I’m angry. I won’t be as cordial as I usually am in my posts.
Mass shootings have become something of a norm in the US. Turn on the news, see a breaking story, and think, “Another one?” That is not fucking normal.
Gun violence is an issue. Hate crimes are an issue. Guns enable hate crimes. They are responsible for the murder of women, POC, LGBT+ folks, among others.
But there are still people who think the “freedom” to keep and bear arms is somehow more important than protecting human lives. That an outdated portion of the Constitution is more important than protecting the innocent.
FUCK ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS WORTH MORE THAN THE LIVES OF MARGINALIZES PEOPLE.
Unfortunately, gun control isn’t the answer, either. It’s not enough when states with strict laws still enable men to buy a gun and shoot up a school, or a church, or a gay nightclub. It’s not enough.
The only solution we have left is disarmament. Confiscate firearms. Similar regulations have worked for the UK, France, Spain, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.
It’s time the US cared more about human lives than its fetishization with firearms.
“You have helped change the culture… I do not know your name — but I will never forget you. The millions who have been touched by your story will never forget you.”—
This is how every election should be. Completely forgo the risk of allowing a two party system to remain The System.
The top-two primary system destroys the concept of “voting against” candidates, and forces the winners to actually debate issues instead of the usual mudslinging that comes with partisan politics. It should be used everywhere.
Bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. From the dictionary. I can feel the irony in my bones, you fucking fascist bigot
Views that kill people are not “opinions”, they are outright violent hatred you extremely dirty toilet bowl ❤
“Free speech” is nothing but a shield used to protect ideas that actively harm the oppressed.
Exactly, that’s the point. Free speech is a shield used to protect ideas. Whether they “harm” the oppressed (ideas don’t harm, actions do), or the oppressor, or nobody. Whether it offends somebody or even insults the queen, free speech is shield that seeks to protect all speech from those that seek to silence others.
Free speech is even a shield to fucked up backwards ideas like yours that deny free speech itself.
What drives actions but ideas? What is the root cause of hate crimes but hatred? Bigotry is an idea, a learned concept. Take away the ability to communicate that idea to people, and the idea dies out.
It seems someone has posted my content to TumblrInAction on Reddit, which is responsible for the amount of attention and the influx of messages that I’ve received.
Your harassment will not silence me. It only proves my points further. You are using your “free speech” to try and force me into submission. It will not work. You will fail.
I will continue my work, and you will never persuade me otherwise.
' “Free speech” is nothing but a shield used to protect ideas that actively harm the oppressed. ' I hope to god your'e joking, or being ironic, or are clinically brain-dead, because that has to be the most backwards, totalitarian, IngSoc-laden mentality you could possibly have. Did you forget that ,without free speech, you wouldn't be allowed to voice your dissent? Come on junior, time to actually -finish- those lines of thought rather than just regurgitating mind-vomit.
Read what I’ve written, and then respond. Don’t assume my position based on your own biases.
post/145153357073 Oppressing free speech won't make people think a different way. It'd just make them express them in more secretive ways. Educating someone as to why their way of thinking isn't entirely right is usually a far better method.
And what about the people who cannot be educated? The ones who can’t unlearn hatred, or cannot be convinced? What are we to do with them?
“Two weeks ago a man in France was arrested for raping his daughter. She’d gone to her school counselor and then the police, but they needed “hard evidence.” So, she videotaped her next assault. Her father was eventually arrested. His attorney explained, “There was a period when he was unemployed and in the middle of a divorce. He insists that these acts did not stretch back further than three or four months. His daughter says longer. But everyone should be very careful in what they say.” Because, really, even despite her seeking help, her testimony, her bravery in setting up a webcam to film her father raping her, you really can’t believe what the girl says, can you?
Everyone “knows” this. Even children.
Three years ago, in fly-on-the-wall fashion of parent drivers everywhere, I listened while a 14-year-old girl in the back seat of my car described how angry she was that her parents had stopped allowing her to walk home alone just because a girl in her neighborhood “claimed she was raped.” When I asked her if there was any reason to think the girl’s story was not true, she said, “Girls lie about rape all the time.” She didn’t know the person, she just assumed she was lying…
No one says, “You can’t trust women,” but distrust them we do. College students surveyed revealed that they think up to 50% of their female peers lie when they accuse someone of rape, despite wide-scale evidence and multi-country studies that show the incident of false rape reports to be in the 2%-8% range, pretty much the same as false claims for other crimes. As late as 2003, people jokingly (wink, wink) referred to Philadelphia’s sex crimes unit as “the lying bitch unit.” If an 11-year-old girl told an adult that her father took out a Craigslist ad to find someone to beat and rape her while he watched, as recently actually occurred, what do you think the response would be? Would she need to provide a videotape after the fact?
