that’s just business. But when researchers admit that they’re trying to learn if they can manipulate people’s emotions, they’re shunned. What this suggests is that the practice is acceptable, but admitting the intention and being transparent about the process is not.


    danah boyd unsurprisingly has some really interesting things to say the Facebook PsyOps brouhaha - http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2014/07/01/facebook-experiment.html

    This is an interesting point not because it points out that we live in a society full of emotional manipulators (noes!) but because it helps frame things partly as “who in society has our tacit permission to manipulate emotions and who doesn’t?” - and there’s a spectrum, with TV drama and pop songs at one end (where manipulation is welcomed and the only sin is to be too corny) and Facebook apparently at the other. And I’m pretty sure part of what determines your place on the spectrum is how savvy people reckon they are to it, how much they feel they could resist (if they wanted).

    (via tomewing)

  8. happy canada day everybody

  9. (Source: risingtensions)


  10. Timothy Hortons is life