one time on that same campus someone in the equine program didn’t shut a pasture gate and the pastures were just right there where all the classes were so when all the horses got out I just left class and saw first: a bunch of horses running
second: a bunch of equine majors chasing them on Foot for some reason
third: a group of students from the city just absolutely losing their minds laughing and recording it on their phones
fourth: a terrified work-study student parking authority who, when I asked, said “I don’t know anything about horses, but they told me to stop them if the come this way. what’ll happen if they do?? will they trample me???”
fifth: a group of boys in cowboy hats and flannels that I ended up standing with while the whole thing unfolded.
it took Twenty Minutes for someone to get on horseback to corral the herd.
I was like “is anyone on horseback?? what’s going on??”
and they said “no. we’re wondering when they’ll figure that out.”
Everyone who says “it’s not in the interest of corporations to harm workers and customers” hasn’t heard of history or cost benefit analysis. Mass industrial slaughter (companies letting workers die because it’s more expensive to enforce safety standards) has killed thousands. The collapse of the Rana Plaza is an example, and Grenfell tower.
triangle shirtwaist factory as well
also: the sampoong department store collapse, where 502 people were killed. the building was known to be unsafe since its construction and structural cracks were noted several times without any response. the building was assessed by civil engineers as a collapse risk. the day of the collapse, “the store management failed to shut the building down or issue formal evacuation orders, as the number of customers in the building was unusually high, and it did not want to lose the day’s revenue.” executives, however, had evacuated hours before.
the bhopal disaster had an immediate death toll of 2,259 and an estimated 16,000 people have died since. over 550,000 people were exposed to a toxic gas leak from a pesticide plant when the leak spilled into shanty towns surrounding the plant. there had been smaller leaks for nearly 10 years before the disaster, each of which killed or severely injured workers who were not provided with protective gear. during the major leak, all safeguards against a disaster of this scale either hadn’t been maintained and weren’t working, were inadequate for a spill of this scale, or had been removed years before.
the big blue crane collapse killed 3 ironworkers who were nearby in an observation basket, because higher-ups refused to stop work on the construction of miller park stadium due to unsafe wind levels for crane operation. the original crane operator had refused to do it, so another was brought in. a safety inspector happened to be on site and filmed the incident to document a violation when the crane collapsed entirely. this video has been shown in every OSHA class i’ve ever taken as proof of why 1) safety inspectors aren’t your enemy, no matter how much your boss tries to tell you they are 2) bosses can and will put your life at risk to avoid losing money 3) even if you’re not directly involved in the safety violation–the crane operator survived, but the three ironworkers in the basket were killed when the crane fell on them–your life can be at risk.
there are many, many more of these. more than i can count. and the thing is, these are all just worst-case situations where higher-ups thought they could skate past safety regulations and save a few bucks (or even make a few bucks) without consequences. many of these unsafe conditions went on for years before ending in disaster. the people in sampoong and rana plaza worked in those dangerously structurally unsound building for years before they collapsed, generating money for bosses and executives when no one should have even stepped into those buildings at all. many places are currently skating by and flouting safety regulations, and all of them are living on borrowed time before a disaster strikes.
It’s not in the long-term interest of corporations to harm workers and customers, but the people who run these things tend to toss long-term out the window in favor of short-term gains that they can cash in immediately.
As a whole, humans fucking suck at conceptualizing long term risks and odds. We’re really good at “it’s been okay so far, what’s one more day?” day after day after day. That’s why we write out objective (as much as possible) safety standards because just because you’ve done it before and haven’t died doesn’t mean it isn’t still an unsafe practice.
Can someone please tell me this was a pair that was trying to do the death spiral that mating birds of prey do, and somehow in the process they ended up stuck on a road sign.
Because if it is, this is definitely one of the funniest “Okay, maybe we WERE a little bit over our head when we started this…” moments.
I doubt it. One of these birds is a juvenile (the top) while the other is an adult (bottom). The juvenile would have no interest in mating.
