a charming young woman, capable of being terrible

Aug 21

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

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.

^^^^^^^

(via anarchyandacupofcoffee)

[video]

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

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, via whiskeyandsilk)

Aug 20

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

(via wasarahbi)

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 You are fooling yourself if you believe that “the government” is some impersonal force that has superseded the constraints of human failings.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.

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.

[video]

[video]

(Source: jennlferlawrence, via youngeffohbee)

[video]