10 12 / 2013

"Fiscal stability that relies on gifts is not stability. It is a guarantee of insecurity: income based not on work but on whim. Capricious generosity is not a replacement for a living wage, nor is it a basis for a functioning society. Charity is no substitute for justice."

Charity is not a substitute for justice - Opinion - Al Jazeera English (via brutereason)

Give someone a fish and all. It’s actually, like, true though.

(via brutereason)

08 12 / 2013

sammiwolfe:

jexiou:

fuckyeahsexyatheists:

velma-dear:

iconicmonsters:

I’m not satanic but these are some damn good rules.

satan does not support rape, animal cruelty, or child abuse
when walking in open territory, bother no one. if someone bothers you, ask them to stop. if they do not stop, destroy them.

*Today on I Didn’t Know I was a Satanist*

NUMBER FIVE

It’s a thing where every time I see it I have to reblog it because satanism is all about fucking treating yourself right and giving respect to everyone who respects your back.

Though there’s definitely something calling itself “Satanism” that’s fucking Randism with a religious veneer

sammiwolfe:

jexiou:

fuckyeahsexyatheists:

velma-dear:

iconicmonsters:

I’m not satanic but these are some damn good rules.

satan does not support rape, animal cruelty, or child abuse

when walking in open territory, bother no one. if someone bothers you, ask them to stop. if they do not stop, destroy them.

*Today on I Didn’t Know I was a Satanist*

NUMBER FIVE

It’s a thing where every time I see it I have to reblog it because satanism is all about fucking treating yourself right and giving respect to everyone who respects your back.

Though there’s definitely something calling itself “Satanism” that’s fucking Randism with a religious veneer

(Source: leavingbones-exposed, via nightshaderose)

04 12 / 2013

social-justice-wario:

Wario received an anonymous ask this morning that Wario liked

I think a quote from a Jezebel article about Tosh.0 sums up the “attitude of hating everything equally” nicely: “And being an “equal opportunity offender”—as in, “It’s okay, because Daniel Tosh makes fun of ALL people: women, men,…

Of course, it’s possible to over-apply this. Ted Rall comes to mind, sadly: his Obama looks no more ape-like than his everyone else. The difference is, that’s just Rall’s style, and if you translate it into what people actually look like, Obama no longer looks like an ape. If Rall were to draw a crowd scene full of Rall!humans, and Obama were in it, I don’t think he’d come across as ape-like.

None of which means Ted Rall isn’t an asshole, or even that he never exhibits more-than-baseline racism, and none of which should be taken as a defense of his handling of the situation (and as a white-privilege-having dude, I might not have the tools to recognize the Obama caricature as being more ape-like than his other drawings).

27 11 / 2013

matildazq:

atomicovermind:

Google Maps version of Ankh Morpork, anyone? 
fuckingfuckersfucked:

Well, it’s finally finished. It was a genuinely satisfying project.I present you Ankh Morpork in the guise of Google Maps.


Love!

matildazq:

atomicovermind:

Google Maps version of Ankh Morpork, anyone? 

fuckingfuckersfucked:

Well, it’s finally finished. 

It was a genuinely satisfying project.

I present you Ankh Morpork in the guise of Google Maps.

Love!

10 7 / 2013

ami-angelwings:

hrhughes:

Whiteskins.org

MISSION

To challenge the widespread use and acceptance of culturally offensive names, mascots, and logos by amateur and professional sports teams.
To raise money and provide publicity opportunities among new audiences for charities and organizations that serve the needs and protect the dignity and culture of American Indians and First Nations people and communities.


