Koi's Korner

Don't mind me. I'll just be fangirling.

Jul 24

Chris Pratt interrupts the interview to french braid intern’s hair x

(via cupidsbower)


rachelovesklaine:

felison:

how come when a gay man hits on a straight man he’s a “predatory gay” but when a straight man hits on a lesbian it’s a “challenge”

image

(via koi019)


Jul 23

stand-by-me:

Someone let me know when they find my jaw on the ground

Alerts niermyico. Walks away.

(via church-of-minho)


taemin-minho-2min:

Minho and Yoogeun ♥

(via church-of-minho)


niermyico:

daniel-the-human:

xorestesfastingx:

chae-min:

"Help, I’ve fallen glamorously and I can’t get up ;]"

All of the other mannequins look like they’re so sick of his shit."God damn it, Jerry’s at it again.

i can’t stop laughing xD

artisted that’s you and me falling. LOL

niermyico:

daniel-the-human:

xorestesfastingx:

chae-min:

"Help, I’ve fallen glamorously and I can’t get up ;]"

All of the other mannequins look like they’re so sick of his shit.

"God damn it, Jerry’s at it again.

i can’t stop laughing xD

artisted that’s you and me falling. LOL


Oh my god. You are so Derek’s sister.

(via coffeeinallcaps)


niermyico:

homosexual-titan:

god damn it ash you stupid fuck

typical ash, doing typical ash things.


nehoynehoy14:

remember when you used to be real secretive about reading smutty fanfiction and making sure you were the only one in the room and now you read that shit at the dinner table like it’s nothing

(via fanserviced)


church-of-minho:

bunnygangg:

illkim:

When the teacher groups you up with your friends for a project

image

damn Perfume is killing it nowadays

B Y E


niermyico:

charizard:

doasdreamrsdo:

falcnpunch:

askradicalgoodspeed:

darthshadow:

Well fuck you too.

For those that do not get this: Bulbasaur is the first on the pokedex, Mew is the genetic ancestor to all Pokemon  Rhydon was the first Pokemon ever created, and Arceus created the universe so it is also technically the first in that came before everything, even space and time. Therefore there is no correct answer

pokemon aint real hows that answer

YOU WATCH YOUR MOUTH

that was so rude

YOU! Gotta go!

niermyico:

charizard:

doasdreamrsdo:

falcnpunch:

askradicalgoodspeed:

darthshadow:

Well fuck you too.

For those that do not get this: Bulbasaur is the first on the pokedex, Mew is the genetic ancestor to all Pokemon  Rhydon was the first Pokemon ever created, and Arceus created the universe so it is also technically the first in that came before everything, even space and time. Therefore there is no correct answer

pokemon aint real hows that answer

YOU WATCH YOUR MOUTH

that was so rude

YOU! Gotta go!



batcii:

smoo told me to draw zutara week stuff so instead i drew some modern au gaang. sorry for my shitty handwriting.

(via church-of-minho)


church-of-minho:

Key’s had at least 12 different looks this year and I’m still wearing sweats from 2006

(via church-of-minho)


azulea:

japanese school girl chase #ninja

(via cupidsbower)


ghostdaddotcx:

Self reblogging to add a thing I found:
http://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-208/feature-malcolm-harris/ 
The account @Anti_Racism_Dog didn’t last long. Twitter suspended it quickly, a fate reserved only for the most aggressive, abusive and hateful users. What could a dog – an anti-racist one, at that – do to deserve it? @Anti_Racism_Dog had one real function: to bark at racist speech on Twitter. The account responded to tweets it deemed racist with the simple response ‘bark bark bark!’ Sometimes it would send wags to supporters but that was pretty much it.For the short time it lasted, it was amazing to watch how people reacted to @Anti_Racism_Dog. The account would respond mostly to what the sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva would call ‘colour-blind racism’, that is, racisms that are generally right-libertarian in orientation and justified through appeals to supposedly objective discourses like science and statistics. It’s a notoriously insidious white-supremacist ideology, a virulent strain evolved specifically to resist anti-racist language. Colour-blind racism defends itself by appeals to neutrality and meritocracy, accusing its adversaries of being ‘the real racists’. Although its moves are predictable, they’re hard to combat rhetorically since they’re able to ingest the conventional opposition scripts. Colour-blind racists feed on good-faith debate, and engaging with them, especially online, is almost always futile. But when they’re barked at by a dog, one whose only quality is anti-racism, they flip the fuck out. They demand to be engaged in debate (‘Tell me how what I said was racist!’) or appeal to objective definitions (‘The dictionary says racist means X, therefore nothing I said was racist’), but @Anti_Racism_Dog just barks.@Anti_Racism_Dog inverted the usual balance of energy in online dialogs about race. Precisely because the dominant global discourse is white-supremacist, it is rhetorically easier to make a racist argument than an anti-racist one. Look at almost any comment thread or discussion board about race and you can see anti-racists working laboriously to be convincing and to play on their opponents’ ‘logical’ turf, and racists repeating the same simple lines they were taught (‘I didn’t own slaves’, ‘I’m just stating the facts’, ‘The Irish were persecuted too’, etc.) ‘Trolling’ as a certain kind of internet harassment is tied to time: the successful troll expends much less time and energy on the interaction than their targets do. It’s the most micro of micro-politics, an interpersonal tug of war for the only thing that matters. But have you ever played tug of war with a dog?A true troll doesn’t have a position to protect because to establish one would leave it vulnerable to attack, and playing defence takes time. @Anti_Racism_Dog, by fully assuming the persona of an animal, was invulnerable to counter-attack. You can’t explain yourself to a dog and you look like an idiot trying. The only way to win is not to play but this is the colour-blind racist’s Achilles Heel: they’re compelled to defend themselves against accusations of racism. It’s the anti-racist argument that gives them content; theirs is an ideology that’s in large part a list of counter-arguments. After all, white-supremacists are already winning – their task now is to keep the same racist structures in place while making plausibly colour-blind arguments against dismantling them. @Anti_Racism_Dog was empty of anything other than accusation and so left its targets sputtering.The account served a second purpose: as a sort of anti-racist hunting dog. @Anti_Racism_Dog quickly attracted a lot of like-minded followers who understood the dynamics at play. Whenever it would start barking at another user, this was a cue to the dog’s followers to troll the offender as well. There’s only so much one dog can do alone. Colour-blind racism is particularly dangerous because it isn’t immediately visible as such. It provokes good-faith discussion from liberals about what counts as racism, muddying the water. But @Anti_Racism_Dog’s strategy draws new lines about what constitutes acceptable discourse on race, placing colour-blind racists on the other side by speaking to them like an animal. What would be taken as totally insane in flesh space can be infuriatingly clever online. 