It goes way beyond sexual assault as well. That’s just the most likely and obvious demonstration of “women are born to lie” myths. Women’s credibility is questioned in the workplace, in courts, by law enforcement, in doctors’ offices, and in our political system. People don’t trust women to be bosses, or pilots, or employees. Pakistan’s controversial Hudood Ordinance still requires a female rape victim to procure four male witnesses to her rape or risk prosecution for adultery. In August, a survey of managers in the United States revealed that they overwhelmingly distrust women who request flextime. It’s notable, of course, that women are trusted to be mothers—the largest pool of undervalued, unpaid, economically crucial labor.”
Soraya Chemaly, How We Teach Our Kids That Women Are Liars
Remember: Women are three times less likely to lie than men. The stigma has no factual basis, and is rooted in misogyny.
“Feminism is hated because women are hated. Anti-feminism is a direct expression of misogyny; it is the political defense of women hating.”—Andrea Dworkin (September 26, 1946 – April 9, 2005) was an American radical feminist and writer best known for her criticism of pornography, which she argued was linked to violence against women.
(via feministsorgnow)
“Free speech” is nothing but a shield used to protect ideas that actively harm the oppressed.
“We don’t let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas” ~ Joseph Stalin
Ideas can be more dangerous and when you want to silence one the correct response is to silence you. We become robots in the oppressed world that you idiots want.
Wrong. By preventing dangerous ideas from being spread, through the use of censorship, fewer people learn about them, and the ideas ultimately die out.
Bigotry is learned, it is not inherent in anyone. If we are to eliminate it, we have to employ tools such as censorship. Why would anyone disagree, unless they find some redeeming quality in hateful, violent rhetoric?
I agree that censorship will work. Prohibition certainly worked. Crime went down and people most certainly DID NOT smuggle alcohol. We should just censor things we don’t like because then people won’t talk about them. We should protect everyone’s feelings because that’s more important than having a dialogue.
This isn’t about protecting feelings, this is about protecting livelihoods.
Think about it. Why has racial violence against black people decreased since the 1960s? Because racism became stigmatized. The n-word was semi-censored in public (not counting it being reclaimed, of course), and look what an effect it had. We had the dialogue, and we said that racism was intolerable. And our society is quick to say that we abhor sexism, and now homophobia, but we don’t take the extra step to prove it. We still allow the ideas to fester, and then they result in events like Elliot Rodger’s massacre, for example.
If we destroy the speech, we destroy the idea. Then we won’t have to worry about it being censored, because the idea will no longer exist.
“Free speech” is nothing but a shield used to protect ideas that actively harm the oppressed.
“We don’t let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas” ~ Joseph Stalin
Ideas can be more dangerous and when you want to silence one the correct response is to silence you. We become robots in the oppressed world that you idiots want.
Wrong. By preventing dangerous ideas from being spread, through the use of censorship, fewer people learn about them, and the ideas ultimately die out.
Bigotry is learned, it is not inherent in anyone. If we are to eliminate it, we have to employ tools such as censorship. Why would anyone disagree, unless they find some redeeming quality in hateful, violent rhetoric?
I love the phrase “I’m all for equality but isn’t this going a bit too far?” because like. It acknowledges that the issue is a matter of equality and tries to soften the ideological blow of what’s about to be said with the waiver that in most situations equality is totally cool by them, but on this occasion, there is an excess of equality here. Too much equality. This makes people too equal and they cannot in good conscience stand by it. Slow down this equality at once before we get too carried away on people being equal.
“I’m all for everyone being equal but shouldn’t some people be MORE EQUAL than others?”
Honestly, fuck equality. Equality is about sameness, but sameness doesn’t make up for thousands of years of oppression. And it gives rise to these mindsets, these “I’m for equality, which means I’m against affirmative action” sort of statements. The people who say they’re for equality are trying to turn a blind eye to discrimination and injustice, while trying to feel good about how they “don’t see color” or “treat everyone the same.”
Equity needs to be the center of these discussions. Equity means fairness, justice, acknowledging the differences between the privileged and the oppressed, and putting them on level ground by raising them up or lowering them down appropriately. Plus, it’s harder for someone to say “I believe in equity, but I don’t believe in affirmative action,” as it becomes a contradictory statement.
