You're getting pretty edgy lately with police. Sorry that happened to you, but they're humans too - imagine out of the anger you're experiencing, you ruin someone's day. It's a repeating cycle, heh. Kill all cops? Wat I normally love your blog, but come on, get it together! FOR YOUR FOLLOWERS








I’ve never had a single pleasant encounter with a law enforcement officer and I honestly think that most of them are corrupt assholes, so while yes, they are people with families and such, I really don’t care if they are killed or not. I’m not backtracking on this issue. Fuck the police.

wow. I’m sorry but police are putting their lives on the line for you every fucking day and that’s disrespectful. if you wouldn’t care if my dad or my brother died in the line of duty I’ve lost some respect for you. not to mention that most cops I’ve met are veterans.

jesus christ hellnoradfems.

i’m not a fan of the police as an institution (due to their corruption, racism and brutality) but on an individual level not every single officer is a “corrupt asshole”, and saying you don’t care if they die is absolutely disgusting.

you tag things pertaining to the police with “kill all cops”, meaning you actually go above and beyond apathy for a fellow human being and manage to hit the plane of existence where you actively wish for them to die - while scolding others for wanting people to be killed!

yes, the police force as a whole is rife with shitty cops and this is unacceptable. their behaviour toward you is also unacceptable and they should be punished. it’s tragic that the institution’s corruption means they probably never will be. but your disrespect toward the other officers, the people who want nothing more than to protect you - even if they lose their lives doing so - is horrible.

i know you’re angry with the police, but death wishes aren’t going to help anything; they just make you look like a petty, hateful individual whose concerns shouldn’t be taken into account.

The “good” cops are the ones who ticket people for vagrancy, who they know can’t pay the tickets, and will certainly be arrested.
The “good” cops are the ones who lock up people for having harmless marijuana on them, effectively ruining their lives.
"Good" cops target PoC during stop-and-frisk encounters.
These are the people who follow their orders. These are not the ones who are corrupt, just doing what they’re told.
The whole goddamn system is fucked up, and anyone who chooses to be a part of it, is a piece of shit. Racism, classism, and subjugation for societal control.
Fuck them.

The police protect the interests of the state, not the interests of the people.  Rarely do the two coincide.

As individuals they could be decent people (by conventional standards).  But a winning personality doesn’t excuse the abuse of power that comes with the uniform.

I’ve had so many people close to me be either failed or abused by cops that I have a hard time with the whole “they’re not all like that” thing. 

nah man, look at all the good cops doing their job.

Men celebrated our sexual liberation — our willingness to freely give and enjoy blow jobs and group sex, our willingness to experiment with anal penetration — but ultimately many males revolted when we stated that our bodies were territories that they could not occupy at will. Men who were ready for female sexual liberation if it meant free pussy, no strings attached, were rarely ready for feminist female sexual agency. This agency gave us the right to say yes to sex, but it also empowered us to say no.

bell hooks in Communion: The Female Search for Love

The “Sexual Revolution” was for- and created by men. As aforementioned it’s purpose was to delude women into thinking that by becoming readily available fuck-toys for males was “liberating”. A woman’s sexually “liberated” identity depended on how eager she was/is to fuck males and fulfill whatever fantasy the guy(s) might have. But should a woman ever get “uppity” and foolishly assume that sexual liberation is also about being able to say “no” to men’s sexual demands and fucked up, misogynistic sexual fantasies— or just “no” to sex for her own reasons— then she’ll be forced to face the ugly reality that the “Sexual Revolution” and male liberal/leftist support for “female sexual empowerment” had NOTHING to do with women asserting their sexual/bodily autonomy and defying the Heteropatriarchy, but everything to do with acquiescing the male sexual entitlement complex.