I’ve always really hated the racist names and logos in certain sports and how they continue to be allowed and tolerated. >_<  I also hate that whenever the papers occasionally address it, it’s always in poll form, like 79% of Americans are okay with the name, ignoring that a) it’s still a small sample space and where you’re polling people from can make a big difference b) most of those aren’t Native people and them being okay with it is irrelevant and c) so what?  All that means is that those people who are okay with it are racist, or okay with a racist name/logo.  That means it should be kept?  Even the Sports Illustrated poll which claimed that 2/3s of Natives weren’t “offended”, but 1/3 were, so we should just offend them?  And it’s not like those 2/3s would be offended if the name was changed, chances are they would be fine with it.
In fact, I’m willing to bet all of the Americans polled who are okay with the name would be okay with a name change as well.  No Washington or NFL fan, hardcore or otherwise, is going to be boycotting the team because it changes the name, just like no Cleveland fan will stop going to games because they change the “Indians” name or get rid of the logo.  But you may get MORE fans by changing it, people who are offended, and put off, who feel that supporting the team, or even the entire league is supporting appropriation and racism.  It’s a good business decision, as well as the right thing to do (and the right thing to do even if it’s a bad business decision.)
It’s more than just “oh some people are offended”, it’s taking responsibility for the past and current culture of colonization, marginalization, oppression, genocide, and appropriation of Native peoples.  Even if it’s “just a team name”, it’s still part of that culture, it legitimizes that culture, and worse, it trivializes it.  It says that all of that terrible history isn’t a big deal, and we can just use slurs and offensive caricatures of people we’ve historically oppressed as names and logos for casual entertainment, to put on t-shirts and hats that are worn by millions without a thought at all.  That’s why it matters that these teams change their names and logos, that they say “no, this is wrong, and we’re no longer going to add to it.”



The hardcore fans are going to object the least. If they’re that into it they’ll come watch the Cleveland Stench, the Washington Swamp Maggots.

The only rationale I can see for actively opposing a change is “we can’t let Those People think they can tell their betters what to do.”

ami-angelwings:

hrhughes:

To challenge the widespread use and acceptance of culturally offensive names, mascots, and logos by amateur and professional sports teams.

To raise money and provide publicity opportunities among new audiences for charities and organizations that serve the needs and protect the dignity and culture of American Indians and First Nations people and communities.

I’ve always really hated the racist names and logos in certain sports and how they continue to be allowed and tolerated. >_<  I also hate that whenever the papers occasionally address it, it’s always in poll form, like 79% of Americans are okay with the name, ignoring that a) it’s still a small sample space and where you’re polling people from can make a big difference b) most of those aren’t Native people and them being okay with it is irrelevant and c) so what?  All that means is that those people who are okay with it are racist, or okay with a racist name/logo.  That means it should be kept?  Even the Sports Illustrated poll which claimed that 2/3s of Natives weren’t “offended”, but 1/3 were, so we should just offend them?  And it’s not like those 2/3s would be offended if the name was changed, chances are they would be fine with it.

In fact, I’m willing to bet all of the Americans polled who are okay with the name would be okay with a name change as well.  No Washington or NFL fan, hardcore or otherwise, is going to be boycotting the team because it changes the name, just like no Cleveland fan will stop going to games because they change the “Indians” name or get rid of the logo.  But you may get MORE fans by changing it, people who are offended, and put off, who feel that supporting the team, or even the entire league is supporting appropriation and racism.  It’s a good business decision, as well as the right thing to do (and the right thing to do even if it’s a bad business decision.)

It’s more than just “oh some people are offended”, it’s taking responsibility for the past and current culture of colonization, marginalization, oppression, genocide, and appropriation of Native peoples.  Even if it’s “just a team name”, it’s still part of that culture, it legitimizes that culture, and worse, it trivializes it.  It says that all of that terrible history isn’t a big deal, and we can just use slurs and offensive caricatures of people we’ve historically oppressed as names and logos for casual entertainment, to put on t-shirts and hats that are worn by millions without a thought at all.  That’s why it matters that these teams change their names and logos, that they say “no, this is wrong, and we’re no longer going to add to it.”

The hardcore fans are going to object the least. If they’re that into it they’ll come watch the Cleveland Stench, the Washington Swamp Maggots. The only rationale I can see for actively opposing a change is “we can’t let Those People think they can tell their betters what to do.”

02 7 / 2013

heyallykatt:

Bloomberg on NYC’s stop-and-frisk: “I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little.”

theres an election this year right? get this illegitimate ass mayor out

Well, he’s saying things like this because he’s term limited for real this time, so that’s the good news.

02 7 / 2013

Not sure why this image was removed: it was text, it wasn&#8217;t malicious bigotry or harmful to minors unless there&#8217;s some Scunthorpe thing I didn&#8217;t notice, it wasn&#8217;t NSFW unless every French word is presumed to be sexual &#8230; I don&#8217;t get it.