Honestly when I see hawks doing stupid stuff 9/10 times its a harris hawk—this seriously just looks like one of those stupid hawks time. They are one of the only social raptors, so this leads to some funny things, like
Stacking
The harris hawk argument for stacking is “your back is less Pokey than a cactus so imma use it”
Not even falconers are safe…
They even hold hands
Please, what are you doing harris hawks, learn how to hawk
Sometimes even raptors can be birbs.
So what are they doing in the original photo, Cirque du Soleil?
discreet, adj.: 1. Careful and prudent in one’s speech or actions, especially in order to keep something confidential or to avoid embarrassment. 1.1 Intentionally unobtrusive (“a discreet cough”)
discrete, adj.: Individually separate and distinct.
The words are related, but the two different spellings have been assigned to these distinct meanings in English. I mostly see people use “discrete” when they mean “discreet,” just because people are more likely to want “discreet” (especially in fanfiction), but I have seen the confusion going both ways.
Some Asshole: You can’t be! Truly yourself! If you’re on medication! It’s changing the Real You™!
Me: if the real me is going to lie on the floor for 3 weeks and try to drown herself in the river I don’t want to know her, Barbara
Relatedly… I should probably be really suspicious of a potential new therapist who tells me antidepressants are only supposed to be short-term measures, right?
Does anyone want to talk about how ridiculous it is that Valkyrie, of all people, shames Loki for not caring about doing the right thing?
Loki: I don’t mean to impose… (Valkyrie throws a bottle at him because violence is only bad if The Villain™ does it) Loki: The Grandmaster has a great many ships. I may even have stolen the access codes to his security system. Valkyrie: And suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?
You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie?
Yeah, and considering her history in enslaving people for the Grandmaster runs about 1000 or so years? Maybe more, I can’t recall, she doesn’t really have the moral high ground.
In fact, Loki attempting to capture Thor and surrender him to the Grandmaster is more in line with something that Valkyrie would likely pursue (considering her time in Sakaar). Maybe they should have made her more difficult to convince.
Her comment/question is rather out of place also and would have to assume that she’s familiar with Loki to the level that Thor or Hulk (cause of NY) are.
I can only assume she said it in retaliation to what Loki did with her mind, but, in my opinion, she probably would have said something else.
Or they could have validated that she wasn’t necessarily trustworthy too.
It just felt like more of Taika’s lazy story-telling to me, as opposed to Valkyrie getting back at him for the whole ‘invading my mind’ thing. (But hey, don’t invade people’s brains, kids. It’s quite rude). I personally viewed it more as like, “hey, we haven’t reminded people that Loki’s a bad egg in the last 3 minutes or so; better let someone have a dig at his loose morals” sort of BS that is honestly just rampant in Thor: Ragnarok.
Like, I know Ragnarok critics get labelled conspiracy theorists for thinking (or at least speaking as though) Taika just had it out for Loki and wanted to degrade him as much as possible. And I get it, that sounds objectively insane. But just, looking at the narrative of the film itself, it’s… hard not to get that impression? And there’s really no other indicator in that movie–unless I’m forgetting something–that anyone on Sakaar (not including Thor and Bruce, obviously) has a clue who Loki really is. I guess it’s possible that they do, but there’s no evidence that that’s the case. More show & tell problems in this film.
I actually do want to address the ‘betraying Thor for money’ thing, though. Because I see a lot of people complaining that it’s completely out of character for Loki to do so for the money, and I actually have a different take on it. We all know Loki is rarely able to just be honest about what’s going on in his head. That’s essentially what the entire conflict between him and Thor has been fueled by for all this time, really. So I kind of headcanon that Loki might have told Thor that it was for the money, but I personally believe that in reality, it was actually Loki’s last-ditch effort to save his brother. Even as strong as he and Thor both are, individually and together, he did not believe Hela was an enemy that they could defeat (which is technically true)–especially now that she’s all cozy on Asgard, where she’ll be even stronger than when they first met her. Loki already failed once to talk Thor into staying on Sakaar of his own free will; I think betraying him was Loki’s way of trying to keep him safe from Hela by any means necessary.
