Fuck Yeah, Sherlock.

A blog for the BBC's glorious new mini-series, Sherlock.
Run by queercred
wordsthatkeepyouhome:

If the sun stops burningAnd the world stops turningI’ll be right here with you 

wordsthatkeepyouhome:

If the sun stops burning
And the world stops turning
I’ll be right here with you 


Dusk, silence, iron chill.

Dusk, silence, iron chill.

(Source: herrholmes)

Anonymous asked: THANK YOU MAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

……MY PLEASURE, DUDE!






the game is on: Jack John of Hearts [1/?]

the game is on: Jack John of Hearts [1/?]

(Source: rememberdonna, via sherlockbbcgraphics)

justthisguyyaknow:

imperialdalek:

notsosilentwallflower:

fem!lock au:

└ mr. hudson makes breakfast (x)

STEPHEN FRY OH GOD YES.

It’s back and IT IS BETTER THAN EVER!!!

(via queercred)

(Source: mrjwatson)

(via hookersam)


You go to sleep on your own, and you wake each day with your thoughts. And it scares you being alone, it’s a last resort.

You go to sleep on your own, and you wake each day with your thoughts. And it scares you being alone, it’s a last resort.

(via sherlockbbcgraphics)

nofatebutyourself asked: I sat in on a talk regarding the US military drones and there are definitely people who are controlling when the attacks are, although I'm not sure about how the drones are actually piloted themselves. The talk discussed about how the targeting system of the drones are actually more accurate than on-board piloted planes due to better visibility, so why the high collateral/unnecessary damage? It is also the fear/anticipation of when the drones will attack as it hovers above the citizen 24/7

More info!  Thank you!

Drones!

image

It’s cool, let me give you the run-down.

A combat drone, which is the drone we’re talking about here, is an armed aerial military vehicle that doesn’t have to be flown by an on-board pilot, so it’s operated remotely.  One of the first complaints of the use of drones comes from that nature of the technology itself; the fact that the combat drone has no individual pilot both distances the military official(s) in charge of the strike from the reality of the situation AND makes it difficult to assign responsibility for said strike to any individual person, leaving many breaches in conduct unaccounted for.

These drones are being used by the United States in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen to kill militants and to further our fight against terrorism in those areas, but unfortunately a large number of these strikes result in civilian casualties, including a horrific amount of children’s deaths (ThePeoplesRecord).  It is even difficult to ascertain what the U.S. is actually targeting when they make these strikes, as “the Obama Administration reportedly ‘considers as a “militant” any military-age male in the strike target area’” (Friedersdorf, The Atlantic).  This also makes it extremely difficult to determine how many civilian deaths have been left unaccounted for because they have been given a bullshit redefinition.

This debate on whether or not the U.S.’s use of drones is humane has also been brought to the forefront because the United Nations recently announced that it is launching investigations (BBC) to determine whether or not the U.S.’s use of combat drones on should be constituted as a war crime.

Let me know if you need any more information.

oh, and SIGN THE PETITION HERE.  Remember, if you’re non-U.S. you may leave the zipcode field blank!

Anonymous asked: Seriously just shut the fuck up! I hate all these pointless asks clogging up my dashboard

Dude, unfollow.

Or if you miss the Sherlock posts and want to wait, just unfollow and check back in tomorrow.

Anonymous asked: I understand your anger, but if you seriously think an internet petition that might get some federal employee to say 'We did not authorize strikes on children.' on Twitter will solve the problem - well. There are other ways to make a change, don't expend all your energy on this. A fandom tumblr is not a political forum; there are other places I go when I'm interested in current events. and I would be just as annoyed to see a Sherlock fan post in those places.

Just because this isn’t going to solve all of the world’s problems doesn’t mean that this doesn’t have significance.  I’ve heard that argument used dozens of times in my past year in debate, actually, and the logical flaws are always the same.

It’s like trying to oppose a bill by saying “but people can always break the law, so why even make the law in the first place?”  That’s absolutely absurd.  If we followed this vein of logic, why have any laws?  Or, in the context of this argument, “there are other ways to make a change, [so] don’t expend your energy on this”.  The logic, or lack there-of, is exactly the same.

As for your opinion that you would be “just as annoyed to see a Sherlock fan post in [a place designed for current events]”, the two are completely incomparable.  Sherlock is a fictional television show. “Current events”, or more accurately the request to hold a government accountable for their irresponsible military actions (I’m not just posting this shit because I want to get people psyched about watching the news), is neither fictional nor trivial.