What’s New Pussycat, Clive Donner, Richard Talmadge, 1965
Two things that piss me off about What’s New Pussycat: 1. These two didn’t end up together 2. Woody Allen
I like this. I want everybody to hear this.
IF ANYONE EVER TELLS YOU THAT SUCKER PUNCH IS AIMLESS ALMOST-PORN FOR NERD BOYS YOU PUNCH THEM RIGHT IN THE THROAT BECAUSE THAT IS THE FURTHEST FROM THE TRUTH. SIT YOUR ASS DOWN BECAUSE I’M ABOUT TO TELL YOU ABOUT THIS GODDAMN MOVIE.
THIS MOVIE IS SO FUCKING SELF-EMPOWERING, SO MIND-TWISTING WITH LAYERS AND LAYERS OF SETTING UNTIL YOU’RE LOST TO WHAT’S REAL AND WHAT’S FAKE. THESE GIRLS WHO ARE BEING PROSTITUTED AGAINST THEIR WILL FIGHT TO TAKE BACK THEIR BODIES THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN AND THEY WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THEY’RE FREE.
THE MUSIC IN THIS MOVIE MAKES YOU WANT TO SLAY A PLANET OF ZOMBIES AND KICK-ASS BOOTS AND SEQUINED SKIRTS BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT IT’S ABOUT. THESE GIRLS FUCKING DESTROY EVERYTHING IN THEIR PATHS IN MINI-SKIRTS THAT THEY KNOW THEY LOOK MORE BADASS THAN DEAN WINCHESTER IN AND THEY USE IT TO THEIR FUCKING ADVANTAGE AND IF YOU DON’T THINK THAT’S THE COOLEST SHIT I HOPE YOU HAVE TO RUN ACROSS A FIELD OF LEGOS AND PICK OUT EVERY SINGLE WHITE TWO-PIECE YOU LITTLE SHIT
THIS MOVIE IS SO MUCH MORE THAN THAT THOUGH.
THIS MOVIE TEACHES PEOPLE THAT YOU CAN /ALWAYS/ DO IT. YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE IT THROUGH SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU’RE ALWAYS EQUIPPED. HENCE,
YOU HAVE ALL THE WEAPONS YOU NEED.
i thought it was pretty depressing.
Understandable. I suspect you have never been in a position in which something like this could be useful, much less necessary.
I have screamed so deeply it tore at my throat from an anger that had no other outlet. That is what this film feels like to me, a shout of dammed rage released.
Karen and Matt shopping in Tesco.
Fellow Hiptopians, we are now in a state of emergency. According to the Hiptopian Department of Health, Disease, and Questionable Decisions, our proud nation is now on high alert for a spreading epidemic of Silly-Ass Hat Syndrome. Patient Zero has been identified as Matthew Smith, and the condition seems to be spreading rapidly through the Hiptopian High Court as evidenced by Karen Gillan’s symptoms. Silly-Ass Hat Syndrome is highly infectious and thought to be contracted on contact, so the public is warned to protect themselves with protective headgear such as a helmet or a large glass globe, and be sure to carry defensive hairspray at all times. In this hour of crisis, we all must stand together, a united front against Silly-Ass Hat Syndrome.
My god I miss this tumblr
Are we not going to talk about how
- Le ver vert est sur le verre.
- Le ver vert est sous le verre.
- Le ver vert est devant le verre.
- Le ver vert est derrière le verre.
- Le ver vert est dans le verre.
- Le ver vert est à droit du verre.
- Le ver vert est à gauche du verre.
- Le ver vert est à côté du verre.
As-tu vu le vert ver allant vers le verre en verre vert?
Ce ver vert sévère sait verser ses verres verts.
Le ver vert va vers le verre vert. Les vers verts levèrent le verre vert vers le ver vert.
I love puns.
Puns = best
Psychology, 10th Edition, David G. Myers
When you drink, there’s a 15% chance you’ll become addicted. Addiction will take years off your life, it will destroy your relationships, damage your mental state, very likely kill you.
For reference, you have a 16.7% chance of “winning” Russian Roulette.
That’s absolute nonsense. I’ve been drinking since I was thirteen years old (which I don’t consider healthy or right) but I can still stop drinking whenever. I can and have gone months without drinking. I’ve been smoking pot for even longer, and the only reason I need that is because I can’t stand the sluggishness and personality-draining that comes with anxiety and depression pills. Heroin is FAR more addictive than this states, which means it isn’t even valid for those with addictive personalities. Psychology, while helpful and quite important, is largely guesswork. I hate that so many “experts” throw out blanket numbers, or half-assed statistics, and call it fact. Every single person’s mind works differently. What spells danger for one may spell normality to another. What is traumatic to some is humorous to others. What is alcoholism for one person may just be a phase or a bender for another.