Not sure why this image was removed: it was text, it wasn’t malicious bigotry or harmful to minors unless there’s some Scunthorpe thing I didn’t notice, it wasn’t NSFW unless every French word is presumed to be sexual … I don’t get it.

(Source: thefamemonsterrrr, via weloveyoumorethanyouknow)

05 6 / 2013

arcadiasilver:

anotherwordformyth:

thebeggarandtheking:

queennubian:

She was once the a beautiful virgin shadow maiden of Athean. After Poseidon rapes Medusa in Athena’s temple, Athena punishes Medusa….making her the embodiement of death and damning her to a life of solitude.

What does this say about society then, and now?

Well, the myth that tells Medusa’s metamorphosis into a monster as a punishment by Athena is the patriarchal Roman version. The ancient Greek myth, which has closer ties to its progenitor, the Egyptian tale of Wadjet, tells us that Athena gifted Medusa with ugliness and the power to turn men to stone as a way of protecting her from further violations of her person. Even so, her ugliness was emphasized in the Roman retelling as a way to further demonize and disenfranchise Medusa (i.e. she only lashed out on men because she was too ugly to be loved by them, her ugliness forced her into seclusion from men, ugly women are bad, etc. ((I am ironically using abbreviations for Latin words here yes)).). As the original myth tells it, she lived in solitude because she did not wish to be around men after what Poseidon had done. And Athena gave her the power to never be at the mercy of a male again. So originally, Athena was pissed at Poseidon, not Medusa. And then, of course, the Romans took it one step further and had Perseus behead her (yay the vindictive old hag is dead) and give it to Athena for her shield.

But yeah, renderings of Medusa’s head appeared in the doorways of many women’s shelters in ancient Greece because she was a symbol of female empowerment, not a monster feared by men and women alike.

This brings me to my awkward segue into a cool essay on the subject: The Laugh of the Medusa by Helene Cixous actually touches on the system of misogynistic fear behind the Romanized version, but most importantly why women need to write their stories because this is the shit that happens when dudebros get ahold of them. It’s also an awesome overture to queer theories of writing. If you can read French, I highly suggest getting your hands on the essay as it was originally written, because Cixous’ voice is just incredibly inspiring when you read it as she intended it to be read. Also, the essay itself is worthy of criticism as it is not as intersectional as it absolutely needs to be. I feel I should add that before someone thinks I advocate the problematic things she says.

But now that I’ve totally digressed from my original point: It’s important that we’re always mindful to question the credibility of those telling us not only history, but also legend.

(I became absolutely exhausted halfway through this so forgive me if the connection I’m making between the original post and this essay is more arbitrary than I think it is at the moment)

@bigfatphallusy

I forgot to add this but

MORE REASONS TO HATE PERSEUS MYTHS.

Not that “rapists don’t attack ugly women” is a great message either

(Source: dynastylnoire, via summer-of-supervillainy)

01 6 / 2013

fuckingrecipes:

HERE ARE SOME MORE TIPS TO EAT FUCKING FANTASTIC FOOD ON A LOW BUDGET! 

MAKE YOUR OWN MOTHERFUCKING BREAD

EVEN IF YOU’RE NOT ONE OF THOSE NUMBER-LOVING ASSHOLES, BASIC STUFF SHOULD BE COMMON SENSE. LET ME LAY DOWN SOME FACTS AND YOU SIT BACK AND ENJOY THE MAGIC CARPET RIDE!

Read More

I even make my own yeast (that’s genuine Brooklyn sourdough, not as famous as San Francisco, but almost as good).

29 5 / 2013

pervocracy:

ozyreads:

do you mean: all my meaningful relationships

Not all of mine, but plenty.  And literally all of my current non-family relationships are enabled by the Internet in some way, whether it’s “Internet friend introduced me to them” or “met them at an event listed online” or “live a zillion miles away so keep in touch online.”

The whole thing about “are they a person, or a person you met online?” should stay in the 1990s, seriously.  It’s people meeting people either way.  

If “meaningful” is interpreted as “romantic,” all of them.