[From the-uncensored-she]

(via stelllamozgawa)

Reblogging again for morning crowd. & bc of its eternal relevance to my pet project, consent in the club, male entitlement, and the construction of self policing as boring and shuffling it off as the woman/dancer’s/my responsibility to police/indulge instead

Sex critical feminism ftw

(via clarawebbwillcutoffyourhead)

Yes for sex critical

(via thelipstickfeminist)

I still think this quote is so important because liberal feminism often emphasizes the fact that women can have sex without equally emphasizing on the fact that women do NOT have to have sex. That in fact sex has nothing to do with who you are as a woman and as a human being.

But this message that sex is the means to liberation supports patriarchy in a similar way to how forbidding women to be sexual does. And it’s disappointing how mainstream liberal feminism participates in this mis-truth at the expense of girls and women. 

(via sugahwaatah)

(Source: daniellemertina)




oh my godddddd there is a new swedish reality tv show where they are tracking down internet trolls and confronting them about the death threats they’ve sent to people, since it’s actually illegal.

watching them try to explain how it’s not them is the best entertainment i’ve ever seen.

this episode ended with them fining him 5000 SEK to be paid to the victim!

guess what America should do

guess what every country should do



My dog recently had surgery to remove a tumor in his chest. The surgery has set us back a lot and we could use some help to pay with the expenses. My dog is my best friend and means the world to me. Any donation would be absolutely outstanding and if you can’t spare the money please signal boost this.

Signal boost!

A Handy Guide to What Is and Isn’t Cultural Appropriation



What isn’t cultural appropration:

• Trying/eating/making a culture’s food
• Listening to that culture’s music
• Watching that culture’s movies
• Reading that culture’s books
• Appreciating that culture’s art
• Wearing that culture’s clothing IF in a setting where that culture is prevalent and IF people are okay with it and/or it is necessary to fit in and not stand out weirdly (i.e. If you visit Pakistan, you can wear a shalwar kameez so you don’t stand out as an American tourist. Or if you visit a specific temple or religious setting, you may need to/want to adhere to specific dress forms. Or if you’re invited to a wedding and they allow/invite you to wear their cultural dress to participate in the festivities).
• Using that culture’s dance/physical traditions in specific settings (i.e. taking belly-dancing classes, or going to an Indian wedding and trying to dance with them).

What is cultural appropriation:

• Wearing specific items of clothing that may (and probably do) have deeper meaning as a costume. Like on Halloween.
• Wearing specific items of clothing to be trendy or fashionable.
• Trying to imitate their natural beauty standards and possible makeup/markings (i.e dreadlocks and bindis and mehndi/henna).
• Taking their rituals, old-as-hell traditions, and dances and turning them into cheap, tacky everyday garbage for you to have “fun” with (i.e. smoking sheesha. Y’all turned it into this janky nonsense that looks so trashy and stupid).
• Taking spiritual/religious ideas and traditions and subscribing to them to be trendy or unique
• Trying to act like you’re an expert in their food, music, or art, and that you can do it BETTER than them
• Basically trying to WEAR that culture’s skin, clothing, & beauty traditions as a costume/trend and turn old traditions into cheap garbage

And WHY is this wrong? Because, in our society, white people or non-POC can get away with wearing another culture’s clothes and identities and it will be “cute”, “indie”, “bohemian”, “trendy”, and “exotic.” BUT when a POC who actually belongs to that culture wears their own culture’s clothing, styles of beauty, or does things that are specific to their culture, they’re looked down upon, made fun of, sneered at, told to “Go home, get out of this country, we don’t do that here,” and laughed at. The few times I wore a shalwar kameez in public—and I’m Pakistani—people gave me weird looks, like I had a disease. And yet if a white person (or, heck, even a different POC, because POC don’t have the right to appropriate other cultures either) wears a shalwar kameez, people will call her exotic and cute. Seriously? Do you see a problem? I do. Want some proof? When Selena Gomez and Katy Perry use other cultures as costumes in their music videos and stuff, they were thought to be creative and fun. But when an Indian American woman with brown skin won Miss America, there was a huge racist backlash and people said, “We don’t look like that here, we don’t need a curry muncher here, get out of this country.” So I guess Indian culture is only okay if Selena Gomez is stealing it, right? But not if an actual Indian woman is displaying it? Another example: white people with dreadlocks are seen as “soft grunge” and “hippie”, but black people with dreadlocks are looked down upon and seen as dirty and lazy for having them, even though they know how to take care of their dreadlocks way better. 