We find out who our true allies are when we shift the conversation from equality to equity.
If you refuse to believe that Johnny Depp is a serial abuser in the wake of Amber Heard’s evidence, you are an abuse apologist. Period.
And throwing around “innocent until proven guilty” as a defense of Depp is the same as saying “Amber Heard is a liar until proven otherwise.” That is textbook victim-blaming.
You either believe the victims, or you approve of their trauma.
YOU DON’T NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU’RE TRANS IN YOUR CHILDHOOD TO BE TRANS
YOU CAN BE 5 AND REALISE IT
YOU CAN BE 16 AND REALIZE IT
YOU CAN BE 27 AND REALIZE IT
HELL, YOU CAN BE 68 AND REALIZE IT
YOU CAN BE ANY AGE AND REALIZE THAT YOU’RE TRANS
This is for the people who don’t think they’re “trans enough” just because they didn’t know they were trans as a child.
“Almost a third of the men (31.7 percent) said that in a consequence-free situation, they’d force a woman to have sexual intercourse, while 13.6 percent said they would rape a woman. Setting aside the fact that it’s terrifying that a full third of a random group of college men will admit to this, the 20-point divide is still weird, even if it does reflect what’s been observed in previous research: At the end of the day, after all, the two groups are saying the exact same thing.
So how did those who endorsed rape differ from those who “only” endorsed forcible intercourse? Edwards and her team found that the men who endorsed rape when the term was used had higher hostility toward women and more callous attitudes about sex. This might matter from a prevention standpoint. The researchers think that “men who endorse using force to obtain intercourse on survey items but deny rape on the same may not experience hostile affect in response to women, but might have dispositions more in line with benevolent sexism.”
In other words, not all potential rapists go around talking about how much they hate women, and this suggests there “is no one-size-fits-all approach to sexual assault prevention.””—
Little-known fact—I am a fan of Magic: The Gathering.
Today’s announcement was amazing from a progressive point of view.
Wizards of the Coast is ending the name “Fat Packs” in favor of “Bundles,” which is an amazing start. Our society tends to throw the word “fat” around without knowing how it affects people dealing with body image issues, or how it seeks to reinforce sizeist marginalization. Removing the descriptor “fat” for a product is an acknowledgement that such a word is neither inviting nor empowering, and has no place in a game that is intended to be safe and welcoming for all people.
Additionally, the set after “Eldritch Moon” will be “Kaladesh,” which is described as a “diverse plane with many ethnicities – including, prominently, many humans who look Indian.” The first planeswalker revealed from this set is not only a person of color, but a woman of color, further adding to Magic’s diversity. Additionally, this is yet another new, female-identified planeswalker. For comparison, the last new, humanoid, male-identified planeswalker was Dack Fayden in 2014′s “Conspiracy” set (not counting Commander 2014). In the two years since, we’ve had three new planeswalkers introduced, who were all female-identified (Narset, Arlinn Kord, and now Saheeli Rai).
In a game that is dominated by straight, white men, increasing the diversity of figures seen in such a way not only extends the hand to a more diverse playerbase to the game, but also tells anyone who objects that they are no longer welcome. The way that Wizards of the Coast has handled Magic in the past years, from inclusion of diverse identities; to taking a zero-tolerance policy towards sex offenders as players; to openly supporting the trans and gender-nonconforming community in events; is nothing short of incredible, and exactly the kind of behavior that is necessary to defeat bigotry and toxicity.
I will be writing a follow-up essay to “Abridging the Freedom of Speech,” specifically to answer the criticism that has erupted against it, recently.
Some comments I will address along the way:
“You want to eliminate all free speech/police thoughts.”
“Eliminating speech does not eliminate ideas. It allows them to fester.”
“Freedom of speech should be for everyone, not just those you agree with.”
“Your ideas are unsafe and undesirable, therefore by your own argument, your speech should be eliminated.”
“Who decides who is oppressed?”
“Is there a contemporary community standard committee that will define acceptable speech, like one might find in DPRK?”
“Who appoints censor for elimination of ideas? What is the penalty for thinking?”
“If speech is restricted, then it is not free.“
This will be different from my other essays, since this will be written specifically as a response, but nevertheless, I hope you read it and learn something.
Honestly if your feminism isn’t intersectional of brown, black and all women of color, disabled women, hairy women, bi and pan women, ace women, butch women, women that don’t have sex, women that have a ton of sex, women that do sex work, bigger women, women that deal with substance and drug abuse, lesbians, women that enjoy sterotypically “masculine hobbies”, women of different religions or sects, or trans women it’s B U L L S H I T. If your feminism involves excluding and belittling/constantly harassing other women your feminism is fucking shit and belongs in the toilet just like you.
