Just Fucking Stop

Someone: Only a true fan would-

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:00:02 -0400

Someone: Only a true fan would-
Me: Shut the fuck up.
Someone: If you're a true fan-
Me: Shut the fuck up.
Someone: I'm a better fan because-
Me: Shut the fuck up.

davidofarabia: “but ur not really asexual beca-“ “it’s not rape if-“ “but if you’re autistic how...

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 21:01:50 -0400

davidofarabia:

“but ur not really asexual beca-“

“it’s not rape if-“

“but if you’re autistic how c-“

“if you really had depression-“

“what you really need to be doing is-“

“you’re not a boy you just think y-“

Queen of Zan: dear the world

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:40:50 -0400

Queen of Zan: dear the world:

queenofzan:

please please please stop acting like nerds/geeks/whateverthefuckyourpreferredterminologyis are not attractive. Please. Someone’s interest in computers or comics or whatever the hell else people enjoy obsessing over has little to no connection to their attractiveness or dateability.

Please….

anavinoslo: lettherebedoctor: narcissablacks: # you just look...

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:51:42 -0400

anavinoslo:

lettherebedoctor:

narcissablacks:

# you just look like an idiot when you leave the tags there - especially as i am clearly talking to my friends who you do not know

#even if you don’t have a clear tags button just delete them it’s not that hard

OKAY. I’ve been ignoring this (and by ignoring I mean complaining endlessly to my friends and family but not actually mentioning it on Tumblr) for too long now.

I keep seeing all of these requests that people “clear the tags”… sometimes going so far as to call the failure to do so “plagiarism”.

Honestly, I think this tags thing has TOO FAR.

I should explain that this is coming from someone who uses VERBAL hashtags in every day conversation with friends. I mean, we once had an entire conversation that lasted most of the night in which the phrase “hashtag” proceeded EVERY comment.

I enjoy clever tags. They are often quite amusing. They are not, however, the body of your blog. If you are talking to your friends DO SO WHERE IT BELONGS. If you are commenting on a reblog… DO SO WHERE IT BELONGS.

Comments and conversation do not actually belong in the tags box.

What is a tag? A tag is a word or phrase that helps people find other blog entries on a specific topic. A tag helps people find an old entry they remember writing and need to pull up for reference.

What is acceptable tagging humor? Satire, sarcastic tags, things similar enough to an actual functioning tag, but meant more as a joke.

What is not actually helpful as a tag? Anything else. Long paragraphs of text. Clever comments. Things that take you longer than a few seconds to think of.

I do not have a “clear tags” button. I do not have interest in spending my life hitting little x’s on long-ass tags that may or may not have taken real effort to create. I do not appreciate being told I look like an idiot for having a frame of mind more similar to those who designed the tagging system.

The main text box (or Caption box on image posts such as these) are where your clever comments should go. It is a regulated concept that has worked for decades.

Tags are there for a reason and that reason is to be helpful to others, not as an additional text box for you to write less legibly in.

EXAMPLE: You post an animated gif from a movie.

-You should tag it #Name of Movie, #Name of character, #small (less than a sentence) clever comment, #I love this (or similar comment)

^This is correct

-YOU SHOULD NOT tag it #Long rambling paragraph about how much this movie (NEVER NAMING IT, IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN IT OR DON’T KNOW WHAT IT IS IT SUCKS TO BE YOU HA HA LOSER) totally rocks and has changed your life and means everything because of how attractive that main character is #Oh and how ridiculous is it that we saw your brother at the mall the other day, right? #I can’t believe people are stealing my fucking tags again I mean stfu and make your own amirite?

^This is not okay.

Please stop making a big deal over how we, who follow the rules set forth by the creators of the tags system… are wronging you, who make your own rules and cry about it when they are broken.

pansexualpride: projectqueer

Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:20:49 -0500

pansexualpride:

projectqueer

Fucking stop arguing, you can't win.

Sun, 02 Jan 2011 06:02:12 -0500

Fucking stop arguing, you can't win.:

“When are you going to talk about scripture that condemns homosexuality?”

The question came from a young woman who attended a workshop based on my book Bulletproof Faith: A Spiritual Survival Guide for Gay and Lesbian Christians. This particular workshop was held a couple of years ago on a college campus and attracted a cross-section of students who were both supporters and detractors of homosexuality.