Respect the fact that we are different. You don’t need to be culturally BLIND because that is just as ignorant. Trying to ignore cultures means you’re trying to erase peoples’ identities. You can appreciate/like/admire other cultures without trying to steal them, use them, cheapen them, and wear them as costumes. You weren’t born into it, so know your limits. And YES. There will ALWAYS be those people who say, “But my Chinese friends don’t care if ____!” and “I’m Mexican and I don’t care if people ____,” but they do not speak for all people of that culture and just because THEY don’t mind doesn’t mean other people don’t. Plenty of POC get harassed/taunted/degraded/fetishized over their own cultures WHILE people not of that culture are called “free-spirited”, “bohemian”, “quirky” and “trendy” for imitating the SAME culture—so yes, the people who oppose cultural appropriation do it based on actual microaggressions and bigotry they may have faced and it is NOT your job to try and convince then that they don’t have a right to their own culture or that the oppression against them should mean nothing.

Think about this. There are some women okay with sexism. Some POC okay with racist jokes. Some Jewish people don’t care about anti-Semitic jokes. And your friend might be one of these people. But suddenly that makes it okay for you to behave foolishly, immaturely, and ignorantly? 

Wise up. It’s 2014. There is no excuse to be ignorant.

And if you ever need to explain to someone what cultural appropriation is, show them this post (credit me if you post it elsewhere). It’s a good starter and I think it encompasses the basics of what cultural appropriation is and isn’t. 

Here’s a headsup to white people naming their dreadlocks just “locks” 
you’re still shitty.

it sure as fuck is not “just hair”, cut them off. move on.


if you’re a grown ass man and you look at a sixteen year old girl as anything but a child the problem is with you, not with what she’s wearing

I just want you to know that a link you posted about PETA, the Huffington Post article with Nathan Winograd, is a meat industry effort to smear PETA. They are working through a lobbyist named Richard Berman. Please be careful when you post about PETA because most of the criticism against them isn't from vegans and there is no concern for animals at all in most of the PETA bashers.

no matter how hard the industry tries, or has tried (as i am not aware of any current efforts apart from the ccf), peta will always be the best at smearing themselves.

ONE problematic link among those posted doesn’t invalidate the rest of the information supplied. MOST criticism against them is very valid regardless of its individual proponent.

i’ve seen enough discussions about peta among vegans, many of which i used to look up to, to know the majority of them won’t ever drop their support regardless of how much more bullshit peta pulls, and there will be much, much more. they have been proven to be racist, misogynist and complicit in animal ag. they even handed out a “proggy” award to a fucking slaughterhouse designer, are you flipping kidding me?

from buying animal ag stock to applauding monsters like temple grandin there is plenty of evidence proving their complicity in animal as well as human oppression, negating their so called “advocacy”. and let’s not fool ourselves here, there are more than enough arguments to warrant abandoning them as a whole. peta is a giant machine that, while a minority of its operator may be good (if heavily misguided) individuals, doesn’t give a shit about anything else than making money.

it’s gotten to a point where supporting peta “for the animals” is like buying vegetables from a butcher.


some kid bought a whole fuckin deck of mlp cards and when i told him to have a nice day he just said “Oh I will”

you gonna fuck those cards

Why I won’t call myself an atheist



I’m not religious at all, but I won’t title myself an atheist. Most atheists I’ve seen have been racist (Richard Dawkins), transphobic and transmisogynistic (Stephen Fry) or misogynistic (the not so Amazing Atheist) and I refuse to associate with them.

Atheism is not the kind of “association” that you can simply disassociate yourself with at leisure by choice. This is because atheism is not a movement nor a chosen identity, but a description of the lack of belief in a God or Gods, or any sort of supreme, supernatural being.

