susiethemoderator:

iluvsouthernafrica:

Namibia:

So many tourists do this with little to no interaction with the people they’re posing with.  To them, these Himba women are so odd and strange (I’ve read a substantial number of travel posts/personal blogs that attest to this) that their humanity is not apparent.  Sadly, it is not just White people, but anyone and everyone so Westernized that to them, the Himba are simple artifacts of Namibia not unlike the wild safari. 

There are of course photos that exhibit some interaction (read: the Himba/s in the shot are smiling at least), and I know the Himba are open to meeting other people and interacting with tourists.  But they are not always treated like human beings with expectations of privacy and dignity.

Their rejection of western culture is not why the Himba people receive this treatment.  Let’s be clear about that.  It is because of their lack of proximity to white supremacy.  Being non-European is an oddity that must either be ogled or exterminated, whether you’re in Namibia or the US, whether you’re bare-chested in Windhoek or walking down the street in Ferguson, Missouri.  Not even money and fame can protect you from the standard shame of being Black.

Being Black is treated as a situation one only employs away from “civilization”, even in Africa.  Our existence is not accepted in the current world as is as this video shows.  A Himba man must fold and stash his culture (read: soul) away in order to shine outside and he is lauded as “exceptional”. 

This photo set makes me hate white people more than I already do.

(via genderqueerbarnes)

skelegrease:

A saltire was burned today. I’m still disgusted. People have been stabbed and beaten today. Nazi salutes were thrown infront of a war memorial today. Young people have had abuse hurled at them left and right. Do not ignore this. Do not ignore what’s happening in Glasgow tonight.

(via agustd)

peperomint:

im mad i went so long thinking pink couldnt b my favorite color bc i ‘didnt wanna be like other girls’ bc society told me that liking pink made me ditsy and feminine and that that was bad……….. i love pink………… fck The Man….. paint the statue of liberty pink

(via striderswag)

alljustletters:

autisticfandomthings:

Look, I don’t really understand otherkin either, but people need to stop harassing these guys. I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen a community so flooded with trolls trying to mock them, hurt them, and make them look bad. They aren’t hurting anyone, they aren’t claiming to be oppressed, (that’s trolls) just let them do their thing ok?

(via genderqueerbarnes)

chutzpadik:

if ur disability activism doesn’t include addicts and people who don’t take their meds and people who will never be able to be Productive Members of Society????

it’s useless tbh

(via davebowie)

I wanted to … make [Rorschach] as like, ‘this is what Batman would be in the real world’. But I have forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans, ‘smelling’, ‘not having a girlfriend’, these are actually kind of heroic! So Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I made him to be a bad example. But I have people come up to me in the street and saying: ‘I AM Rorschach. That is MY story’. And I’d be thinking: ‘Yeah, great. Could you just, like, keep away from me, never come anywhere near me again as long as I live?’

bregma:

kevinrfree:

charlienight:

commanderbishoujo:

bogleech:

prokopetz:

johnlockinthetardiswithdestiel:

truthandglory:

assbanditkirk:

whoa canada

someone needs to turn down that sass level

Two things to know about Canada!

  1. We are smart enough to know hot things should be hot.
  2. We are sorry if you don’t

fun story about the reason they do that (at least in America)

once this lady spilled her McDonald’s coffee on herself and ended up getting like 3rd degree burns and since there was no warning on the cup she was able to claim she didn’t know it would be hot (or at least that hot) and won a lawsuit against McDonald’s for $1 million

That’s what the media smear campaign against her would have you believe, anyway. The truth of the matter is that the McDonald’s in question had previously been cited - on at least two separate occasions - for keeping their coffee so hot that it violated local occupational health and safety regulations. The lady didn’t win her lawsuit because American courts are stupid; she won it because the McDonald’s she bought that coffee from was actively and knowingly breaking the law with respect to the temperature of its coffee at the time of the incident.

(I mean, do you have any idea what a third-degree burn actually is? Third-degree burns involve “full thickness” tissue damage; we’re talking bone-deep, with possible destruction of tissue. Can you even imagine how hot that cup of coffee would have to have been to inflict that kind of damage in the few seconds it was in contact with her skin?)

Yeah I’m tired of people joking about either the “stupid” woman who didn’t know coffee was hot or the “greedy” woman making up bullshit to get money.

She was hideously injured by hideous irresponsibility, it was an absolutely legitimate lawsuit and the warning on the cups basically allows McDonalds to claim no responsibility even if it happens again. Every other company followed suit to cover their asses.

So they can still legally serve you something that could sear off the end of your tongue or permanently demolish the front of your gums and just give you a big fat middle finger in court. “The label SAID it would be HOT, STUPID.”

obligatory reblog for the great debunking of the usual ignorance spouted about this case

obligatory mention that the media smear campaign to twist teh facts on this case and get public opinion against the victim was deliberate and fueled by the right wing tort reform movement

it was seized upon to limit the rights of consumers to hold giant corporations accountable for wrongdoing

watch the documentary Hot Coffee, it lays out all of the facts and examines the response to this case and explains why everything you think you know about this case is bullshit, and explains why tort reform is bullshit in an entertaining and informative manner

The woman injured in Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants was 79 years old at the time of her injuries, and suffered third-degree burns to the pelvic region (including her thighs, buttocks, and groin), which in combination with lesser burns in the surrounding regions caused damage to an area totaling a whopping 22% of her body’s surface. These injuries that required two years of intensive medical care, including multiple skin grafts; during her hospitalization, Stella Liebeck lost around 20% of her starting body weight.

She was uninsured and sued McDonald’s Restaurants for the cost of her past and projected future medical care, an estimated $20,000. The corporation offered a settlement of $800, a number so obviously ridiculous that I’m not even going to dignify it with any further explanation.