ghostdaddotcx:

Self reblogging to add a thing I found:

http://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-208/feature-malcolm-harris/ 

The account @Anti_Racism_Dog didn’t last long. Twitter suspended it quickly, a fate reserved only for the most aggressive, abusive and hateful users. What could a dog – an anti-racist one, at that – do to deserve it? @Anti_Racism_Dog had one real function: to bark at racist speech on Twitter. The account responded to tweets it deemed racist with the simple response ‘bark bark bark!’ Sometimes it would send wags to supporters but that was pretty much it.

For the short time it lasted, it was amazing to watch how people reacted to @Anti_Racism_Dog. The account would respond mostly to what the sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva would call ‘colour-blind racism’, that is, racisms that are generally right-libertarian in orientation and justified through appeals to supposedly objective discourses like science and statistics. It’s a notoriously insidious white-supremacist ideology, a virulent strain evolved specifically to resist anti-racist language. Colour-blind racism defends itself by appeals to neutrality and meritocracy, accusing its adversaries of being ‘the real racists’. Although its moves are predictable, they’re hard to combat rhetorically since they’re able to ingest the conventional opposition scripts. Colour-blind racists feed on good-faith debate, and engaging with them, especially online, is almost always futile. But when they’re barked at by a dog, one whose only quality is anti-racism, they flip the fuck out. They demand to be engaged in debate (‘Tell me how what I said was racist!’) or appeal to objective definitions (‘The dictionary says racist means X, therefore nothing I said was racist’), but @Anti_Racism_Dog just barks.

@Anti_Racism_Dog inverted the usual balance of energy in online dialogs about race. Precisely because the dominant global discourse is white-supremacist, it is rhetorically easier to make a racist argument than an anti-racist one. Look at almost any comment thread or discussion board about race and you can see anti-racists working laboriously to be convincing and to play on their opponents’ ‘logical’ turf, and racists repeating the same simple lines they were taught (‘I didn’t own slaves’, ‘I’m just stating the facts’, ‘The Irish were persecuted too’, etc.) ‘Trolling’ as a certain kind of internet harassment is tied to time: the successful troll expends much less time and energy on the interaction than their targets do. It’s the most micro of micro-politics, an interpersonal tug of war for the only thing that matters. But have you ever played tug of war with a dog?

A true troll doesn’t have a position to protect because to establish one would leave it vulnerable to attack, and playing defence takes time. @Anti_Racism_Dog, by fully assuming the persona of an animal, was invulnerable to counter-attack. You can’t explain yourself to a dog and you look like an idiot trying. The only way to win is not to play but this is the colour-blind racist’s Achilles Heel: they’re compelled to defend themselves against accusations of racism. It’s the anti-racist argument that gives them content; theirs is an ideology that’s in large part a list of counter-arguments. After all, white-supremacists are already winning – their task now is to keep the same racist structures in place while making plausibly colour-blind arguments against dismantling them. @Anti_Racism_Dog was empty of anything other than accusation and so left its targets sputtering.

The account served a second purpose: as a sort of anti-racist hunting dog. @Anti_Racism_Dog quickly attracted a lot of like-minded followers who understood the dynamics at play. Whenever it would start barking at another user, this was a cue to the dog’s followers to troll the offender as well. There’s only so much one dog can do alone. Colour-blind racism is particularly dangerous because it isn’t immediately visible as such. It provokes good-faith discussion from liberals about what counts as racism, muddying the water. But @Anti_Racism_Dog’s strategy draws new lines about what constitutes acceptable discourse on race, placing colour-blind racists on the other side by speaking to them like an animal. What would be taken as totally insane in flesh space can be infuriatingly clever online. 

(via cupidsbower)


Page 1 of 223