a charming young woman, capable of being terrible

a charming young woman, capable of being terrible My name is Elizabeth. Welcome to my corner of the internet.

I see people saying “How can this happen? Isn’t this America?”

Reblogged from anarchyandacupofcoffee

king-emare:

celluloidsheep:

image

image

Well, yes. This IS America.

image

image

(US Army attacks homeless veterans protesting in Washington, DC in 1932)

image

image

1960s Birmingham, Alabama

image

image

1970 attack on unarmed student protesters at Kent State University

image

image

Police action at peaceful UC Davis Occupy protest 

Let’s not pretend like the police actions taken this week are anything new. It’s just the most recent manifestation of a problem America has had for a very long time.

^^^^^^^

Reblogged from herstarlight

ICONIC CINEMATIC MASTERPIECE 

(Source: orcses)

today is an i do not want to do this any more type of day

Reblogged from whiskeyandsilk

spellcaster-queen-selene:

Remember that movie in which Jack Black was a teacher and building a rock band and when a little black chubby girl asked to be a singer he only said “sure! let me hear you” and the moment she started using her beautiful voice his lit up like all of his dreams came true, PLUS the same little girl was scared that people would make fun of her because she was fat and he started listing awesome singers with some weight on and included himself and told her that people wouldn’t laugh because she is awesome at what she does and that is all that matters PLUS that it’s ok to enjoy food?

Also, when a little boy asked to be the band’s stylist he just said “sure, go ahead fancy pants” like, there wasn’t a single second of questioning it, he went into “ok, that will be your position then” right away

That fucking movie is an hour and a half of Jack Black teaching kids to love themselves disregarding all of the stereotypes

(Source: selene-the-dragon-princess)

Reblogged from wasarahbi

djjonahjameson:

bored and whatever but it’s okay because we fINALLY SETTLED ON A NAME FOR OUR WIFI NETWORK

welcome to the world, WiDoYouOnlyCallMeWhenYou’reFi

appalachiananarchist:

ratbomber:

YEAH BUT IT IS THE GOVERNMENT’S JOB TO PROTECT CITIZENS AGAINST OTHER, MORE PSYCHOPATHIC CITIZENS WITH CONCEALED WEAPONRY, HENCE GUN CONTROL LAWS AND WHY THIS IS DUMB 


Sorry to butt in here, but I feel the need to respond. It won’t be a great response, as I am quite bad at talking about these things, but I will try. You are fooling yourself if you believe that “the government” is some impersonal force that has superseded the constraints of human failings. “The government” is made up of human beings just like you and me; there is nothing different or special about them. Those individuals who comprise the police are every bit as capable of becoming killers as your common, everyday citizen, and have a damning history of doing precisely that. So who will guard the guardians? Certainly not the citizens; you’ve disarmed them. Do you really trust the police to police themselves? 

 
 It is a dangerous delusion to believe that the individuals comprising the government are somehow incapable of committing murder simply by virtue of being officials. I can think of nothing more unwise than disarming everyone except one group, and especially when that one group is known for its senseless violence that often occurs without justice (example: the situation in Missouri).
Besides, I do not need the government to use its guns to protect me from other people with guns. That’s illogical. In this scenario, the guns aren’t going away; you’re just making it so that only certain individuals are allowed to have them. You are saying Group A (government) is superior to Group B (citizens) and therefore have extra and exclusive rights; namely, the right to bear arms. Why? What makes the people comprising the government immune to the human failings that cause you to deny this right to the citizenry?
Furthermore, as with drugs, abortions, or anything else, making gun ownership illegal will not end gun ownership. People will find ways around the law.
But at the end of the day, all of that is beside the point. Simply owning an inanimate object is not a crime. It is not your job to tell a peaceful person what (s)he can or cannot do so long as no one is hurt. You worry about you. Leave your neighbors alone. No victim, no crime. I know what you’re thinking: but someone gets hurt during a shooting! Well, if someone gets shot, that’s murder. The shooting is the crime, not the ownership of the gun. I hope none of this came across as rude, because that was not my intention. It is just frightening to see this startling level of baseless faith in our authorities. People act as if government figures are gods among men. The government can get away with anything, from spying on innocents to the murder of children, and we let them because we’ve been conditioned to trust them to protect us… from everything but themselves.
Anyway, I hope you have a great day.

