Find Solace Here

Just. Be. You.

18 notes

Anonymous asked: are you old enough to drink

princesshorseface:

nebulash:

IM 23   !??!??!?!??!!!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!??!?!?!?

ಥ‿ಥ

lol in Canada she’s been old enough to drink for yearrss

#ashlookslikeayoungin

36,152 notes

gradientlair:

I recently shared a few tweets about the the patriarchal, misogynistic, male privilege, entitled, and utterly repulsive notion (usually proffered by cishet/hetero men) of the “friend zone” that refuses to die. Refuses! I’ve written about this in the past and about how it connects to Nice Guys™ (not *any* men with many personality facets and moods that include niceness, but a very specific type here) in Nice Guys™ and Race, "Divide and Conquer," Passive Aggression and Bad Dating Tactics, Boring and Entitled ≠ Nice and Nice Guys™ and Feminism. There I discussed the specifics about the entitlement and passive aggressive misogyny involved in the myth of this “friend zone” and related issues. Thus, here I’ll mention something else.

I am really disturbed by how misconstrued and degraded the notion of friendship is. Not all romantic relationships involve sex; thus, the absence of sex does not make a relationship automatically a friendship in the traditionally platonic sense, period. Sexual attraction is not the only type of attraction that exists. Friendship does not exist between two people solely because they know each other and one of the people who has sexual desire/intentions doesn’t make that known and expects the other person to be aware of it, initiate something and desire them sexually. Pursuing someone solely for sex or for a sexual romantic relationship entitles the pursuant to absolutely nothing. No one else is required to satiate someone else’s desires unless they want to and both consent. 

Women do not owe men anything solely because those men perceive themselves as “nice.” I am specific now because it is predominately cishet/hetero men suggesting that a “friend zone” exists in regards to not being able to have sex with/date women at their will. The notion that performing niceness (because actually being thoughtful is not a performance in hopes of a reward) for a sexual reward without conveying sexual interest and not making what is desired clear and known is sheerly inadequacy at best, manipulation at worst. This seems to be especially awful for Black women (which I mentioned in my essay Nice Guys™ and Race) since how Black women are devalued interracially and intraracially impacts the male gaze, especially the hetero Black male gaze. So the idea that Black women have no empowerment or entitlement to choose or to reject who we don’t desire (and not all Black women or any women are automatically heterosexual and desire men just because those men are “nice” in their own opinions) directly connects to other dehumanizing stereotypes that are used justify violence against us. 

And sure, I know that some women also ascribe to this myth of the “friend zone” where they perceive friendship as the absence of sex. Of course. Patriarchy doesn’t only impact how men perceive relationships; women and other people who aren’t men are impacted too. But because of how patriarchy assigns the most power to cishet men, the related perception of entitlement to women’s bodies is much higher for them than anyone else. Certainly this is affected by other intersectional factors such as race; strugglingtobeheard pointed out in the differences between “friend zone” rhetoric of White and Black men in regards to structural power.

Several things need to occur beyond obvious deconstruction of patriarchy and awareness of male privilege. One is evaluation of what an actual friendship is and looks like is needed. The rejection of “entitlement without communication” is needed. If these men think that “friendship” is a parking place until they can be sexual, then not only do they devalue friendship, they devalue sexual romantic relationships as well. They, themselves, need to figure out what these relationships look like for them. Because what some men suggest these relationships should be is truly pitiful. Seriously.

(via omarholmon)

58,477 notes

dozing:

laughawayeternity:

your-lies-ruin-lives:

abaldwin360:

You have to love how much misinformation the pro-life movement spreads.

THIS IS THE IMAGE I WAS LOOKING FOR RECENTLY THANK YOU!

this is so disrespectful. To think that people actually believe that the second image is an accurate portrayal of how a baby grows???
What makes me a “pro-lifer” isn’t that I understand the fetal growth process, but the fact that I believe that life begins at the moment of conception- regardless of how big the fetus is
if you can’t respect that or hold a discussion on the subject without being disrespectful or degrading then don’t come talk to me.

pro life opinions are archaic, harmful and anti-woman. God forbid someone satirize the ridiculousness of that belief system. Oppressive opinions are not worthy of respect.

dozing:

laughawayeternity:

your-lies-ruin-lives:

abaldwin360:

You have to love how much misinformation the pro-life movement spreads.

THIS IS THE IMAGE I WAS LOOKING FOR RECENTLY THANK YOU!

this is so disrespectful. To think that people actually believe that the second image is an accurate portrayal of how a baby grows???

What makes me a “pro-lifer” isn’t that I understand the fetal growth process, but the fact that I believe that life begins at the moment of conception- regardless of how big the fetus is

if you can’t respect that or hold a discussion on the subject without being disrespectful or degrading then don’t come talk to me.

pro life opinions are archaic, harmful and anti-woman. God forbid someone satirize the ridiculousness of that belief system. Oppressive opinions are not worthy of respect.

