Look how content he was, sitting there all proper until you came and ruined his mood
Kermit’s going to fuck your shit up.
Person: I don’t want pets.
Society: Yeah, pets are a big responsibility, not everyone has the time or money for that, and not everyone likes animals.
Person: I don’t want kids.
Society: Whaaaat? How can you not want kids? You’ll surely change your mind when you have your own! Your life is pointless without them! PROCREATE!
I have never seen this comparison and I love it so much!
Also, there's a heavy dose of misogyny going on.
When die-hard Sanders supporters say, “Nothing could convince me to vote for Hilary Clinton….”
They think they’re saying: “I’m such a progressive purist that I cannot bear to compromise my ideals.”
But they’re really saying: “I have so much privilege that, not only can I feel confident that a Trump presidency won’t get me killed (or even seriously inconvenienced), but I can’t even comprehend that people who say otherwise are expressing a genuine, literal fear and not indulging in hyperbole.”
what kind of pokemon is this?
When you use a dog filter on your gecko. (via emilyxsnapp)
Not to make everything about politics, but I'd vote for Alpha WAY before I'd vote for Trump
I love this
Eh, while it’s great that these characters are independent, something about all these princesses of color not finding love at the end of their movies rubs me the wrong way. Just like how Disney patted itself on the back for a black princess but she was Frogger damn near the whole movie.
And it would’ve been a great opportunity to cast moc in romantic roles from that culture :/
^^^ I’m so conflicted because yes, always having a love interest is annoying but poc never get to have a love interest
Having the princesses of color not find love reinforces the idea that we have to strong and independent and aren’t needing of any support
But I do like it because it deviates from the norm
It might be cool if they had dudes in the movie who were interested and they had the princesses be like, “naw, I got shit to do, but maybe later!”
Cause then it would obviously be a choice, instead of a worldstate that WoC don’t get hetero love (I’m not even gonna wish for queer love).
This is actually a good example of the need for intersectional feminism.
- it is very common that white girl characters have love interests and finding love be the plot line and basis for all their stories and interactions.
- It is uncommon for a girl character of color to be seen as a potential love interest, in need of defense by a male character and/or support from a male character full stop.
This is because of the history of social devaluation of woc and infantilization of white women.
- it is subversive for white female characters to not have love interests for once and to focus on strength outside of male attention.
while at the same time
- is it subversive for woc to be love interests and treated with care and reverence and with support in relationships on screen.
The “norms” for two groups of women are different based on the historical interaction both groups have had to suffer under patriarchal and sexist/racist media.
This is why its okay to feel hurt and roll your eyes when you see people screaming about how michonne from the walking dead “dont need no man” because she’s too “strong” to want to be desired and cared for, while at the same time feel hurt and roll your eyes when Black Widow is suddenly too helpless to get herself free from a basic ass cage and needs to be rescued by her randomly inserted love interest.
Shout out to @kaylapocalypse for saying this so much better than I could.
Next level, cat is on top of fitted sheet.
Level after that, cat is beneath fitted sheet.
Final level, you are not sure WHERE the cat is, but there is definitely a cat.
DON'T mistake me, I love Bernie, and I want to live in a world where he could have pulled this off. But the Dems had valid reasons for not embracing him.
“Democratic Party aids life-long Democrat against opportunistic independent” seems like it should be a smaller story than “Russia uses Wikileaks to interfere in a US election”.
Bernie Sanders just stood up and asked that all votes be awarded to Hillary. A truly classy and touching move.
And five thousand throats just called for a second. The ayes have it!
A week ago, we were watching the RNC roll call where the committee contrived to shove extra votes into Trump’s heap by manipulating previously unused rules. State after state was shocked to find that the votes they reported bore no relationship to what was announced from the podium. That process ended in protest and confusion.
What a perfect contrast to tonight where every delegate had a chance to have their vote reported and recorded, and then Bernie topped it off with a wonderful gesture of unity.
Democrats have the first woman nominee ever of a major political party. And the ceremony that brought that result was a celebration of both the diversity of Democratic voters and the unity of Democratic purpose. What a great moment.