I find “disassociating with atheism” as confusing as if a white person were to say they are “disassociating with being white” based on the actions of their ancestors.

Just because you (and I) don’t get along with the others doesn’t mean you aren’t the same in some way. I’m an atheist regardless of whether or not I reject sexism, racism, or transmisogyny. 

See it this way: If you believed that all theists were nice people, but didn’t believe in God yourself, could you start calling yourself a theist because you want to associate yourself with their behaviour? So why does it make sense for you, who believes that many atheists are not nice people, to not call yourself an atheist on these grounds?


look if you unironically say ‘money can’t buy happiness’ then either you’ve never faced a real financial struggle or you’ve achieved enlightenment, because goddamn does financial security feel an awful lot like happiness when it’s something you’re not used to

You are subhuman. I hope one of the animals you love so much mauls you.



Pigs being shot so British Army medics can learn to treat battle wounds. Military surgeons are sent to Denmark for the controversial training on live animals – even though the practice is illegal in the UK.

Click [here] to read more.


On average, you have a 1 in 18,989 chance of being murdered

A trans person has a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered

The average life span of a cis person is about 75-90 

The average life expectancy of a trans person is 23-30 years old

75% of people killed in anti LGBT hate crimes are poc

Think about this the next time you go crying over “cisphobia” and “reverse racism”

These days, before we talk about misogyny, women are increasingly being asked to modify our language so we don’t hurt men’s feelings. Don’t say, “Men oppress women” – that’s sexism, as bad as any sexism women ever have to handle, possibly worse. Instead, say, “Some men oppress women.” Whatever you do, don’t generalise. That’s something men do. Not all men – just some men.

This type of semantic squabbling is a very effective way of getting women to shut up. After all, most of us grew up learning that being a good girl was all about putting other people’s feelings ahead of our own. We aren’t supposed to say what we think if there’s a chance it might upset somebody else or, worse, make them angry. So we stifle our speech with apologies, caveats and soothing sounds. We reassure our friends and loved ones that “you’re not one of those men who hate women”.

What we don’t say is: of course not all men hate women. But culture hates women, so men who grow up in a sexist culture have a tendency to do and say sexist things, often without meaning to. We aren’t judging you for who you are but that doesn’t mean we’re not asking you to change your behaviour. What you feel about women in your heart is of less immediate importance than how you treat them on a daily basis.

You can be the gentlest, sweetest man in the world yet still benefit from sexism. That’s how oppression works.