Reblogged from appalachiananarchist

appalachiananarchist:

ratbomber:

YEAH BUT IT IS THE GOVERNMENT’S JOB TO PROTECT CITIZENS AGAINST OTHER, MORE PSYCHOPATHIC CITIZENS WITH CONCEALED WEAPONRY, HENCE GUN CONTROL LAWS AND WHY THIS IS DUMB 

Sorry to butt in here, but I feel the need to respond. It won’t be a great response, as I am quite bad at talking about these things, but I will try. You are fooling yourself if you believe that “the government” is some impersonal force that has superseded the constraints of human failings. “The government” is made up of human beings just like you and me; there is nothing different or special about them. Those individuals who comprise the police are every bit as capable of becoming killers as your common, everyday citizen, and have a damning history of doing precisely that. So who will guard the guardians? Certainly not the citizens; you’ve disarmed them. Do you really trust the police to police themselves?


It is a dangerous delusion to believe that the individuals comprising the government are somehow incapable of committing murder simply by virtue of being officials. I can think of nothing more unwise than disarming everyone except one group, and especially when that one group is known for its senseless violence that often occurs without justice (example: the situation in Missouri).

Besides, I do not need the government to use its guns to protect me from other people with guns. That’s illogical. In this scenario, the guns aren’t going away; you’re just making it so that only certain individuals are allowed to have them. You are saying Group A (government) is superior to Group B (citizens) and therefore have extra and exclusive rights; namely, the right to bear arms. Why? What makes the people comprising the government immune to the human failings that cause you to deny this right to the citizenry?

Furthermore, as with drugs, abortions, or anything else, making gun ownership illegal will not end gun ownership. People will find ways around the law.

But at the end of the day, all of that is beside the point. Simply owning an inanimate object is not a crime. It is not your job to tell a peaceful person what (s)he can or cannot do so long as no one is hurt. You worry about you. Leave your neighbors alone. No victim, no crime. I know what you’re thinking: but someone gets hurt during a shooting! Well, if someone gets shot, that’s murder. The shooting is the crime, not the ownership of the gun.

I hope none of this came across as rude, because that was not my intention. It is just frightening to see this startling level of baseless faith in our authorities. People act as if government figures are gods among men. The government can get away with anything, from spying on innocents to the murder of children, and we let them because we’ve been conditioned to trust them to protect us… from everything but themselves.

Anyway, I hope you have a great day.

Reblogged from pugadjacent

mohala-sumiko:

this morning, police raided Greater St. Mark school/church in Ferguson, MO (formerly called St. Sebastian’s Parish).

community members had been using it as a safe space and staging area. police claim that the church is violating housing codes by sheltering protesters, even though the pastor has said it isn’t true.

please please please boost this. help these organizers recover the supplies they lost, and share just how fucking far these cops will sink to make the people of Ferguson suffer.

Reblogged from pugadjacent

the-goddamazon:

fuckyeahbiguys:

"I’m sick of how bisexuality is erased in LGBT spaces. I get really nervous before any LGBT event, especially Pride. I feel incredibly sad and hopeless when gay and lesbian people call me insulting names. If gay and lesbian people don’t understand me – Continue reading Prejudice at Pride at Empathize This

This just punched me in the heart.

Reblogged from youngeffohbee

(Source: jennlferlawrence)

Reblogged from wasarahbi

christinefriar:

I. love. the. Anaconda. video. but the writeups I’ve been seeing keep referring to Drake as a co-star, which I think misses a big part of the point.

The reason this video rules is because Drake is an extra. Drake is a prop. Drake is a bro in the comfy-casual clothes that he rolled up to the set in, who has no lines or purpose other than the be ground upon, and whose face is obscured by shadows most of the time.

This is not a continuation of the Drake/Nicki/Rih media narrative. This is a dank-as-fuck feminist power play. This is, “Drake is whatever to me.” And this is a man who, if he isn’t at the top of his game, is close to it. A huge celebrity. And here is Nicki looking fucking amazing, tormenting him into a boner, then swatting his hand away and walking out of frame.

Your anaconda don’t want none unless she got buns, hun? Maybe she doesn’t want your anaconda. Maybe she’ll do whatever the fuck she wants with her buns, and it doesn’t matter what you think or feel.