(Source: qunari-huntress)

496 notes

Supernatural | One Gifset Per Episode  1x05 - Bloody Mary
"You never told her the truth. Who you really were. But it’s more than that, isn’t it? Those nightmares you’ve been having? Of Jessica dying? Screaming, burning? You had them for days before she died. Didn’t you? You were so desperate to be normal. To believe they were just dreams. How could you ignore them like that? How could you leave her alone to die? You dreamt it would happen!"

211,439 notes

shorm:

bregma:

kevinrfree:

charlienight:

commanderbishoujo:

bogleech:

prokopetz:

johnlockinthetardiswithdestiel:

truthandglory:

assbanditkirk:

whoa canada
someone needs to turn down that sass level

Two things to know about Canada!
We are smart enough to know hot things should be hot.
We are sorry if you don’t

fun story about the reason they do that (at least in America)
once this lady spilled her McDonald’s coffee on herself and ended up getting like 3rd degree burns and since there was no warning on the cup she was able to claim she didn’t know it would be hot (or at least that hot) and won a lawsuit against McDonald’s for $1 million

That’s what the media smear campaign against her would have you believe, anyway. The truth of the matter is that the McDonald’s in question had previously been cited - on at least two separate occasions - for keeping their coffee so hot that it violated local occupational health and safety regulations. The lady didn’t win her lawsuit because American courts are stupid; she won it because the McDonald’s she bought that coffee from was actively and knowingly breaking the law with respect to the temperature of its coffee at the time of the incident.
(I mean, do you have any idea what a third-degree burn actually is? Third-degree burns involve “full thickness” tissue damage; we’re talking bone-deep, with possible destruction of tissue. Can you even imagine how hot that cup of coffee would have to have been to inflict that kind of damage in the few seconds it was in contact with her skin?)

Yeah I’m tired of people joking about either the “stupid” woman who didn’t know coffee was hot or the “greedy” woman making up bullshit to get money.
She was hideously injured by hideous irresponsibility, it was an absolutely legitimate lawsuit and the warning on the cups basically allows McDonalds to claim no responsibility even if it happens again. Every other company followed suit to cover their asses.
So they can still legally serve you something that could sear off the end of your tongue or permanently demolish the front of your gums and just give you a big fat middle finger in court. “The label SAID it would be HOT, STUPID.”

obligatory reblog for the great debunking of the usual ignorance spouted about this case
obligatory mention that the media smear campaign to twist teh facts on this case and get public opinion against the victim was deliberate and fueled by the right wing tort reform movement
it was seized upon to limit the rights of consumers to hold giant corporations accountable for wrongdoing
watch the documentary Hot Coffee, it lays out all of the facts and examines the response to this case and explains why everything you think you know about this case is bullshit, and explains why tort reform is bullshit in an entertaining and informative manner

The woman injured in Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants was 79 years old at the time of her injuries, and suffered third-degree burns to the pelvic region (including her thighs, buttocks, and groin), which in combination with lesser burns in the surrounding regions caused damage to an area totaling a whopping 22% of her body’s surface. These injuries that required two years of intensive medical care, including multiple skin grafts; during her hospitalization, Stella Liebeck lost around 20% of her starting body weight.
She was uninsured and sued McDonald’s Restaurants for the cost of her past and projected future medical care, an estimated $20,000. The corporation offered a settlement of $800, a number so obviously ridiculous that I’m not even going to dignify it with any further explanation.
The settlement number most often quoted is not the amount that the corporation actually paid; the jury in the first trial suggested a payment equal to a day or two of coffee revenues for McDonald’s, which at the time totaled more than $1 million per diem. The judge reduced the required payout to around $640,000 in both compensatory and punitive damages, and the case was later settled out of court for less than $600,000.
Keep in mind that at the time, McDonald’s already had over 700 cases of complaints about coffee-related burns on file, but continued to sell coffee heated to nearly 200 degrees Fahrenheit (around 90 degrees Celsius) as a means of boosting sales (their selling point was that one could buy the coffee, drive to a second location such as work or home, and still have a piping hot beverage). This in spite of the fact that most restaurants serve coffee between 140 and 160 degrees Fahrenheit (60 to 71 degrees Celsius), and many coffee experts agree that such high temperatures are desirable only during the brewing process itself.
The Liebeck case was absolutely not an example of litigation-happy Americans expecting corporations to cover their asses for their own stupidity, but we seem determined to remember it that way. It’s an issue of liability, and the allowable lengths of capitalism, and even of the way in which our society is incredibly dangerous for and punitive towards the uninsured, but it was not and is not a frivolous suit. Please check your assumptions and do your research before you turn a burn victim’s suffering into a throwaway punchline.

