1. 04:10 3rd Feb 2012

    Notes: 12

    Reblogged from theladymonsters

    So, I haven’t read The Hunger Games yet, but one thing about it kind of disturbs me:

    andurrs:

    potterwatch-rapier:

    How excited the fandom is. I mean, I’m sure it’s a good series, don’t get me wrong, but it’s about children KILLING EACH OTHER. Now, I don’t have much context, I haven’t read it (and it’s a three month waiting list at all south suburban libraries) but this, to me, is a disturbing concept. And the fact that people are “fangirling” over it also disturbs me. 

    Another book had kids killing each other- Lord of the Flies. I hated that fucking book. Everyone I know who’s read it hated it. It was a terrible book. (not much of it’s awfulness having to do with the kid on kid murder, more the bad writing.)

    I’m just a little concerned. That’s all. Especially since the movie is coming out soon, and I know how the media does things….

    Highlighted the relevant bit

    Just pointing out the relevant obvious: people die in media all the time! People are so desensitized (I’m not saying it’s a good thing, it’s merely a thing) that death? It’s no big deal.

    What people really typically like or appreciate are the characters and the thoughtfulness of the plot. In a world where Twilight is kind of a literary norm, Hunger Games isn’t even equivalent to Lord of the Flies. It has decent writing and good side characters, and if you asked readers, most wouldn’t call the deaths their favorite part of the book. It’s a plot you don’t see in much modern (past ten years) literature that’s popular, and that’s good! It’s good to have variety that kids can read!

    It is about games that children die in, yes. But it isn’t three books of children dying with no plot. Katniss isn’t just The Girl Who Lived (that’s sort of Harry Potter’s thing!), she’s a protagonist in her own right within her own setting, and she has her own problems to face and conquer. I can’t speak for the movie, but if it’s anything like the book it doesn’t treat death like something you can brush off. Katniss is confronted again and again with people dying because of her, and she has to build herself up again to keep more people from dying. Death isn’t confined to Hunger Games; look at the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series, or Adventure Time, or any other thing you can think of! The difference with Hunger Games is that it addresses death and violence directly, and the protagonist’s feelings about it. That’s really all.

    But, like you said, you haven’t read it. I’d recommend it, personally, if you’re going to see the movie. It might add some context for you.

    (Also, I loved Lord of the Flies! So there you go, some people actually do like that dusty old relic.)

    (Source: grantaires-bottle)

     
  2. image: Download

    not-homophobic-but:

[Image description: a Twitter update from a user whose name is illegible.  The update reads, “ Omfg just saw 2 guys kissing on tv, I’m about to throw up! I’m nothomophobic, but that was NASTY! ”
End description.]

"I’m not homophobic, but two guys kissing makes me want to throw up."

    not-homophobic-but:

    [Image description: a Twitter update from a user whose name is illegible.  The update reads, “ Omfg just saw 2 guys kissing on tv, I’m about to throw up! I’m nothomophobicbut that was NASTY! ”

    End description.]

    "I’m not homophobic, but two guys kissing makes me want to throw up."

     
  3. 08:30

    Notes: 275

    Reblogged from stfusexists

    Four Detroit escorts who used Backpage to advertise have been found murdered, and a stripper is missing. All of them are black and mid- to late twenties.

    stfusexists:

    sexworkerproblems:

    http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20111226/METRO01/112260388

    http://www.freep.com/article/20120106/NEWS01/201060479/Dozens-pray-for-missing-mom-of-6-other-women-working-in-sex-industry

    Signal boost. Please be careful.

    An additional note from SWP: they were not “escorts”, and she is not a “stripper”. These were and are PEOPLE who worked in the sex industry as escorts and a dancer. Please do not take our humanity away and replace it with a job title. Be careful, workers in and around this area and elsewhere. Be safe, be vigilant, be well. SWP

    Jesus. Signal boost.

     
  4. 08:16

    Notes: 955

    Reblogged from justthefactsmaamifyouplease

    Anonymous asked: nobody cares about your fucking uterus. get over it. Ron Paul is not taking away anyone’s right to reproductive freedom. This country is fucked in so many ways and you can’t look past a wedge issue like this that will NEVER effect anyone directly.

    turnofftherain:

    cognitivedissonance:

    cognitivedissonance:

    I care about my uterus and the uteruses (uteri?) of others. I also care about our rights to have a family (or not) when we so choose. This country is fucked in a lot of different ways. Why add to it by making safe, legal abortion no longer safe and no longer legal?