This question is usually asked by a pro-gay person who wants to know how to answer challengers who quote scripture. This woman was different — she had come for an argument and intended to challenge me with anti-gay interpretations of scripture.

“We’re not going to talk about those passages specifically,” I told her. “Instead, part of this workshop is on why we should never argue scripture with anyone ever again.”

She was visibly disappointed and left halfway through the workshop. I now realize that I should have given her a more in-depth answer to her question, because there are still plenty of people, both for and against homosexuality, who insist on arguing about what the Bible does and does not say about homosexuality.

There are several reasons that gays and lesbians should never argue scripture. First, it’s pointless and nobody wins. Those who are anti-gay have their authorities and scriptural interpretations and so do pro-gay people. No one wins a “they said, they said” argument because no one will believe the scholars from either side no matter what argument anyone makes.

Secondly, arguing over scripture just hardens the opinions of both sides. Neither side is willing to give an inch. This is not a true dialogue, it’s simply a contest of who can argue the longest, and usually the loudest. No one is convinced, and everyone leaves further entrenched in their own ideas, and usually angry. No education happens, and little, if any, compassion ever happens.

Thirdly, the arguers on either side never share the same starting point on scripture. Those who are anti-gay are more likely to see the Bible as the infallible “Word of God” — which means the words literally dripped from the lips of God through the pens of the scribes and onto the page. Each jot and tittle is God-breathed and never to be contradicted. (Never mind that much of the Bible is full of contradictions and much of it we disregard with impunity these days. Those sorts of inconveniences never actually apply to the argument around homosexuality.)

Those who argue from the pro-gay side are generally those who see the Bible as inspired by God, but not the literal, infallible words of God. This means they are more open to different interpretations and approaches to scripture. Those who see the Bible as “God’s literal word” only know one way to read any passage, and it’s usually to back up their current beliefs about God, homosexuality or any other issue.

The most important reason, however, that gays and lesbians should never, ever argue about scripture is because the Bible has nothing much to say about homosexuality. We have to remember that this is an ancient book. It was written at a time when people believed the world was flat and that the earth was in the middle of a three-tiered world with heaven above and hell below. It was written at a time when people believed that the whole of human reproduction was held in the sperm of a man and a woman was merely an incubator. Speaking of women, this was a time when they were seen as chattel — property to be passed along from father to husband, from husband to brother and so on. It was written at a time when slavery was seen as God-ordained and animal sacrifice was the way to cleanse sins.

In short, we cannot extract modern ideas from an ancient book. The writers of the Bible no more understood homosexuality than they understood that a spherical Earth orbited the sun. At most, we have a commentary on same-sex sexual behavior involving lust and abuse, but nothing — pro or con — about the modern concept of sexual orientation. We don’t take the Bible’s word for it that the earth is flat and women only incubate babies and contribute nothing else to the process. Why on earth would we take it as an authority on sexual orientation?

The Bible remains a holy book because it maps humanity’s journey with God, and not the other way around. Because it maps our journey with God, it maps our evolving understanding of how the Holy works in this world. Humanity has moved from seeing God as a harsh judge and lawmaker to a seeing God as full of grace, mercy and love.

We don’t learn about God by pulling out tiny details of the book and proclaiming them as true for all time. Instead, the Bible puts us in touch with God when we recognize its overarching message, which can be summarized by 1 John 4:7-8: “Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.”

The reason gays and lesbians should never argue over scripture is because, not only does scripture not condemn homosexuality, arguing over it produces nothing but strife, division and hatred. Anything that does not promote love is not of God. Instead of arguing, let us love one another, even those with whom we disagree. This is God’s message to us. Nothing else matters.

Your Fucking Polling Location

Tue, 02 Nov 2010 01:56:17 -0400

Your Fucking Polling Location:

lostgrrrls:

lizlet:

lilithfilm:

mollylehman:

Tell your fucking friends.

Fucking vote. Please. :)

________________________________________________

For fuck’s sake, guys. It’s not that hard.

Are you voting tomorrow, friends?

Voting is not something you should blow off, folks. Midterm elections are just as important as the “big” elections.

Photo

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:58:40 -0400

Video

Sat, 16 Oct 2010 17:17:10 -0400

Photo

Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:00:01 -0400

ableism 101

Mon, 04 Oct 2010 20:43:49 -0400

aboardchelonioidea:

I’m not disabled. Disabled rights do not mean anything to me. I have had a poem, memorized since before I learned I was disabled that I feel is relevant:

First, they came for the gypsies, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a gypsy.