I also think that deceptiveness can extend to his fight with Valkyrie too. A lot of Loki fans complain about her being able to take him captive so easily, but I choose to believe he lost to her intentionally. Easy ticket to finding his brother. He is the trickster god. Why are we suddenly taking him at face value all the time?
Admittedly, when it comes to Thor: Ragnarok, it’s super hard to decide when Loki is acting out of character because he’s running a scheme and when he’s doing it because of bad writing.
People actually call Loki stans (the true Loki stans) and people who don’t like Ragnarok as idiots just ‘cause we analyzed the movie from start to finish. Most of these people who insult us are new to the fandom and only saw Ragnarok. And even if they saw the other Thor movies they don’t remember it or for some reason they don’t like it. They just here for the jokes and, me, who is someone who’s here for depth of character, good storytelling and just pure emotion cannot deal with people like that.
Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all okay.
You know… the same woman who spent half this movie also avoiding Thor’s attempts to gain her aid? The one who only decided to help out about five minutes prior to this scene? The one who arguably never would have wound up helping had Loki not invaded her memories, thus jolting her out of complacency? That Valkyrie?
In fact, Valkyrie’s own words about “
suddenly you’re overcome with an urge to do the right thing?
“ itself applies accurately to what Valkyrie was doing exactly at that time.
And to be honest, Valkyrie is a hypocrite. Considering about her own deeds that sold many non-guilty people into slavery and causing those people’s deaths for thousands years, and the fact that she knows almost nothing about Loki himself, she has absolutely no right to judge Loki and then acts like she has never done anything wrong in her life, ever.
Valkyrie is a good character but i wish people wouldn’t forget that she has done more wrong than Loki. She’s captured slaves for the Grandmaster for centuries. But of course she’s a hero like Thor and can do no wrong. Also people keep forgetting that the Grandmaster himself is a despot and a tyrant who has no mercy or respect for life. But you know he talks funny and so its all 🆗.
People often forget about her actions because the narrative never call it. The narrative of Ragnarok want to condemn Loki only out of other characters and exaggerating his “evilness” into stereotype and caricature-like so people start to regard him as only “a mere background character who is just an useless twink who have no dignity and just nothing but a pest to Thor the Perfect ‘Hero’ with no absolute importance other than being fan-service”. That’s why they’re so many double standards in Ragnarok especially regarding Loki.
Waititi did have it in for Loki, he admitted it. He said Loki’s treatment and humiliation was “payback” for overshadowing the other movies. Everything, from that stupid play, to the deleted port o potty scene, to being chained up and having glass bottles thrown at his head, to Thor’s triumphant obedience disc scene was all a reflection of exactly how Waititi feels about Loki. “Blah, blah, blah, shut up, space orphan” “Loki tries so hard to be this tortured, artistic, space orphan”. Waititi’s not subtle about it. He thinks all the little Loki lovers are idiots. He meant out to “respectfully” disrespect the other movies, and extend a middle finger to those of us whose favorite character wasn’t Thor. It’s funny how, in that scene where Loki is sitting there chained up, nobody there, not Thor, not Bruce or Valkyrie, have any right to stand there and judge Loki. Valkyrie was just as much a “lackey” of the Grandmaster, if not moreso, because she worked for him and enslaved people for him for a long, long, time. She knew about the orgy ship too, and was obviously in high favor with the grandmaster. But yet in that scene, suddenly Thor, Bruce and Valkyrie are the spotless heroes with the right to look down their noses at Loki? No.
