Queer for a better future

(via doctordisaster)

In 1989, a little girl named Amy sent a bottle of colored water, oil and glitter to Roald Dahl, who knew right away that this was a dream in a bottle inspired by his book, The BFG. In response, the author penned this short note to his 7-year-old fan.

(via synecdoche)

heyoscarwilde:

Mother Superior jump the gun.

Beatlemania by Gyimah Gariba :: via ggariba.blogspot.com

Possibly my favorite secret.

stayingunderground:

“We came, We saw, We destroyed, We forgot” by William Blum

An updated summary of the charming record of US foreign policy. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States of America has …

1. Attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of which were democratically-elected.
2. Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.
3. Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
4. Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
5. Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.

In total: Since 1945, the United States has carried out one or more of the above actions, on one or more occasions, in the following 69 countries (more than one-third of the countries of the world):

If you’re American and aren’t aware of why your government isn’t popular with the rest of the world here is why!

(via ftm-communist)

PON THIS WEI: On an ethical lifestyle and organ donation.

thecubiczirconium:

princessnecrophilia:

gaysama:

lorycannotsupinate:

dalekstripper:

hate-wizard:

Anyone who puts animals above human beings should be treated like an animal themselves.

^This is my favorite thing that has ever been said ever.

Just LOL.

(via zirbronium)

On Piling on the Vegan

lucy-flawless:

conjuringseed:

fracturedrefuge:

hate-wizard:

I’m an organ donor. I also am somewhere in between vegan and vegetarian. I see a contradiction in this.

This means that if I die, any of my usable organs will be harvested and transplanted into another human…

[Don’t read this if you don’t give a shit about veganism/vegetarianism and the associated debates.]

Recently not a day goes by where I don’t see some sort of piling on vegans on my dashboard. (Today it was twice, hence this rare post.)

A lot of the time the vegan in question is just really, genuinely ignorant, and that’s fine, correct hir. But usually zie is then held up as a strawman, because zie obviously represents All Vegans In The World Ever. (Seriously the strawman density of these replies are fucking astronomical.)

I guess I just don’t understand a lot of the vitriol in these discussions. Like, so often all they consist of is a self-righteous/ignorant/thickheaded declaration by a vegan met by an equally self-righteous/ignorant/thickheaded rebuttal by an omnivore.

But that’s not always the case. For instance, here we have a vegan merely airing out an argument zie had been mulling over for a bit, something that presented to her a genuine ethical dilemma, but in response zie is called “a despicable fucking human being.” [Note: this is the only instance I am referring to a specific poster.] For real? I mean, this person said that zie was already an organ donor and there was no implication that zie was going to immediately remove hirself from the registry.

And then everyone seems to be operating under the a priori assumption that human life is intrinsically more valuable than any other kind of life. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with this assertion here, but I know that I have at least interrogated my own assumptions on the matter, which is all too uncommon for omnivores (and of course some veggies who change their diets for different reasons).

But non-vegans get so damn defensive, so damn quickly. Talk about protesting too much. The thing is, we don’t go about our daily lives judging and condemning everyone who eats meat. We just don’t. Do you have any idea how exhausting and miserable and downright depressing that would be?

I understand that there are a lot of snobbish, pseudo-progressive liberal-type vegan/vegetarians out there, so I guess hate on them all you want if that’s what gets you off. But in the meantime, the logical and moral arguments against killing animals for food and clothing remain unscathed.

husssel:

BYU Students on African Americans (I can’t find the words for this)

OMG

[Warning for racism/racist ignorance]

I’m having difficulty parsing all that’s going on here. Obviously, these students are pretty racist, but this asshole thought it would be a good idea to cavort around in fucking blackface.

The video starts with the text: “Do BYU students know a black guy when they see one?”

(His intent was blackface, even though he looks more like someone trying to one-up Snooki.)

No wait, I’m not having any difficulty: this guy is a piece of shit. What kind of thought process leads one to conclude that donning blackface is the progressive, anti-racist thing to do? The video ends with two screens; the first reads: “During the film of the video only 3 people said anything about me not really being black.”