Then, they came for the Bolsheviks, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Bolshevik.

Then, they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics. I didn’t speak up then because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

[Attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller. This is not his preferred version, but it is the one I learned.]

Do not ever assume that something does not apply to you. It very well may one day, and in the case of disability, it is very likely it will.

Dying is better than having a disability. How many people have uttered “I would rather die than” be blind, be in a wheelchair, etc? It assumes that people living with their disabilities are either admirable for “persevering” or too cowardly to take their own lives. Heaven forbid that someone just live their life.

Invisible disabilities do not exist. Yes, they do exist. But, hey, feel free to ignore medical evidence and believe that everyone is lying.

That not being able-bodied is a tragedy which one “suffers” and must desire a cure. Perhaps initially, but one eventually needs to accept reality. At which point, it’s not suffering; it’s a way of being. Cures are just not going to happen with a lot of disabilities; a person accepts this and enjoys their life to its fullest.

Disabilities, particularly invisible ones, are easy to fake. First, no it’s not, particularly not for a lifetime. Second, there isn’t any real benefit. A person with a disability is ridiculed for it. Extra time on exams or quiet environments, accommodations I receive, have both been proven to give no testing improvement to a non-disabled person.

A disabled person is less valuable than an able-bodied one. This comes up a lot in discussions about abortion; one would obviously not want a child with a disability. The implication being that the choice is made solely based on how normal the child will be. I will state that being female has, and in some countries still is, considered a disability. Is that also acceptable?

I do not advocate anti-choice. Yet, I do take offense to people being put into categories as being not of equal value. What if we reverse it? A disabled woman wants to abort a normal fetus. Does this fetus have more rights to her body?

People with X disability also always has Y disability. While there is cormordality between some disabilities, this does not mean that it is always true or even mostly true. A person who is blind is very rarely also deaf. Someone who is deaf is not mute by default. Someone with attention deficit is not necessarily also developmentally challenged. A speech impairment does not prove a language deficiency.

A disabled person is required to disclose his or her disability and prove it. This is equivalent to me asking someone about their last bowel movement; it’s none of my damn business.

A person is defined by their disability. This is a very limited view; it would be equivalent to defining an able-bodied person solely on their English capabilities. It’s narrow and assumes a disabled person only ever thinks about their disability.

Everyone is a little disabled. No. Everyone may be a little inconvenienced, but they are not disabled. Disability is defined by it making normal daily activities more difficult. An able-bodied person may be tired at the end of a 10 hour shift. A disabled person may be tired at the start of it.

My sister/friend/partner/person I know has a X disability! I know how it feels! No, a person can only know what it feels like to be themselves. That said, this is a very depowering statement; it trivializes the experience of the referred person and the person one is currently addressing. It reduces time living with a disability to a series of observations, and don’t think for one moment that it’s all the worst or best parts. Even in the case of “I have X disability, too,” that does not mean the experiences are the same.

Having/overcoming a disability is so strong/enlightened/inspiring. Putting someone on a pedestal is just as objectifying as treating them like garbage. It used to be “he’s done so well, for a colored person” that was said. Doesn’t sound so okay anymore, does it?

http://refract.me/2009/11/17/ablism-101/

Photo

Tue, 21 Sep 2010 02:32:51 -0400

thedailywhat: PSA of the Day: A dapper Lady Gaga passionately...

Fri, 17 Sep 2010 22:08:22 -0400

thedailywhat:

PSA of the Day: A dapper Lady Gaga passionately endorses the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, gets inadvertantly snubbed by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

[@ladygaga.]

UPDATE: Gillibrand responds via Twitter.

queenofzan: fuckyeahpitties: I actually got this t-shirt for...

Sat, 11 Sep 2010 19:34:53 -0400

queenofzan:

fuckyeahpitties:

I actually got this t-shirt for Christmas last year from one of the vets I work for.

People who freak out that pit bulls are extremely dangerous: in my top ten of most obnoxious people.

lizardkitsch: blackenedbutterfly: wow. what a waste of mental...

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:43:45 -0400

lizardkitsch:

blackenedbutterfly:

wow. what a waste of mental capacity

Vile.

Context: ALWAYS IRRELEVANT.

"So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor [Muslims] and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges..."

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:45:00 -0400

“So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor [Muslims] and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.”