    And yes, he would take away reproductive freedom. He’s written and co-sponsored bills to do just that - from defunding Planned Parenthood, to outright banning abortion. Of course, there’s other reasons why Ron Paul is ridiculous. Here’s a laundry list, complete with links. But reproductive rights? That’s something he should be entirely familiar with, considering his job as an OB/GYN. He should be familiar with the complications that can arise when reproductive rights are denied.

    And it will never affect anyone directly? How about me? I want to avoid pregnancy, and yet still enjoy sex within my heterosexual, monogamous marriage. (You know, the kind the GOP supposedly likes, and encourges.) So Catholic roulette? That method (rhythm method) has a high rate of failure when a person’s menstrual cycle can’t be tracked well.

    So let’s pretend I’ve become pregnant. Oopsies! Well, there goes the likelihood of law school. But whatever, it’s not like I should be educated anyhow, right? And then, in about the fifth month of pregnancy, I begin bleeding uncontrollably. And that doctor looks at me and says, “Sorry, I’m going to let you bleed because I don’t do abortions.” Typically, he’s supposed to call someone - but that doesn’t always happen. And under President Ron Paul, the conscience clause states he doesn’t have to save my life. Because his own reasons. 

    Don’t believe me? This already happened. Not to me, but to another woman who barely survived. A historical overview of abortion is here.

    Your attitude of “nobody cares” leads to headlines like this:

    Read Mrs. Jones’ story here. Or Susannah Lattin’s story. Or look at the picture of Geraldine Santoro face-down and bloody after dying on the floor of a hotel after an illegal abortion. (Warning: The photo is graphic).

    Or let’s go global. Did you know abortion is more common in countries where it is banned? From Timemagazine:

    About 47,000 women died from unsafe abortions in 2008, and another 8.5 million women had serious medical complications. Almost all unsafe abortions were in developing countries, where family planning and contraceptive programs have mostly levelled off.

    But who cares? They’re just women. We’re all just a bunch of whiny bitches who don’t understand the genius of Ron Paul, right? These are not wedge issues. You want to talk about personal liberty? How about liberty to choose when to raise a family? How about the rights of people to keep government out from between our legs? Come out from behind your gray box and defend your heartlessness.

    In summary, fuck your “nobody cares” sentiment and fuck Ron Paul.

    Rebloggable from hobojew! Huzzah!

    “never affect anyone directly” oh my god go fall in a black hole

     
  5. 08:14

    Notes: 24758

    Reblogged from justthefactsmaamifyouplease

    turnofftherain:

    Legit having a Kristin Bell moment here.

    (Source: ofelias)

     
  6. 01:56 30th Jan 2012

    Notes: 32

    Reblogged from peanutfairy

    rasputinshead:

    Leaving this here.

    "They offered me two different roles and I went for the transsexual because I felt like when the door opens and you see that it’s me, it should get a ‘Yuck!’"

    That’s an actual quote from the article. What in the fuck?

     
  7. 01:26

    Notes: 2115

    Reblogged from hormonaltransrex-deactivated201

    hormonaltransrex:

    Harper bans pre-op and non-op trans* people from flying under new law

    oppressionisyucky:

    boobsanderson:

    Sec 5.2(1)(c) of the ID screening regs of Aeronautics Act: “An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents.”

    Canada, you’re disappointing me. Additionally, I think it is of note that this has way more to do with passing privilege than pre/non-op (though for some people that does make passing as cis more frequent), though another example of this going poorly I can think of is someone on hormones who doesn’t have their identification changed. I don’t know why it can’t just be, if you in general look like your picture on your ID (or have some paperwork explaining why you don’t).

    I NEED TO FLY MY GIGANTIC GREEN ASS TO CANADA AND EAT ME A SUPERBIGOT!

    RAAAAAAAAAAARRR!!!

    There’s so much wrong with this.

    1.) Trans*gender people that have been legally changed on their birth certificate but haven’t gone on hormones / can’t pack or wear artificial breasts or bind / pass as their preferred gender but haven’t yet or literally CAN’T get their legal sex changed on documents won’t be allowed to board a plane! What the hell, seriously? Do I need a special “HEY GUYS I’M TRANS* LOL READ ALL THESE DOCUMENTS AND ALERT EVERYONE AROUND ME AS TO THE FACT I WAS BORN WITH GENITALIA THAT I DON’T FEEL COINCIDES WITH MY GENDER!” packet just to get on an airplane? What the hell?