#don’t fricking get me started on Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants the level of misinformation floating around is staggering#I know that it’s an older case but it still makes me really mad that people treat it as this big dumb thing?#the fact that the media took a serious case and turned it into what it is to us today should piss people off#the level of distortion of facts is astonishing and upsetting and nobody seems to hear about it?#sorry I’m done I just#it upsets me when a legal travesty like this is just dragged out for some#’haha americans are sOOOOOOOo dumb!!1!’ humor#I MEAN GODDAMN IF YOU’RE GOING TO MAKE FUN OF AMERICANS AT LEAST MAKE FUN OF US WITH FACTS OKAY

jesus, i actually didn’t know about any of this, thanks for clearing that up


I’m about 99% sure that they give the same caution here. Not sure if this cup was a very limited run or was faked up, or is a small corporation/is only done in some areas or something? But. Pretty sure Canada does the exact same thing.

shorm:

bregma:

kevinrfree:

charlienight:

commanderbishoujo:

bogleech:

prokopetz:

johnlockinthetardiswithdestiel:

truthandglory:

assbanditkirk:

whoa canada

someone needs to turn down that sass level

Two things to know about Canada!

  1. We are smart enough to know hot things should be hot.
  2. We are sorry if you don’t

fun story about the reason they do that (at least in America)

once this lady spilled her McDonald’s coffee on herself and ended up getting like 3rd degree burns and since there was no warning on the cup she was able to claim she didn’t know it would be hot (or at least that hot) and won a lawsuit against McDonald’s for $1 million

That’s what the media smear campaign against her would have you believe, anyway. The truth of the matter is that the McDonald’s in question had previously been cited - on at least two separate occasions - for keeping their coffee so hot that it violated local occupational health and safety regulations. The lady didn’t win her lawsuit because American courts are stupid; she won it because the McDonald’s she bought that coffee from was actively and knowingly breaking the law with respect to the temperature of its coffee at the time of the incident.

(I mean, do you have any idea what a third-degree burn actually is? Third-degree burns involve “full thickness” tissue damage; we’re talking bone-deep, with possible destruction of tissue. Can you even imagine how hot that cup of coffee would have to have been to inflict that kind of damage in the few seconds it was in contact with her skin?)

Yeah I’m tired of people joking about either the “stupid” woman who didn’t know coffee was hot or the “greedy” woman making up bullshit to get money.

She was hideously injured by hideous irresponsibility, it was an absolutely legitimate lawsuit and the warning on the cups basically allows McDonalds to claim no responsibility even if it happens again. Every other company followed suit to cover their asses.

So they can still legally serve you something that could sear off the end of your tongue or permanently demolish the front of your gums and just give you a big fat middle finger in court. “The label SAID it would be HOT, STUPID.”

obligatory reblog for the great debunking of the usual ignorance spouted about this case

obligatory mention that the media smear campaign to twist teh facts on this case and get public opinion against the victim was deliberate and fueled by the right wing tort reform movement

it was seized upon to limit the rights of consumers to hold giant corporations accountable for wrongdoing

watch the documentary Hot Coffee, it lays out all of the facts and examines the response to this case and explains why everything you think you know about this case is bullshit, and explains why tort reform is bullshit in an entertaining and informative manner

The woman injured in Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants was 79 years old at the time of her injuries, and suffered third-degree burns to the pelvic region (including her thighs, buttocks, and groin), which in combination with lesser burns in the surrounding regions caused damage to an area totaling a whopping 22% of her body’s surface. These injuries that required two years of intensive medical care, including multiple skin grafts; during her hospitalization, Stella Liebeck lost around 20% of her starting body weight.

She was uninsured and sued McDonald’s Restaurants for the cost of her past and projected future medical care, an estimated $20,000. The corporation offered a settlement of $800, a number so obviously ridiculous that I’m not even going to dignify it with any further explanation.

The settlement number most often quoted is not the amount that the corporation actually paid; the jury in the first trial suggested a payment equal to a day or two of coffee revenues for McDonald’s, which at the time totaled more than $1 million per diem. The judge reduced the required payout to around $640,000 in both compensatory and punitive damages, and the case was later settled out of court for less than $600,000.

Keep in mind that at the time, McDonald’s already had over 700 cases of complaints about coffee-related burns on file, but continued to sell coffee heated to nearly 200 degrees Fahrenheit (around 90 degrees Celsius) as a means of boosting sales (their selling point was that one could buy the coffee, drive to a second location such as work or home, and still have a piping hot beverage). This in spite of the fact that most restaurants serve coffee between 140 and 160 degrees Fahrenheit (60 to 71 degrees Celsius), and many coffee experts agree that such high temperatures are desirable only during the brewing process itself.

The Liebeck case was absolutely not an example of litigation-happy Americans expecting corporations to cover their asses for their own stupidity, but we seem determined to remember it that way. It’s an issue of liability, and the allowable lengths of capitalism, and even of the way in which our society is incredibly dangerous for and punitive towards the uninsured, but it was not and is not a frivolous suit. Please check your assumptions and do your research before you turn a burn victim’s suffering into a throwaway punchline.

jesus, i actually didn’t know about any of this, thanks for clearing that up

I’m about 99% sure that they give the same caution here. Not sure if this cup was a very limited run or was faked up, or is a small corporation/is only done in some areas or something? But. Pretty sure Canada does the exact same thing.