“It is offensive to hear John Kasich tell black women what we should do with our bodies, though not at all surprising.
John Kasich blames black women for infant mortality, while as Governor, he cuts programs that help black families in Ohio. Kasich has created a web of policies that create unsafe environments for black families.
The black community recognizes the truth – the problem is you.” - Alencia Johnson, Planned Parenthood Action Fund
At the GLAAD Media Awards this weekend, Transparent creator Jill Soloway announced that Caitlyn Jenner would be joining the show for its third season.
The show’s creator and executive producer Jill Soloway called the news “a dream come true” in an interview Saturday at the GLAAD Media Awards.
Soloway would not reveal any details about Jenner’s character, but said they will begin filming her scenes next week. Jenner will appear in the series’ upcoming third season. […]
“We are all part of the same community. A lot of the trans women who work on our show are also in her show, ‘I am Cait,’” Soloway said. “Lots of crossover. Lots of friends.”
I…don’t know how I feel about this. How do you feel about this?
This will only make sense if Jenner is as transphobic on the show as she is in real life.
Congress can't repeal the 2nd or any other amendment. It takes another amendment to do that. You waste your time writing foolish essays about the Constitution in ignorance of it.
“The Eighteenth Amendment was ratified, and later repealed with the Twenty-first Amendment, showing that we are capable of both recognizing the mistakes that we make in lawmaking, as well as proving that we can repeal constitutional amendments.“
I am very much aware of how the Constitution works. Congress must propose any amendment, which must afterward be ratified by three-fourths of the states in order to be formally adopted. It is not an impossibility, even in the modern era.
i dont get offended at white people jokes even though im white because:
i can recognize white people as a whole have systemically oppressed POC in america, which is where i live
most people when they make white people jokes only mean the shitty white people and i am not a shitty white person
im not a pissbaby
my white friends that have reblogged this give me life
4. Sometimes I am a shitty white person and the jokes remind me to FUCKIN STOP
If ur white and like this post I fux with u
^absolutely
5. It’s hard to be offended when white people jokes involve bland food/tourist dads in socks and sandals/white girls in yoga pants obsessed with pumpkin spice/suburban PTA moms and other harmless and mostly true stereotypes while jokes about POC involve them being called thugs/criminals/slurs/uneducated/illegal immigrants.
i fucks with u heavy if ur white and you reblog this
6. They’re usually really fucking funny and don’t perpetuate stereotypes that will ever affect me economically, politically, or cause me any true harm, let alone create risks that “justify” my murder and/or death
Gamergate cries out against corruption in the gaming industry and insists that they’re facing oppression. But the next moment, they weaponize a serious issue like pedophilia, twist words, and rally to get an innocent woman fired from Nintendo because she doesn’t share their political beliefs.
Gamergate has never been about fighting corruption. From its inception, they cared only about preserving their little boys’ club in video games. They’re as sensitive as the strawmans they make of SJWs; they fight criticism with shaming, death and rape threats. They actively hold back games as art.
And through this recent controversy, Nintendo didn’t even try to support their employee. They cared more about image than integrity. It’s a reminder that even though Nintendo makes great things and touches many lives, they’re still largely an emotionless, money-driven corporation.
So shame on Gamergate, and shame on Nintendo for firing Alison Rapp.
Before I begin, let me start of by saying this: yes, misandry is real.
However, misandry is not evil.
Confused? You shouldn’t be. Misogyny is the enforcement of patriarchy, designed to plant a foot firmly on the face of women worldwide. Misandry is simply a natural reaction to patriarchy.
Compare it to terrorism. We hate terrorists because they drive fear into the hearts of everyday citizens. We do not want them to accomplish their goal of harming us, nor do we want to be bound by the fear of their violent threats. We have a desire to fight against them because we want to protect ourselves from them, as well as prevent their ideology from spreading.
Think of misandry as a sort of anti-terrorism. Except in this case, the patriarchy are the terrorists.
Would you not hate an abusive person? Is it not reasonable to despise those people who actively harm you? Then why is it that hating men is so condemned? If it’s perfectly normal to have contempt for the people that directly benefit from your oppression, why is misandry seen as the opposite equivalent of misogyny?
Misandry is a necessity in a world where women are made to apologize after a man exploits them.
