forth

halfhardtorock:

So the one time someone says ‘fuck skinny bitches’ in popular media, all the sudden everyone wants to criticize fat women for enforcing unfair body standards.

Ooohkay?

Do you see how the sudden inclusion of your outraged voice in this conversation is less about actual unfair body image standards and more about reinforcing and reestablishing your privilege???

Your privilege to not have everyone sneer at the worth of your body? The privilege to be the accepted beauty standard while fat women are dehumanized and demoralized over their bodies? The privilege to be the unfair standard instead of the unfairly disparaged?

No one is saying thin women don’t experience body image issues. No one is saying thin women don’t feel smothered by the pressure of staying thin. 

But when you enter this conversation (a conversation fat women have been having FOREVER) to complain about how unjust and unfair it is for you to hear “fuck skinny bitches,” you are literally saying “I have never had to feel this way in the open to this extent and now that I do, I am uncomfortable. That is not fair. I want to go back to being universally approved-of and not feel the way fat women feel all the time.”

THAT is how skinny women in this conversation are acting: like it is unfair to be forced into this conversation and that they want to go back to letting fat women take the brunt of the disgust and degradation.

Because that’s supposed to be the norm.

storeboughtisfine:

deepinmyb0nes:

In honor of national dog day, here’s a vid of my sister’s dog Buddy struggling to get inside. Hahahaha.

buddy does not know

Caitlin Stasey being the hero we all deserve.

baranchi replied to your post: I was looking into going back to schoo…

OMG. That’s intense. They’re like desperate.

D: Yeah! I mean, I really just wanted to take a class or two because I don’t think I could handle more than that, but this is just waaaaaaay too much for me to deal with now.

Why straight allies don’t belong in safe spaces

shut-up-im-superman:

because then i’m forced to look around these spaces and go “i wonder how many of these people are straight” instead of being able to go “wow. look. people who are like me. i am not alone. amazing.”

phantomdoodler replied to your post: I was looking into going back to schoo…

I’m graduating next year and I’m still getting e-mails from universities I looked into four years ago.

I wouldn’t mind if it was emails, since that’s specifically what I requested. It’s the phone calls that’s bothering me because it kept interrupting Emi’s school work, plus made me really anxious.

But four years after the fact is pretty ridiculous.

I was looking into going back to school and how much that will cost me, but some how this triggered a bazillion online universities calling me non-stop since 8 this morning and I deeply regret even looking into it because I feel hounded.

Achievement unlocked: First day of 4th grade

18mr:

seanmiura:

when people use the word ‘senpai’ and are not a japanese schoolgirl im just like

image

finished that thought for you, Sean

chokolatesoul:

thinksquad:

The US government’s web of surveillance is vast and interconnected. Now we know just how opaque, inefficient and discriminatory it can be.
As we were reminded again just this week, you can be pulled into the National Security Agency’s database quietly and quickly, and the consequences can be long and enduring. Through ICREACH, a Google-style search engine created for the intelligence community, the NSA provides data on private communications to 23 government agencies. More than 1,000 analysts had access to that information.
This kind of data sharing, however, isn’t limited to the latest from Edward Snowden’s NSA files. It was confirmed earlier this month that the FBI shares its master watchlist, the Terrorist Screening Database, with at least 22 foreign governments, countless federal agencies, state and local law enforcement, plus private contractors.
The watchlist tracks “known” and “suspected” terrorists and includes both foreigners and Americans. It’s also based on loose standards and secret evidence, which ensnares innocent people. Indeed, the standards are so low that the US government’s guidelines specifically allow for a single, uncorroborated source of information – including a Facebook or Twitter post – to serve as the basis for placing you on its master watchlist.
Of the 680,000 individuals on that FBI master list, roughly 40% have “no recognized terrorist group affiliation”, according to the Intercept. These individuals don’t even have a connection – as the government loosely defines it – to a designated terrorist group, but they are still branded as suspected terrorists.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/us-government-can-brand-you-terrorist-based-facebook-post

Then I’m probably on this watch list as it seems anyone talking about justice is a terrorist.

chokolatesoul:

thinksquad:

The US government’s web of surveillance is vast and interconnected. Now we know just how opaque, inefficient and discriminatory it can be.

As we were reminded again just this week, you can be pulled into the National Security Agency’s database quietly and quickly, and the consequences can be long and enduring. Through ICREACH, a Google-style search engine created for the intelligence community, the NSA provides data on private communications to 23 government agencies. More than 1,000 analysts had access to that information.

This kind of data sharing, however, isn’t limited to the latest from Edward Snowden’s NSA files. It was confirmed earlier this month that the FBI shares its master watchlist, the Terrorist Screening Database, with at least 22 foreign governments, countless federal agencies, state and local law enforcement, plus private contractors.

The watchlist tracks “known” and “suspected” terrorists and includes both foreigners and Americans. It’s also based on loose standards and secret evidence, which ensnares innocent people. Indeed, the standards are so low that the US government’s guidelines specifically allow for a single, uncorroborated source of information – including a Facebook or Twitter post – to serve as the basis for placing you on its master watchlist.

Of the 680,000 individuals on that FBI master list, roughly 40% have “no recognized terrorist group affiliation”, according to the Intercept. These individuals don’t even have a connection – as the government loosely defines it – to a designated terrorist group, but they are still branded as suspected terrorists.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/us-government-can-brand-you-terrorist-based-facebook-post

Then I’m probably on this watch list as it seems anyone talking about justice is a terrorist.

QS