I like that she made it possible for trans people to change their gender on their passport (thus making it possible for them to legally change their gender).
I like that she was a vocal critic of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and helped end it.
I like that she believes climate change exists and is a problem caused by humans.
I like that she wants to raise the national minimum wage to at least $12 per hour.
I like that she wants to raise taxes on the very wealthy.
I like that she wants to preserve the Affordable Care Act, which made it possible for me to get health insurance and afford the medicine that makes me well.
I like that she’s been an unabashed supporter of family planning and a woman’s right to choose.
I like that she worked hard to prevent deadbeat dads from avoiding child support through bankruptcy.
I like that she’s got productive, common sense ideas for immigration reform with a clear, full path to citizenship.
I like that she wants to close background check loopholes for buying guns.
I like that she’s been a critic of current campaign finance laws.
I like that she finished her time as a Senator with a 95% rating from the Human Rights Campaign.
I dunno…I feel like I could write this list for a very very long time, which is what makes me excited about Hillary Clinton.
OK, I'm suddenly wishing James Bond were real. And, you know, competent.
In mid-June the company announced that the intruders appeared to include a group it had previously identified by the name “Cozy Bear” or “APT 29” and been inside the committee’s servers for a year. A second group, “Fancy Bear,” also called “APT 28,” came into the system in April. It appears to be operated by the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence service, according to federal investigators and private cybersecurity firms.
3. From the same article: Pro-Putin Russian hackers have been a thorn in the side of American cybersecurity for years now.
The first group is particularly well known to the F.B.I.’s counterintelligence unit, the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies. It was identified by federal investigators as the likely culprit behind years of intrusions into the State Department and White House unclassified computer system.
4. Wikileaks, along with publishing the emails, published unredacted credit card numbers, passport numbers, social security numbers, and home addresses of hundreds of Democratic donors. They called this “not an error.” This is known as doxxing, and it is illegal in US jurisdictions.
Doxing is always illegal, whether it is done against a federal employee, a state employee, or a regular person. There are federal and state laws that specifically address doxing government employees. With regular citizens, doxing falls under various state criminal laws, such as stalking, cyberstalking, harassment, threats, and other such laws, depending on the state. Since these doxing threats and activities are made on the internet, the law of any state may be invoked, though most often an investigator will look to the state in which the person making the threat is located, if this is known, or the state in which the victim is situated. A state prosecutor can only prosecute violations of the laws of his or her own state, and of acts that extend into their state. When acts are on the internet, they extend into all the states.
Misinformation was spread that doxing is legal. I am not sure how or why anyone fell for that misinformation. Surely, people must understand instinctively, even if they were misled about the law, that if they are threatening someone or putting them at risk, or tormenting or harassing the other on the internet, that this must be illegal. Common sense would tell you that bullying or jeopardizing another would be illegal in some way. So yes, doxing is illegal, no matter who the target.
5. Wikileaks has offered support to the racist, sexist agitator and Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulos after his ban from Twitter for inciting hate mobs. This support was not merely a tweet or two extending a hand: it was an offer to build an entire new social network fine-tuned to Yiannopoulos’ needs.
After his bankruptcy and business failures roughly a decade ago Trump has had an increasingly difficult time finding sources of capital for new investments. As I noted above, Trump has been blackballed by all major US banks with the exception of Deutschebank, which is of course a foreign bank with a major US presence. He has steadied and rebuilt his financial empire with a heavy reliance on capital from Russia. At a minimum the Trump organization is receiving lots of investment capital from people close to Vladimir Putin.
10. Trump’s right hand man, Paul Manafort, was for almost a decade an advisor to Viktor Yanukovych, the ousted president of Ukraine who now lives in exile in Russia and is a major Putin ally. Trump’s other top staffers tend towards supporting the Russian government/elite in various ways.