The settlement number most often quoted is not the amount that the corporation actually paid; the jury in the first trial suggested a payment equal to a day or two of coffee revenues for McDonald’s, which at the time totaled more than $1 million per diem. The judge reduced the required payout to around $640,000 in both compensatory and punitive damages, and the case was later settled out of court for less than $600,000.

Keep in mind that at the time, McDonald’s already had over 700 cases of complaints about coffee-related burns on file, but continued to sell coffee heated to nearly 200 degrees Fahrenheit (around 90 degrees Celsius) as a means of boosting sales (their selling point was that one could buy the coffee, drive to a second location such as work or home, and still have a piping hot beverage). This in spite of the fact that most restaurants serve coffee between 140 and 160 degrees Fahrenheit (60 to 71 degrees Celsius), and many coffee experts agree that such high temperatures are desirable only during the brewing process itself.

The Liebeck case was absolutely not an example of litigation-happy Americans expecting corporations to cover their asses for their own stupidity, but we seem determined to remember it that way. It’s an issue of liability, and the allowable lengths of capitalism, and even of the way in which our society is incredibly dangerous for and punitive towards the uninsured, but it was not and is not a frivolous suit. Please check your assumptions and do your research before you turn a burn victim’s suffering into a throwaway punchline.

jesus, i actually didn’t know about any of this, thanks for clearing that up

(via genderqueerbarnes)

seekingwillow:

priceofliberty:

salon:

Is this a human rights violation?

They’re being forced to risk their lives, so yeah I would say this is a violation of their right to life.

___

Everytime I look around, the US Govt, or some part there-of on  State or National level; is finding a way to reintroduce slavery.

They don’t need to reintroduce it, it’s never fully went away, 13th amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

(via oak23)

Anonymous: As a lesbian, I do not care at all about bisexual girls feeling left out or judged in the LGBTQ community. I know that's horrible, especially since my girlfriend is bi, but I find it very revolting when I think about making love with someone that loves taking dick. I fell for my girlfriend without knowing she likes guys and girls. I don't purposefully date bisexual girls and I don't think it's wrong to say that.

themerrymisnomer:

1-800-hair-nest:

amazingatheist:

sc0uttt:

fatpinkmyrishswamp:

sc0uttt:

the-unfeminine-aesthetic:

.

I really hope your girlfriend realizes she’s dating a pathetic waste of a human being and finds someone infinitely better. 

A lot of lesbians are turned off by the idea of their gf having sex with men. Why is that such a bad thing? Why is it so wrong to only like women who like other women? I think the anon who asked this should be honest with her gf and break up with her though if it’s that much of a turn off. 

At first I wasn’t going to reply to comments like these but now that I’ve had a couple of beers the idea of repeatedly hitting my head against a brick wall seems more enjoyable so here we go.

I have a problem with lesbians who claim that they have a “preference” towards dating other lesbians over bisexuals. I understand having a preference, I personally have a preference for girls who are my height or taller than me.  However, does this preference make me view my own voice, safety, and representation in my community as superior and of more importance than those I do not have a preference for? Nope. That’s why this anon (and unfortunately other like minded individuals)  don’t have a “preference” they are biphobic and overall prejudicial assholes.

If you’re not comfortable dating bisexual people because you feel they will ultimately leave you for the opposite sex or (insert other stereotypical view of bisexuals) you don’t have a preference, you are biphobic, and have some huge insecurities that you should probably deal with before you enter a relationship.

If you’re a lesbian and do not feel comfortable dating a woman who is also attracted to individuals with dicks because you find it “icky” or “gross”, it must blow your mind when you find out your partner likes watermelon and you don’t. How do you even move forward from there? Is the relationship just doomed? And yes it is the same thing. Those individuals are judging someone based on something they cannot control.

Prejudice and phobia inside the queer community is something I will never understand and is absolutely infuriating. 

Prejudice and phobia in any community makes no sense.

This is really upsetting and I’ll tell you why.

A lot of this is about respect. If you have a partner whose sexuality you can’t respect or, at bare minimum, even accept, you should not be with that person. I understand that some people don’t like penetration or aren’t attracted to people with penises, but if you truly respected your partner, you would be comfortable with them regardless of their sexual history and orientation. Their preferences have nothing to do with you (outside of the fact that you’re both attracted to women), and what matters is that they care about and are with you now.

Anonymous, you need to sit down and do some soul searching. You need to consider what about simply knowing this about your partner feels so wrong to you, and why. Think about it practically: Are you concerned your partner will leave you for someone else? Does knowing this make you feel your partner is somehow dirty or tainted? Do you think it means your partner will never fully commit to you? Why is your partner’s orientation and sexual history so important and upsetting to you? Consider the assumptions you’re making about bisexuality and those who are bisexual.

You also need to have a talk with your partner. You need to tell them how you feel and why you think you feel that way. Then you and your partner need to decide if you can continue your relationship. You should not be with someone you can’t accept, and your partner should not have to be with someone who really feels that way (nor should they be kept in the dark about this!).

This is biphobia at its most basic. I understand you have your own preferences, but you have no right to negatively judge someone for theirs, especially someone you’ve entered a relationship with.

This thought process also raises a bunch of other questions: What about trans or non-binary people? People with penises who are not straight or cisgendered? Would you feel the same if your partner had been with a transgender woman who had a penis? (Because that’d also be transphobic.) And what about sex play using toys or fingers? Obviously lots of people don’t enjoy penetration, but would it be better or different if your partner had only been penetrated by toys? Why?

Anonymous, you need to come clean to your partner and seriously rethink your feelings towards bisexuality.

commentary is spot on.