Of course, arguments within the animal rights movement never happen in a political vacuum; they are part of a context that is dominated by the professional activism of large-scale organizations like PETA and HSUS. As an organization that seeks attention above almost all else save money, outside the movement PETA is routinely seen as the organization that speaks for the entire animal rights movement. For reasons both philosophical and practical, this is tragic for animals and for people that care about them, as PETA has shown a remarkable insensitivity to other causes for social justice. Raw political opportunists, PETA will join up with just about any cause-exploitative or not-that gains them atention and thus donations from people who believe that donating money to wealthy organizations counts as “activism.” PETA has helped to perpetuate the fetishization of animal suffering with an incredibly narrow political focus that alienates many concerned with broader struggles. One of the richest critiques of PETA comes from their blatant and frequent conullodification of women for the sole purpose of raising attention for the “cause,” PETA’s sexism is well-documemed, but a most recent example can be found in their “State of the Union Undress,” timed to coincide with George W. Bush’s 2007 State of the Union address. In this online video, a female model strips completely naked while explicit, gory shots of animal suffering are occasionally flashed on the screen. PETA’s use of female nudity is like the use of female nudity to sell any particular commodity. In this case, the commodity is PETA and their attendant drives for donations, which are, in a very real sense, their lifeblood. PETA also apparently has no problem with the raw political opportunism of aligning itself with problematic ideologies and movements in order to gain attention and money. As I mentioned at the start of this chapter, PETA gave an award to a slaughterhouse designer who ostensibly works against the causes that an “animal rights” group should promote. Thus, it should be unsurprising that PETA is also happy to give awards to fundamentalist conservatives who have promoted policies that marginalize, exploit, and denigrate humans. With conservatism and a jingoistic patriotism ascendant in Bush II America, PETA awarded right-of-Bush conservative Pat Buchanan a “Progress Award” for having the “strongest backbone.” According to PETA, Buchanan stood up for animals, and promoted the notion put fort by former George W. Bush speech writer, Matthew Scully, that “compassionate conservatism” should extend to animals. What is most troubling about this is that Buchanan is, by all accounts, someone who has had maybe too much backbone when it comes to arguing for the exploitation of another kind of animal-the one we call “human.” For those of you that are not versed in Buchanan’s illustrious right-wing career, here are a few stunning highlights: Buchanan promoted building a wall at the US-Mexico border to keep out immigrants. He also called for US-born children of illegal immigrants to be stripped of their citizenship birth right. On top of all of this, Buchanan has been an outspoken opponent of equal rights for lesbians and gays, he has tried to minimize the horrors of the Holocaust, and he has frequently spoken against feminism. Buchanan was also opposed to economic sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s, during apartheid, and he is against prohibitions on flying the Confederate flag. Together, Buchanan and Scully promote a disastrous agenda for equality, regardless of what they think about animals. Buchanan stands in noxious opposition to anything that looks even remotely like justice. Scully, by enabling and promoting an administration that has killed hundreds of thousands of people in lraq also shows himself to be potently against any real notion of justice. In promoting these thinkers and politicians, PETA shows that it values media ascendency above the promotion of Social Justice for everyone. By Ignoring the fact that Buchanan endorses measures that are bad for people, PETA shows it is blind to the morality and ethics of ending suffering for everyone-animals and people alike. In short, PETA is interested exclusively in the suffering of non-human animals. All of the critiques about animal liberation-that it is single-focus and ignores social justice issues-are brought into stark relief when a group with PETA’s power and influence promote the values of Pat Buchanan, a man who is, by every imaginable measure, against justice for the oppressed of the world. Inviting people into the movement or embracing political figures who favor or facilitate the exploitation or oppression of humans shows the animal rights movement has a fetish for animal suffering above all else. If we are against animal suffering on moral and ethical grounds, we should be opposed to all suffering, whether human or animal. In trying to bring people from the Christian right into the movement, how can we ignore that this political bloc has made second class citizens of gays and lesbians? If, as a movemem, we claim to care about suffering, shouldn’t we also condemn these policies?

In the end. if activists push for a world which respects the interests of animals, but is orherwise wrapped in exploitative dynamics, they may end up getting what they ask for. It is not impossible to imagine a society that is structured with other kinds of dominance and hierarchies, but which also recognizes the status of animals. One could certainly envision a purely vegan capitalism, jus[ as one could see a purely vegan fascism or autoritarian regime (indeed, some punk bands like Vegan Reich even promoted an authoritarian vision of a vegan society).
Similarly, there is no reason to think that widespread recognition of the interests of animals would be impossible in a radically authoritarian Christian theocracy, just as a classless sociery could still be structured in other forms of dominance, as Bookchin points at in his many critiques of Marxism. If the animal rights movement insists on maintaining a narrow focus and championing only the rights of non-humans, while promoting people, organizations, and movements that do not stand up for humans, they risk validating, promoting, and maintaining an unjust society, which happens to watch out for the interests of animals.

Instead of falling into traps presented by political opportunity and short-term gain, the movement for the recognition of animal rights should become part of a broader-scale movement to challenge all hierarchy, domination, and exploitation, including not only the obvious categories of race, class, gender, and age, but also other forms of domination, including heterosexism and speciesism. As long as the animal rights movement fails to become part of such a movement, it will be doomed ro partial advances, political missteps, and, most likely, utter irrelevance in the long-term.

— Bob Torres - Making a Killing (via scherbensalat)