11. There is nothing in the DNC emails that indicates breaking of any laws.
12. Bernie Sanders only declared himself a Democrat this election cycle. The DNC was not obligated to support him, and yet they did - there are emails where staffers complain about bending over backwards for the Sanders campaign. There’s also an email from the Sanders campaign demanding a private jet to be paid for by the DNC after Bernie had reached the point where it was mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination. (They also called Lin-Manuel Miranda a baby for not doing a fundraiser on his off day, which is frankly hilarious.)
12c. Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic nomination by 3,775,437 votes. He lost badly among registerd Democrats, black Democrats, and Latino Democrats. If the DNC is incompetent enough not to secure their servers against hackers, they are sure as shit not capable of stealing nearly four million votes.
13. Hillary Clinton does not have mind-control powers and is not responsible for every single word typed in a private DNC email server.
14. The release of the emails was timed for when Trump would have a large amount of goodwill - the “convention bump,” as noted in several large-scale polls by reputable organizations - and before the Democrats/Hillary would have a chance to respond to the bump at their own convention.
15. Trump has engaged in much worse political ratfucking of his same-party opponents than the DNC did in its emails, in public, and it is widely known that the RNC has been attempting to sabotage him for months.
16. It ain’t like Putin hasn’t done shit like this before. He killed a journalist with plutonium. I could go on about what he does inside his country, but I’m not super familiar with it, and frankly "sitting head of state ordered the assassination of a journalist in exile by means of nuclear material" is fucked up enough.
Conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from these facts:
1. Wikileaks, whatever its intentions in the past, is not a neutral whistleblower and cannot be, given the money their founder draws from the Russian government.
2. The DNC did not engage in any political ratfuckery beyond what is normal for any and especially this cycle, nor did they break any laws.
3. Wikileaks is not a progressive actor, given its support for both Milo Yiannopoulos and Vladimir Putin.
4. The hackers sat on the material for more than a month, and the reveal of the documents was timed to hurt Hillary Clinton and buck up Trump.
Other conclusions that can be drawn:
1. Trump and Putin colluded somehow on this hack job.
2. Putin wants Trump in the White House because Trump has, among other things, publicly stated that he will not defend NATO states bordering Russia if Russia invades, and is willing to sponsor illegal activity to make this happen.
Conclusions the FBI has drawn:
The FBI is publicly saying that they suspect the Russian government did this. Several unnamed US officials suspect this was “a deliberate attempt to influence the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump, according to five individuals familiar with the investigation of the breach.”
(Also, on that note - the DNC is not gonna accuse a foreign state of trying to influence the election via cyberterrorism without some cold hard proof. That’s not an accusation you throw around lightly, especially when you represent one of the two largest parties in America.)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz complaining about an independent tanking her anointed candidate should not make you mourn the death of American democracy. What should be making you furious - and terrified, honestly - is that a foreign state, led by an autocrat with a history of human rights abuses, has used a “pro-transparency” organization to achieve its goal in installing a malleable strongman and has committed cyberterrorism in the process.
Please don’t vote third party this election. Please.
It truly is a testament to the power of positive thinking (and the inability of humans to learn from the misfortune of others) to see people continually believe that Trump will do anything that he says he will do.
Back in January, a trio of young girls known as the "USA Freedom Kids" performed at a Donald Trump rally in Pensacola, Florida. The routine, which involved the girls whirling in flashy American-flag dresses and singing a song that denounced the other presidential candidates as sworn enemies, was roundly mocked on social media, where viewers likened the video to performances honoring North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.
Should we all just start calling Tr--p "Dear Leader" now? This is some North Korea-level brainwashing: https://t.co/lO9tHUmbXe— Joe Adalian (@TVMoJoe) January 14, 2016
Now Jeff Popick, the creator behind the patriotic trio and father of the youngest member in the group, says he plans to sue Trump, alleging his campaign violated several verbal agreements and subsequently stiffed the group of proper monetary compensation.
It started in Pensacola. When Popick first reached out to the Trump campaign about performing, he spoke with various people including former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. His understanding from the campaign was that the Kids would make two appearances in Florida, where Popick lives. The first event didn't come to fruition, and Popick says he asked for $2,500 in payment for the second performance, in Pensacola. The campaign made a counter-offer: How about a table where the group could pre-sell albums?