What I also find bothersome about Lokis treatment in Ragnarok is wondering how Tom took it. No one knows really and we may never, yet I can’t help but think it affected him negatively on some level, after devoting so much time, talent and heart into the character. I’d certainly be insulted and secretly pissed. And yes, Sakaar must’ve dwelled within the boonies of space, as I too found it odd no one there ever recognized Loki. A form of subliminal messaging, perhaps?
Let us not forget please that Taika is not completely to blame. Hemsworth specifically asked for Taika because he was mad about how Tom overshadowed him in TDW because he did a shitty job and was tired of playing Thor like how it was written. Hemsy requested Taika. Which might be why Tom and Hemsworth aren’t tight anymore.
^ Yes, that is exactly right. I don’t think Taika himself gave a shit about any of the MCU films or characters until Hemsworth brought him on in order to showcase his (Hemsworth’s), er, comedic genius. He came in predisposed to despise Loki for stealing poor Chris’s limelight… and other than hating Loki on Chris’s behalf – and being incredibly pleased with himself over his witticisms as Korg, getting Jeff Goldblum to play himself, and getting away with spending all that money to produce a gold-plated “fuck you” sign aimed at Tom Hiddleston, Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon, and all of the fangirls who are too stupid to realize that they were supposed to fall for Thor, not Loki – I’m pretty sure he still doesn’t give a shit about the MCU or its characters. I blame Chris more than Taika, because I would have expected him to have some sense of artistic integrity with respect to the character he had been playing for 8 years, and perhaps even some loyalty to Tom and the work they had done together. Taika had no reason not to take Marvel’s money and run; his only loyalty was to his pal Chris who got him that sweet lucrative gig. Of course he would give full rein to Chris’s grievances.
Yes, it’s speculation; no, we can never know the secret inner lives of celebrities… but we have it spelled out in interviews that CH was bored of playing an actual dramatic character, that TW wanted to take Loki down a peg or several, that they wanted to “make sure Thor was the most interesting character in his own movie” (who might that have been before, hmm?), and that they were taking full license to retcon and “respectfully disrespect” previous canon (where we all understand that the “respectfully” part is horseshit). It *is* mere speculation, or rather interpretive guesswork, to conjecture that Tom’s dissatisfaction or even a feeling of betrayal over the handling of Loki’s character and previous canon in general is the reason he was absent from much of the Ragnarok promotion, and when he was there, looked downcast and alienated from the camaraderie of the rest of the cast. Maybe scheduling conflicts were the only reason that Tom and Chris did very few interviews together, though they had been teamed up constantly during promotion for TDW, and Tom was more likely to be paired with Jeff Goldblum or Tessa Thompson (both of whom seemed to have a lot more respect for him than either TW or CH did).
I’m not even clear what Chris and Taika’s endgame was with this. Like, was this just simple revenge on Tom and fans? Or did Chris somehow come to the wild conclusion that all they needed to do was take Tom/Loki down a few pegs and fans would just suck it up and be like, “Ugh, fiiiiine, I guess Thor is my favourite character now”?
I suspect it was just a “fuck you” to the fans who were already devoted to Loki; it was critics and potential new fans they were trying to win over. They seem to have succeeded with critics (sadly), who don’t particularly care about the consistency of the MCU, are probably pretty sick of it, and like seeing its self-seriousness mocked. Tom didn’t get the same chorus of praise for his nuanced acting that he had received for Thor 1, The Avengers, and TDW – of course, because they deliberately gave him nothing that would showcase his dramatic acting ability or capacity for conveying emotional depth; the intent was to make Loki appear shallow and ridiculous.
The usual dudebro casual fans are delighted with the new Thor who’s a dudebro like them; Loki always just confused them, but TR gave them permission to laugh at the… cigarette (or bassoon, if you know Italian or read orchestral scores). Oddly, Loki does seem to have acquired a contingent of new “fans” who accept TR’s flattening of his character and claim to “love” him anyway, while also affirming that he’s morally worthless and a dumb bitch. Not sure if that was the intent… in any case, it is succeeding in demoralizing the established Loki fans.
Loki is the Philosopher King 