    2.) This is leaving it entirely up to the official. If that official is trans*phobic, or just flat-out has strict guidelines as to what a man and a woman look like, then who’s to stop them from enacting their own personal bias and denying any random passenger the right to board a plane?

    3) Why is this even necessary? Shouldn’t you just leave it at ‘they look like the picture on their passport’? Adding this kind of clause is rooted in some weird as hell kind of cissexism, and it’s genuinely disgusting to think that they’d feel it was necessary.

    (Source: shaquedamour)

     
  8. 18:02 28th Jan 2012

    Notes: 11

    Reblogged from groucho-marxism

    Why I Won’t Ever Vote For Ron Paul (Now Featuring Statistics!)

    propane-and-propaneaccessories:

    transprivilege:

    propane-and-propaneaccessories:

    -134:

    thought-provoking-url:

    transprivilege:

    I had a long post here. I had a post listing all of the things he’s said and done that I disagree with, citing all the sources I found, but the things he’s said and done can all be found in loads of other places.

    So I decided to take a different approach. It’s easy to brush off that Ron Paul doesn’t support women who want abortions, or homosexuals that want to get married, or non-whites in, well, many cases. But it’s not common that you see a reason why Ron Paul only has 13% support (according to Gallup.com’s current poll) out of the entire GOP. If he’s such a ‘cool guy’, why would he have so little support?

    Let me break it down for you, via statistics. Ron Paul supports fewer of you than you might think.

    Read More

    I can’t even. LMAO.


    Whoever wrote this is a huge fucking moron.

    Barack Obama is black so that means he automatically alienates 87.4% of americans! 

    12.6% approval rating!

    I used statistics so I look smart!

    Obama never wrote racist newsletters. What kind of comparison are you even making? Your logic eludes me. I didn’t say Ron Paul alienated non-whites because he was white, I said that he alienated many because in the 1990s he produced a newsletter that contained so much racist propaganda that it was ridiculous.

    >Implying he ever wrote racist newsletters

    >implying he might not have written them all, but he sure didn’t publish (i.e. “produced”) them and didn’t know about them

    >implying he hasn’t done and said incredibly iffy things in iffy contexts anyway

     
  9. 17:53

    Notes: 11

    Reblogged from groucho-marxism

    Why I Won’t Ever Vote For Ron Paul (Now Featuring Statistics!)

    propane-and-propaneaccessories:

    -134:

    thought-provoking-url:

    transprivilege:

    I had a long post here. I had a post listing all of the things he’s said and done that I disagree with, citing all the sources I found, but the things he’s said and done can all be found in loads of other places.

    So I decided to take a different approach. It’s easy to brush off that Ron Paul doesn’t support women who want abortions, or homosexuals that want to get married, or non-whites in, well, many cases. But it’s not common that you see a reason why Ron Paul only has 13% support (according to Gallup.com’s current poll) out of the entire GOP. If he’s such a ‘cool guy’, why would he have so little support?

    Let me break it down for you, via statistics. Ron Paul supports fewer of you than you might think.

    Read More

    I can’t even. LMAO.


    Whoever wrote this is a huge fucking moron.

    Barack Obama is black so that means he automatically alienates 87.4% of americans! 

    12.6% approval rating!

    I used statistics so I look smart!

    Obama never wrote racist newsletters. What kind of comparison are you even making? Your logic eludes me. I didn’t say Ron Paul alienated non-whites because he was white, I said that he alienated many because in the 1990s he produced a newsletter that contained so much racist propaganda that it was ridiculous.

     
  10. Why I Won’t Ever Vote For Ron Paul (Now Featuring Statistics!)

    I had a long post here. I had a post listing all of the things he’s said and done that I disagree with, citing all the sources I found, but the things he’s said and done can all be found in loads of other places.

    So I decided to take a different approach. It’s easy to brush off that Ron Paul doesn’t support women who want abortions, or homosexuals that want to get married, or non-whites in, well, many cases. But it’s not common that you see a reason why Ron Paul only has 13% support (according to Gallup.com’s current poll) out of the entire GOP. If he’s such a ‘cool guy’, why would he have so little support?

    Let me break it down for you, via statistics. Ron Paul supports fewer of you than you might think.

    Read More