According to Popick, no table ever showed up—and the incident was the first of a series of broken promises and unreturned phone calls that went on all the way to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. There, Trump's team allegedly offered Popick a consolation prize and promised that the girls could perform because of all the previous disappointments. That performance never materialized either and now he says he's planning to file suit. He wouldn't specify how much he'd sue for, but he explained that it wasn't a "billion-dollar lawsuit" and suggested a performance at a Trump venue similar to the RNC one could also work.
"He might still be the best candidate as president of the United States—or not," Popick told the Post.
Popick's experience fits squarely with the narrative of many others who say they were ripped off by the real estate magnate for a variety of broken contracts. For more, head to our regular feature "The Trump Files."
It’s awful when people say shitty, hateful things at you. But a different kind of awful happens when you try to talk about it and people tell you to stop feeling your feelings. Feelings happen. It’s ok to feel hurt.
PSA: my snake is my baby. It’s okay if you don’t like snakes, but please don’t say mean and hurtful things. I love my snake like I love my furry pets. It’s not very nice to threaten the safety of my babiessss
if a marginalized group tells you that a word or phrase is harmful/toxic towards them and they wish you’d stop using it, it’s not an opportunity for you to flex your fucking debate skills
Just a reminder, Georgia is suing the current administration over the trans bathroom directive. Because women need to be protected from trans women who need to pee, but not from people actually engaged in abusing them.
In a win for folks who believe women's bodies are public property, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a supermarket employee who followed a customer around the store, secretly recording a video of the view up her skirt. Citing a "gap" in Georgia's criminal statutes, Judge Elizabeth Branch and five colleagues ruled earlier this month that "upskirting" is permissible under current law.
"It is regrettable that no law currently exists which criminalizes [the appellant’s] reprehensible conduct," Branch wrote.
Security footage from a Publix store in Houston County, Georgia, shows employee Brandon Lee Gary stooping down behind a woman and aiming his cellphone camera underneath her skirt as she picked an item from the supermarket shelves. Then he did it at least three more times. Upset after catching him on the floor behind her repeatedly, the woman left the store. She later returned to complain to the store's manager, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Gary later admitted to police officers that he was responsible for the video recordings.
Following the June 2013 incident, a local judge convicted Gary of criminal invasion of privacy, deciding that "there's no more blatant invasion of privacy than to do what [Gary] did," according to the appeals court ruling. But in Gary's appeal, the court examined whether his conduct was actually criminal under the state's invasion-of-privacy law. The statute forbids "any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view."
On July 15, the court ruled 6-3 that the space underneath the woman's skirt did not count as a "private place." In a four-page meditation on the meaning of "place," including definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's New World, the majority determined that the relevant location meant the supermarket, and not the space concealed by the woman's clothing. The recordings, according to six judges, were taken in a public place.
In an angry dissent, Judge Amanda Mercier slammed her colleagues' decision, arguing that the legal understanding of "private place" should include places on an individual's body that are "out of public view," and which people can expect to be "safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance."
"We have decades of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence setting forth limitations on law enforcement’s ability to merely pat down an alleged suspect on top of their clothing to protect the sacrosanct bodily privacy of even those who are accused of violating criminal laws," Mercier wrote. "But today, with the stroke of a pen, we are in effect negating the privacy protections from the intrusions of fellow citizens."
When the teacher tells you to read something but he keeps freaking lecturing while you’re trying to read and you borderline on having a meltdown
Allow me to preface it by having an imaginary Q&A:
Q: NOOOOOOOOOOOO TRUMP IS EVEN OR AHEAD OF CLINTON IN THE POLLS
A: That’s not actually a question.
Q: WHYYYYYYY IS TRUMP EVEN OR AHEAD OF CLINTON IN THE POLLS
A: Because he got a bit of a convention bounce, it looks like.