I adore you, darling, but there is an unusual amount of NO going on here. For instance, what is the time frame for it? Is it stating that you have x% chance of addiction on first try, or over time? If it’s over time, how much time and how much use?
The fact that marijuana is on here at all leads me to believe this is 100% false. And that heroin has such a low percentage is absolutely maddening.
Hi. I’d like to answer a few of your questions.
First, your experiences with drugs are perfectly valid. I’m happy for you that you haven’t had to deal with addiction. However, this one anecdote does not negate these results. You are part of the 85 and 91% respectively. This is not surprising.
Second, I’ll admit, the heroin statistic surprised me. I was led to believe there was no such thing as trying heroin one time and not becoming addicted. However, just because something is “common knowledge” doesn’t mean it’s true. If a statistic disagrees with what we previously believed, we have to reevaluate how we came to that belief. The National Academy of Science has very little bias. It is a massively credible organization. These aren’t experts in quotes, these are literally the most knowledgeable people about drugs and addiction. Media, on the other hand, has a very strong bias and agenda to discourage heroin use. Because, yes, even though heroin addiction isn’t as inevitable as we thought, it is still horrific if someone does become addicted.
The statistic is summarized in this New York Times article. The article acknowledges that, for one thing, heredity does have a large influence on addiction.
I believe you are misguided though, in your statements on addiction. Chemical dependency is not a relative state. It is a clinical reality. In common use, the term might be bandied about loosely, but make no mistake that there is a firm psychiatric basis in determining it. For example, here is the DSM requirement for a diagnosis of alcoholism:
- … maladaptive alcohol use with clinically significant impairment as manifested by at least three of the following within any one-year period: tolerance; withdrawal; taken in greater amounts or over longer time course than intended; desire or unsuccessful attempts to cut down or control use; great deal of time spent obtaining, using, or recovering from use; social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced; continued use despite knowledge of physical or psychological sequelae.
Clear, clinical limits. The same basic symptoms are true of all chemical dependencies.
As to your questions about the exact nature of the study. Those numbers refer to the total population of people who have ever tried the substance in question. Of everyone who has ever tried alcohol (from one time users, to people who have drunk heavily for years), 15% have become addicted at some point in their lives. Perhaps the lion’s share of those were people with addictive personalities, yet, that personality could easily manifest itself mostly through chemical dependency, and that could be how you discover that you have this trait, in which case abstaining would be even more important.
Now, as to marijuana. Yes, marijuana is nowhere near as dangerous a drug as the others on this list. It can even have benefits, as you’ve stated. Yet, it is a drug, and it can be mishandled. Heavy users experience tolerance, withdrawal, and the drug can come to significantly disrupt lives. I’ll add an anecdote, that, through my experiences in the mental health system, II have come into conflict with people in Marijuana Anonymous. Their lives have been negatively impacted by dependence on this drug, often compounded by underlying mental illness.
If a drug is taken to mute or take the edge off of negative emotions or fill some void (save psychiatric drugs strictly observed by a reputable medical doctor or nurse practitioner trained in their field) there is a danger of addiction, both physical and psychological.
These are well-researched, well-supported, reputable statistics. They may not gel with our expectations, pre-conceptions, and even personal experiences, but that doesn’t change the fact that the statistics are very strong. Alcohol and other addictions are clinical conditions, not relative or perceived states. Psychiatrists and experts in the field can delineate with great accuracy who is an addict and who is not. Yes, psychology cannot always be objective. In this case, however, it can get very, very close.
All drugs can be dangerous, particularly recreational ones. I’m not telling you you should quit or change your habits, but I think everyone should be informed. I know you have deeply held preconceptions about drug use and abuse, but we all need to balance that with the best available science. Be safe.
Further, it may be noted that most people who encounter alcohol assume it safe, and thus take few safeguards, whereas everyone knows the danger of heroin. As a result, many people who have taken heroin will protect themselves against further use, thus experiencing only chemical withdrawal out of all the symptoms of addiction, but users of alcohol often decide early that they have proved their immunity to its effects and quickly escalate use.
couldn’t resist this
"And all that land was barren, barren, barren."
But no, Hugo did have his fair share of things remarkable done. Valjean did build a bead factory using a technique encountered in the galleys and become mayor before Javert caught up.