Possibly because your attempt at disguise through modified appearance, patterns of speech, and body language were not only utterly unconvincing, leading them to think it was apparent that you were white, but also really racist.

And then: “Which I find really disturbing.”

Yes, that is the disturbing part, for sure. Not your total disregard of the history of white people dressing up as caricatures of black people. Not your blissful lack of awareness of the crushing irony of claiming to fight “ignorance” while perpetuating racist tropes. Nope, it’s definitely what you said.

(via markthesewords)

ceasesilence:

fracturedrefuge:

I was searching for an image of Dr. George Tiller when I found this.

I got chills.

Never has the intention of the anti-choice side been clearer.

This is awful.

(via tylerwolffe)

(via gaysubtexts)

(via ftm-communist)

“Soggy.”

(via gaysubtexts)

President Obama Sings Al Green's 'Let's Stay Together,' Sales Jump 490%

npr:

“He nailed it,” Green told TMZ, praising Obama’s rendition.

You know you want to watch it again: Obama sings Al Green — Tanya

sententiola:

Image is a screen-capture of a headline reading Cynthia Nixon On Being Gay: ‘For Me It’s A Choice’, above a photograph of Cynthia Nixon.

jeunetbelle:

tylercoates:

Well. Now Cynthia Nixon has gone and pissed me off. 

“America Blog writer John Aravosis was among those to criticize Nixon’s choice of words… ‘Every religious right hatemonger is now going to quote this woman every single time they want to deny us our civil rights.’”

I can definitely relate to what she’s saying, but only because I’ve been in the same place. Straight people can’t relate to that and saying that being gay is a choice really conflicts with the idea of being “born this way” which I think is the only way many people begin to understand the roots of homosexuality.

Nobody comes out of this looking good.

I take your point, Sarah, but to me it seems like Aravosis and company come out looking a lot worse.

I mean, when did political inconvenience become a valid reason to criticize a queer woman for the way she describes her own sexuality?  Exactly what kind of world is Aravosis working towards?  One where people can have civil rights as long as they’re prepared to subscribe to one particular model of human sexuality and describe themselves in its terms even if it doesn’t fit them?

It’s worth just comparing a couple of Nixon’s comments with some of Aravosis’ response.  Here’s Nixon:

I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me.

…

Why can’t it be a choice?  Why is that any less legitimate?

Here’s Aravosis (warning for binarism and ‘splaining):

What she means is that she’s bisexual, and doesn’t quite get that most people aren’t able to have sexual romantic relationships with both men and women because they’re just not into both genders.  She is into both genders.  And that’s fine.  But she needs to learn how to choose her words better…

Allow me to get sarcastic here, because, hey, wow, I would definitely like to sign up for the new rainbow utopia where your sexuality is whatever Mr John Aravosis tells you it is.  That absolutely sounds better than the one where people get to define their own identities and it doesn’t matter whether those identities are chosen or innate or constructed or whatever because it is generally understood that someone’s identity is their identity and that alone deserves a bit of bleeding respect.

Okay, at this point my first draft of this post turned into an angry link-filled rant about how objectionable Aravosis is, but you can google him yourselves if you want to know about that.  That isn’t the point because he isn’t the only person saying this kind of thing.  The point is:

• If some people are going to use a queer person’s account of their own identity to bolster anti-queer bigotry, how about criticizing the bigots, not the queer person?
• If some ‘allies’ are only okay with queer sexuality as long as it’s innate and can’t be helped, how about challenging that view, not shushing anyone who isn’t prepared to collude with it?
• If we want a world where people can be open about their sexuality, how about supporting people who are open about their sexuality?
• If we’re trying to make things better for people, how about prioritizing and listening to actual people, not treating them like obstructions to ‘the cause’?
• Basically, how about having a movement that tries to be what it wants the world to become?

It’s really kind of embarrassing how obviously selfish so many (typically white, cis, dudely-gendered) gay people are about their rights and how willing they are to throw virtually every other oppressed group under the bus to obtain state recognition of their romantic, coupled relationships.

(via garlandgrey)