Q: WE’RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIIIIIIIE
A: Still not a question, and also, go ahead and read this from Sam Wang at the Princeton Election Consortium (who, incidentally, has been pretty much spot on for the last few election cycles). It might calm you down.
Q: What are your thoughts about the Russians maybe hacking the DNC?
A: If it’s true, then obviously it’s troubling, especially as the timing makes it appear to be an effort to throw things Trump’s way. The circumstantial evidence is piling up that it was an act by Russian intelligence service but we don’t know for sure (and come on, probably never will know for certain), nor at the moment does it seem like the Trump folks are actively involved, even if they might be a beneficiary. So I’m not gonna blame Trump for this one.
Personally if I were the GOP candidate for president I wouldn’t want to have even the appearance of being Putin’s favorite boy. But Trump doesn’t appear to care, so.
Q: Thoughts on the contents of the DNC email dump?
A: Meh? As Vox notes, there’s not a whole lot of there there, although I understand the Dead-End Berners are het up about it, rather more than Sanders himself is (probably because unlike the DEBs, Sanders himself realizes that this point for the nation, it getting a half a loaf from Clinton is better than it being set on fire by Trump while racists and antisemites dance around the flames in a circle, holding hands). In any event Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is the appointed fall gal, and getting the boot, and apparently no one will really miss her, so, fine. Moving on.
Q: But corruption at the DNC! Favoritism! Dogs and cats living together!
A: Honestly? I kind of don’t give a shit. As I noted on Twitter, the DNC email stuff is venial sin stuff — people who were stupid enough to put things in email that they shouldn’t. Which is not exactly surprising — most people put things in email that they shouldn’t — but also not things that at the moment I care that much about. I’m rather more concerned about the Russians possibly trying to mess with our elections. While you can care about both of those, of course, I know which one of those I care about more. Your mileage may vary.
And of course outside of all of this is the fact that Trump, the worst presidential candidate in modern history, is still a presidential candidate. The DNC email nonsense doesn’t even move the needle in terms of Things That Would Keep Me From Voting For Hillary Clinton If Only To Stop Donald Trump.
Q: What about Wasserman-Schultz being made honorary chairperson of the Clinton campaign?
A: What, a face saving “promotion” with apparently no real power? You do understand how politics works, yes?
Q: Any thoughts on Tim Kaine as VP?
A: Seems okay. I understand some folks distrust his commitment to pro-choiceness, but inasmuch as he’s got endorsements from NARAL and Planned Parenthood it’s not blipping my own concern radar (please note, however, as someone who is not likely to get pregnant anytime soon, my own concern radar is not as finely calibrated as others). The two main knocks on him seem to be he accepted some gifts at one point and that he’s kind of boring. With the former let’s see where that goes, but with the latter, good. I don’t want drama, I want someone who is competent and knows how to do the gig. We have enough drama already.
Q: Will the DNC get messy?
A: Oh, probably, since the DEBs can’t let it go, and everyone loves drama.
Q: Any additional thoughts on the Dead-End Berners?
A: I hope they have fun now, because if they’re still at it after the convention, they’ll basically be admitting they’re happy to dance around the trash fire with the racists and antisemites. It’s nice for them to have the luxury of not caring if they consign others to the flames.
Q: That’s, uh, pretty harsh.
A: Not a question.
Q: Don’t you think that’s pretty harsh?
A: Nope! Or, actually, yes, it is, and? I don’t really have much time for the DEBs anymore, or the privileged stupidity of “Trump and Clinton are the same” or of “she’s just the lesser evil” (or, hilariously, that she’s worse than Trump, if you’re any flavor of liberal or progressive). Get it out of your system in the next couple of days, and then get with the fucking program already, people. It’s important.
Go ahead and chat politics in the comments, folks.
look I have nothing against Brie Larson as a person or an actor but her casting feels like an undeniable result of the cultural fixation with Women Under Thirty
okay so I fired this off on my phone just as a thought but let me elaborate on this a little:
Carol Danvers is a Colonel in the US Air Force.