- http://www.tnr.com/blog/77475/the-new-york-times-laments-sadly-wary-misunderstanding-muslim-americans-really-it-sadly-w

Because your religion is totally a reason to think you aren’t “worthy” of first amendment rights.

Photo

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:24:46 -0400

"[feminism n (1895) 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes..."

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:26:03 -0400

“

[feminism n (1895) 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests — feminist n or adj — feministic adj]

Above, the dictionary definition of feminism — the entire dictionary definition of feminism. It is quite straightforward and concise. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Yes, you are.

The definition of feminism does not ask for two forms of photo ID. It does not care what you look like. It does not care what color skin you have, or whether that skin is clear, or how much you weigh, or what you do with your hair. You can bite your nails, or you can get them done once a week. You can spend two hours on your makeup, or five minutes, or the time it takes to find a Chapstick without any lint sticking to it. You can rock a cord mini, or khakis, or a sari, and you can layer all three. The definition of feminism does not include a mandatory leg-hair check; wax on, wax off, whatever you want. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Yes, you are.

The definition of feminism does not mention a membership fee or a graduated tax or “…unless you got your phone turned off by mistake.” Rockefellers, the homeless, bad credit, no credit, no problem. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Yes, you are.

The definition of feminism does not require a diploma or other proof of graduation. It is not reserved for those who teach women’s studies classes, or to those who majored in women’s studies, or to those who graduated from college, or to those who graduated from high school, or to those who graduated from Brownie to Girl Scout. It doesn’t care if you went to Princeton or the school of hard knocks. You can have a PhD, or a GED, or a degree in mixology, or a library card, or all of the above, or none of the above. You don’t have to write a twenty-page paper on Valerie Solanas’s use of satire in The S.C.U.M. Manifesto, and if you do write it, you don’t have to get better than a C-plus on it. You can really believe math is hard, or you can teach math. You don’t have to take a test to get in. You don’t have to speak English. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Yes, you are.

The definition of feminism is not an insurance policy; it doesn’t exclude anyone based on age. It doesn’t have a “you must be this tall to ride the ride” sign on it anywhere. It doesn’t specify how you get from place to place, so whether you use or a walker or a stroller or a skateboard or a carpool, if you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Yes, you are.

The definition of feminism does not tell you how to vote or what to think. You can vote Republican or Libertarian or Socialist or “I like that guy’s hair.” You can bag voting entirely. You can believe whatever you like about child-care subsidies, drafting women, fiscal accountability, Anita Hill, environmental law, property taxes, Ann Coulter, interventionist politics, soft money, gay marriage, tort reform, decriminalization of marijuana, gun control, affirmative action, and why that pothole at the end of the street still isn’t fixed. You can exist wherever on the choice continuum you feel comfortable. You can feel ambivalent about Hillary Clinton. You can like the ERA in theory, but dread getting drafted in practice. The definition does not stipulate any of that. The definition does not stipulate anything at all, except itself. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Yes, you are.

The definition of feminism does not judge your lifestyle. You like girls, you like boys, doesn’t matter. You eat meat, you don’t eat meat, you don’t eat meat or dairy, you don’t eat fast food, doesn’t matter. You can get married, and you can change your name or keep the one your parents gave you, doesn’t matter. You can have kids, you can stay home with them or not, you can hate kids, doesn’t matter. You can stay a virgin or you can boink everyone in sight, doesn’t matter. It’s not in the definition. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Yes, you are.

Yes. You are. You are a feminist. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist. Period. It’s more complicated than that — of course it is. And yet…it’s exactly that simple. It has nothing to do with your sexual preference or your sense of humor or your fashion sense or your charitable donations, or what pronouns you use in official correspondence, or whether you think Andrea Dworkin is full of crap, or how often you read Bust or Ms. — or, actually, whether you’ve got a vagina. In the end, it’s not about that. It is about political, economic, and social equality of the sexes, and it is about claiming that definition on its own terms, instead of qualifying it because you don’t want anyone to think that you don’t shave your pits. It is about saying that you are a feminist and just letting the statement sit there, instead of feeling a compulsion to modify it immediately with “but not, you know, that kind of feminist” because you don’t want to come off all Angry Girl. It is about understanding that liking Oprah and Chanel doesn’t make you a “bad” feminist — that only “liking” the wage gap makes you a “bad” feminist, because “bad” does not enter into the definition of feminism. It is about knowing that, if folks can’t grab a dictionary and see for themselves that the entry for “feminism” doesn’t say anything about hating men or chick flicks or any of that crap, it’s their problem.

