Let’s talk about watching things.
Let’s talk about watching, rather than actually watching.
Let’s think about watching a secondhand experience.
Let’s continually abstract ourselves from what we believe is the world.
|—||Welcome to Night Vale, Numbers (via justamildcaseofellipsism)|
*Kryolan Shimmering Vision Interferenz Palette*
I have had this palette for a while now but I haven’t had the chance to sit down and have a play with it.
It’s a cream based make-up that is aimed for use as an eyeshadow, but they’re safe for use on the body as well.
They are all shimmery and the pigment is pretty good. They take a couple of swipes for a good opacity but taking into consideration that they are cream - its pretty good.
This palette is the only colour combination it comes in, but it covers all the necessary colour groups.
You have the top row which are the cool toned colours; White, Silver, Light Blue, Dark Blue, Purple and Gun Metal Charcoal.
The middle row are the warm toned colours; Yellow, Gold, Bronze, Copper, Bright Orange and Brown.
And then the last row contains colours including; Light Rose Pink, Red, Blush Pink, Light Purple, Teal and then Green.
I’ve tested these colours on the eyelids on their own and they look beautiful, BUT we mustn’t forget that these are cream and this means they do crease when worn alone.
When worn with an eyeshadow over the top they do grip to the skin a little better, but again, once the skin warms the product they will crease in the socket.
I’ve found over the years that less is more, and that if you apply the product to the lower part of the eyelid and drag the excess upwards (and do-not apply it close to the socket-line) then it wears better.
My favourite cream eyeshadows are Maybelline 24HR Tattoo Eyeshadows - these stick to the eye without creasing and the pigment pay-off is immense!
But the shimmer and glow of these Kryolan ones are hard to beat, it’s just a shame they aren’t durable like the Maybelline ones.
Overall all, I do like this palette and LOVE the colours!!! I would recommend it to makeup artists for photo shoots as you can keep an eye on the product and do touch-ups as necessary. AND it would be a fab product to place on the face & body in other areas, such as the cheekbones for avant garde looks!
But I don’t think this palette is suited as an eyeshadow as its too creamy to stay in place.
Dear internet, this is how you gently and thoughtfully change people’s minds. No shaming, no yelling, just a nice nudge to, “Aha!”
I will aspire to use classy same tone next time I try to educate someone about something!
in before someone screams “TONE POLICING” at you
rebellion has never been so cute
they’re so CUTE
If Lupita is the real life Disney Princess, can Jennifer be the real life quirky side kick?
This is the best one I’ve seen.
|—||Cecil Palmer, WTNV (via beranyth)|
Quebec filmmaker Jean-Marc Vallée, who directed Dallas Buyers Club, spoke to CBC’s Jian Ghomeshi, who asked whether he ever considered casting a transgender actor."Never. [Are] there any transgender actors?" he said. "I’m not aiming for the real thing. I’m aiming for an experienced actor who wants to portray the thing." (x)by “the thing” of course he means someone who is transgender
The article is also worth a read.
Costume Designs from The Princess and the Frog by Lorelay Bove
Thank you mystery stranger for having the courage to deface these LGBTQIA posters around my friend’s school because she was too shy to do it but is now immensely grateful for the change
It’s not against the law in Massachusetts to secretly take photos up a woman’s skirt, the state’s highest court ruled Wednesday. The court dismissed charges against Michael Robertson, who was arrested by Boston transit police for taking photos and videos up multiple women’s skirts or dresses on the subway.
The judges sympathized with the notion that a woman should be able to have a reasonable expectation not to have secret photos taken up her skirt when she goes out in public, but ruled that current state law does not address that. Massachusetts’ “Peeping Tom” laws, as written, only protect women from being photographed in dressing rooms or bathrooms when they are undressed. Since upskirt photos are taken of fully clothed women in public, they don’t count, according to the court.
“A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing,” the court wrote.
Robertson’s lawyers defended his actions by arguing the photos were a matter of free speech.
Upskirt photos are becoming increasingly common with the spread of camera phones, but the law is slow to catch up with new technologies. Under most voyeurism laws, women must have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which is difficult to prove when she is in public. The Massachusetts court is hardly the first to acquit men who take these photos; perpetrators in Oklahoma, Indiana, and Washington have all been cleared by judges because the laws on the books did not apply. In response to one case in which a man legally took upskirt photos of a 10-year-old girl, Indiana lawmakers passed an upskirt ban in 2011. Other states have considered but not passed similarly updated voyeurism laws.
ew ew ewwwww
Today in news that makes me want to seek alternate living arrangements in a nearby galaxy…
Maybe I’m just not that bright, but isn’t that the whole purpose of setting precedent? To set a standard for how laws are interpreted and enforced in society?
Rape culture hard at work
This is fucked to hell