Even if we accept that Carol was promoted at younger age than most, that kind of promotion doesn’t come lightly. According to military-ranks.org (a website that I have no reason to question):
By law, colonels must have twenty-two years of service and a minimum of three years of service as a lieutenant colonel. Most colonels spend three years as a lieutenant colonel before being promoted.
I think it’s pretty widely established that Carol joined the Air Force as soon as she was 18, which would place her squarely at age 40 after the minimum 22 year service, assuming she got promoted as soon as she was eligible.
What I’m getting at here is that, unless the Marvel Cinematic Universe is stripping Carol of her illustrious military history, there’s no damn reason for her to played by a 26 year old. At all.
… Unless they think a woman in her forties has no business being a superhero, in which case I’d like to direct your attention to Jeremy Renner (cast as Hawkeye at 40), Ben Affleck (Batman at 43), Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man since age 44), and Paul Rudd (debuting as Ant-Man at forty-fucking-six).
Listen to me. Listen. Women over forty are badasses. ¾ of the new Ghostbusters cast are women in their 40′s. Ming-Na Wen is kicking asses and taking names all over Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. at 52. Those old ladies from Mad Max: Fury Road - including Megan Jaffer, who’s 78 - did their own fucking stunts.
There Is No Expiration On Women Being Awesome.
I love Brie but I could name at least five actors in their 40s who could have played the part
Don't make the kids you know believe they have to protect you from the things that hurt them.
Do you know what pains me?
Sirius didn’t know that the Dursleys were abusive.
At the end of Prisoner of Azkaban, he automatically assumes that Harry would rather live with them than with him. In the Goblet of Fire, Harry writes to him about Dudley’s video games and diet habits but never explicitly mentions anything about being abused. Even when he gets to Grimmauld Place in the Order of the Phoenix, he expresses his anger at not receiving information and though we know that he was also emotionally exhausted from spending another summer at an abusive household, he never discloses it. In fact, seeing as how he protected Dudley, Sirius could just as well be under the impression that the two were very close.
And I hate this so much because Sirius Orion Black grew up in an abusive household and if he had known for a single second that his godson was facing the same thing that he had faced, he would have really blown up a street in an attempt to get to Privet Drive and rescue Harry.
And it also breaks my heart because you know that Harry knew this which meant that he was more worried about his godfather’s safety and freedom than he was his own health.
Shared for the obervation (on the clickthrough) about Trevor Noah. I find it really... something... that there are repeated complaints that Noah isn't the same as Stewart, which is true, but most complaints seem to focus on the idea that Noah is "too nice," and he doesn't have the same fire as Stewart. Because, yeah, there's no way a black man becoming ANGRY isn't going to cause a problem on American TV, right?
Ben Adler at Grist writes—The Democratic Party has made a big shift toward climate action in the last four years:
Can you imagine a Democratic nominee for president who boasts about increasing American oil and gas production and tries to take credit for it? It sounds like a picture from a distant past. But in 2012, during his reelection campaign, President Obama was bragging about the fracking boom, and the Democratic Party platform touted his all-of-the-above energy policy.
This election cycle is very different. The Democratic primary candidates competed over who would be the toughest on fossil fuels and climate change. Hillary Clinton has called for banning offshore drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic, phasing out fossil fuel production on public land, and imposing stricter fracking regulations. She did not get there on her own: Both Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders challenged her from the left on climate change with even more ambitious proposals. The Sanders’ camp also pushed the Democratic platform committee with a number of climate-related demands, resulting in a document that calls for carbon pricing and rejecting future infrastructure projects that would increase U.S. carbon emissions.
The party that gathers in Philadelphia for its national convention this week has been transformed on climate change and energy policy since 2012. The shift is not about Obama versus Clinton as individuals. Obama himself has moved toward stronger climate action in his second term. No one would have predicted in 2011 that he would reject Keystone XL and start reforming coal leasing on federal land.
Rather, as cautious, mainstream Democrats, Clinton and Obama are being pulled by the grassroots climate movement, which is more assertive and effective than ever before.
Forget the friendzone, tell him he’s the son you’ve always wanted.