That One Gets Tiny

Don't touch it. Don't even look at it. Go on. Get.

tastefullyoffensive:

Typical. [piecomic]

betterthankanyebitch:

white people

(Source: africant, via ruinedchildhood)

(Source: sixpenceee, via ruinedchildhood)

tateyarna-ayano:

finDING GOOD QUALITY STUFF FOR SUPER CHEA P

image

Lol true

(via ruinedchildhood)

(Source: chelseawoosh, via ruinedchildhood)

sharkchunks:

urulokid:

millika:

Who’s Alex?
Billboard demonstrating gender stereotypes as most people automatically assume that Alex is the boy.

Actually, I’ve studied design and advertising, and I can tell you that the reason people would look at this and immediately assume Alex is the boy is because, quite simply, the boy is the focal point of the ad.
English-speaking readers’ line of sight goes from left to right and up to down. This ad leads the viewer from the words MEET ALEX etc straight to the boy and then over and down to the girl. I didn’t even notice there was a set of parenthesis with words in them in the ad until I looked the fourth time. 
This is a fallacious confirmation bias, as anyone looking at it will assume Alex is the focal point (i.e. The Boy) and then if they’re perceptive they’ll notice the words at the bottom. Aha! Those damn gender stereotypes gotcha again! Except no, because the ad literally forces you to read it as “Alex is the boy” by the visual language and lines of sight. 
A better ad would have been structured from top to bottom instead of left to right, and wouldn’t have pushed the girl, the real subject of the ad (who, by the way, has been VISUALLY PUSHED OUT OF HER RIGHTFUL SPACE ON THE AD BY HER BROTHER) off to the corner as far away from her identifiers as possible. 
Here, I’ll make you a better ad.

Bam. Shitty stock photo but you get the point. If anyone sees this and assumes Alex is the boy, they don’t have the the ad layout to use as an excuse for their internalized gender shittery. Likewise, the ad isn’t actively trying to make you read it a certain way and THEN making you feel guilty for interpreting it the way they designed it to be. 

There was an ad on TV that ran in the 90s that made everyone feel like a racist. It showed a bald, black man and listed the vicious acts of a career criminal, murder, rape, theft, everything, and then said “Arrested by (Name of Cop), pictured here. It was supposed to (and for most people did) show how they assumed the African American on screen was a nasty criminal rather than a good cop, wow how amazing and how racist I’ve been, but the thing is it showed a man and listed crimes. Black or white or anything else, if you list crimes and give a name while showing a face, people will assume the two are connected. A cheap shot like the bullshit billboard above.
The ad is racist and this one is sexist in and of themselves because they assume it’s surprising that a girl can be Prime Minister or an African American can be a good policeman. These are low trick shots that betray their own message. People who use this tactic should be shot in the face with a canon full of their own feces.

sharkchunks:

urulokid:

millika:

Who’s Alex?

Billboard demonstrating gender stereotypes as most people automatically assume that Alex is the boy.

Actually, I’ve studied design and advertising, and I can tell you that the reason people would look at this and immediately assume Alex is the boy is because, quite simply, the boy is the focal point of the ad.

English-speaking readers’ line of sight goes from left to right and up to down. This ad leads the viewer from the words MEET ALEX etc straight to the boy and then over and down to the girl. I didn’t even notice there was a set of parenthesis with words in them in the ad until I looked the fourth time. 

This is a fallacious confirmation bias, as anyone looking at it will assume Alex is the focal point (i.e. The Boy) and then if they’re perceptive they’ll notice the words at the bottom. Aha! Those damn gender stereotypes gotcha again! Except no, because the ad literally forces you to read it as “Alex is the boy” by the visual language and lines of sight. 

A better ad would have been structured from top to bottom instead of left to right, and wouldn’t have pushed the girl, the real subject of the ad (who, by the way, has been VISUALLY PUSHED OUT OF HER RIGHTFUL SPACE ON THE AD BY HER BROTHER) off to the corner as far away from her identifiers as possible. 

Here, I’ll make you a better ad.

image

Bam. Shitty stock photo but you get the point. If anyone sees this and assumes Alex is the boy, they don’t have the the ad layout to use as an excuse for their internalized gender shittery. Likewise, the ad isn’t actively trying to make you read it a certain way and THEN making you feel guilty for interpreting it the way they designed it to be. 

There was an ad on TV that ran in the 90s that made everyone feel like a racist. It showed a bald, black man and listed the vicious acts of a career criminal, murder, rape, theft, everything, and then said “Arrested by (Name of Cop), pictured here. It was supposed to (and for most people did) show how they assumed the African American on screen was a nasty criminal rather than a good cop, wow how amazing and how racist I’ve been, but the thing is it showed a man and listed crimes. Black or white or anything else, if you list crimes and give a name while showing a face, people will assume the two are connected. A cheap shot like the bullshit billboard above.

The ad is racist and this one is sexist in and of themselves because they assume it’s surprising that a girl can be Prime Minister or an African American can be a good policeman. These are low trick shots that betray their own message. People who use this tactic should be shot in the face with a canon full of their own feces.

(via partofanunbalancedbreakfast)

ruinedchildhood:

costumer service summed up in one gifset  

(Source: wadewinstonwilsons)

hackedy:

I’m pretty pleased with the 12th doctor

(Source: stonedpervert, via spookydissonance)

Hahaha