It is about knowing that a woman is the equal of a man in art, at work, and under the law, whether you say it out loud or not — but for God’s sake start saying it out loud already. You are a feminist.

I am a feminist too. Look it up.

”

- Sarah D. Bunting, Tomato Nation

This was one of the first articles that secured my feminist identity. I was pretty much all “Oh. My. God. You’re right! I am a feminist!”

(via bear-bones)

I love this.

(via -alassinsane-)

(via clitorisaurusrex)

(via lipstick-feminists, lipsbetweenthehips)

Chastising me for where I shop, what I eat, how I look, how I feel about myself, etc.

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 21:05:30 -0400

kissestokashmir:

is not activism.

Activism should NOT be about one group of people trying to graft its values onto others. Activism should be about all people affected by oppression coming together to discuss their experiences, life histories, what they value, what they want in life, and how we’re going to secure these rights for all human beings, not just the ones that think like us.

This is where the Left has failed, this is why we’re not progressing. We’re too busy writing rule books for who gets in and who’s a revolutionary than to look at the situation critically and find solutions. We’re too busy shaming people who don’t have two dollars to rub together for buying a can of food from Wal-Mart. We’re criticizing each other for having to adapt and survive in any way we can, even if its not consistent with THE PLAN. What the Left needs to do is stop thinking it knows everything. It needs to stop clinging to theory as proof of its omnipotence. We need to get out there, start talking, start making REAL plans based on knowledge and information. We need to fucking listen to people. We need to redefine, based on an inclusive model, what revolution looks like.

ugh ugh ugh

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 16:36:14 -0400

lizardkitsch:

sssupercovennn:

i do not argue on facebook.
so i’m going to explode here a little.
a friend from several years ago just posted: “Why guys like stick thin short girls is beyond me. Enjoy having sex with a little boy. What happened to real women? And REAL men enjoying REAL women?”

1) fuck your “real” language. a real woman (or man) is a persona who identifies as such. bodies, as judged by you, do not a “real” gender make. i am so fucking tired of reading this gender qualifying bullshit. you don’t get to say shit about my gender identity, sorry.
2) i bet you haven’t had sex with any of these stick thin short girls, so holler when you do so you can actually tell me if it’s like “having sex with a little boy.” cause i bet its not (unless that is what they’re actually going for). i’m a skinny bitch but i guarantee you my body in no way resembles a little boy.
also, fuck you - maybe people WANT to have sex with people who look like little boys who aren’t. policing fantasy much?
3) saying shit like “real women have curves” would be on par with me saying “real women don’t have rolls.” neither is true, relevant in real life, or a useful sentiment. i understand that you are momentarily pissed because some cute boy picked a skinny girl over you (and also that you’re recently out of a long-term relationship and kinda down on yrself in general) but here’s a funny idea: maybe that guy was fucking attracted to her and not you. i am not attracted to all men or all women across the board simply because they’ve got something between their legs that i’m interested in. human beings are attracted to whatever it is they’re attracted to. maybe you should set yr sights on guys who are actually interested in you and not blame the girls around who they are interested in. policing sexuality and sexual attraction is not a way to do this.
4) seriously, and this applies to EVERYONE WHO HAS SLICK SHIT TO SAY ABOUT ANYONE ELSE: just because you are not personally attracted to a person, a body type, a gender, a type of appearance, etc etc etc DOES NOT mean that it is not attractive to any other human being. how the fuck boring and sexless would this world be if we were all attracted to the same shit? you get NO say over what other people get to find sexually attractive, get the fuck over it. maybe it makes you more comfortable in your own sexuality to believe that your sexuality is the “right” kind, but for real: go fuck yourself.

in closing, i say: fuck yeah fat, skinny, curvy, squishy, muscley, etc forever… people. fat positivity does not have to equal skinny negativity. love your body or change it to love it, but do so happily and healthily and with sanity firmly grounded. and love whatever the hell bodies you want, fuck the haters in every direction.
much love,
one skinny bitch tired of the bullshit.

(this is more than likely an overreaction, but my coffee just kicked in and i might be a wee bit crabby.)

I need this on my blog. It’s been a while since there’s been a general body positivity rant round here.