Category: Uncategorized

thesmolfetus:

willbethinasfck:

just-another-obsession:

sweet-n-dainty:

teaskinny:

alliwantisskinny:

edxolivex:

iwannabeaskinnybich:

x-xdyingtobethinx-x:

amaayzing:

infamousvikas:

emopeacock:

xo-muchlovefor1d-xo:

miranduhhlynn:

here-therein-we-lie:

averyheartlessknight:

sleTep-for-days:

vinnysgotswagg:

ifyoufeelthatway:

tkaaay:

bigtimecrushonsomeone:

30rockasaurus:

fuckyeaaaah-xx:

iwannahavethelifethatyouhave:

jforjoelle:

last time i did this my wish really came true. so im going to wish again

nothing to lose. :))

Let’s hope

Why not? 🙂

*crossing fingers*

pretty much^^^^

i got nothing to lose. (:

Last time i did this my wish came true.

Jesus Christ if my wish comes true I will piss

im fucking crying of joy at the /thought/ of my wish coming true…

it came true last time…so why not

❤

hoping and praying…

Why not.

lets see.

my wish came true……………..this is creepy

Why not lol

Let’s see if it works 🥀➰

I doubt it will work but anyhow

I will always reblog this as long as I have hope

📚 🍵

♥

Here’s hoping…

🐽

Praying for this to work💫

postingtrauma:

Child-on-child abuse is a thing that happens.

Sexual abuse between children happens.
Physical abuse between children happens.
Emotional abuse between children happens.

Just because your abuser was another child doesn’t mean that what you went through is somehow less serious or less traumatic than if an adult did it. Even if you know the child was reenacting their own abuse with you, that doesn’t mean you should feel guilty about being traumatized by it.

When people undermine the impact of bullying and cocsa (child-on-child sexual abuse), don’t listen to them. They clearly have no clue what they’re talking about. The research on the effects of emotional and/or physical bullying and cocsa is on your side. You’re not exaggerating or being overly sensitive. Abuse is abuse.

Opinion | Trump, Populists and the Rise of Right-Wing Globalization

decadent-trans-girl:

President Trump and the far right preach not the end of globalization, but their own strain of it, not its abandonment but an alternative form. They want robust trade and financial flows, but they draw a hard line against certain kinds of migration. The story is not one of open versus closed, but of the right cherry-picking aspects of globalization while rejecting others. Goods and money will remain free, but people won’t.

The current United States trade war is a case in point. Commentators lament that Mr. Trump is tearing up “the rules America itself created more than 80 years ago” and conjure up visions of the 1930s, when nations and empires dreamed of total self-sufficiency. Yet they overlook the fact that the actions of the president and his influential trade representative Robert Lighthizer betray no desire to withdraw from the world market.

Quite the opposite. The express effort is to use unilateral action to bully other countries, China in particular, into better market access for American products. The point of comparison is not the dreams of economic self-sufficiency of the 1930s but Ronald Reagan’s assault on Japanese competition in the 1980s. “The basic philosophy that we have is that we want free trade without barriers,” Mr. Lighthizer explained to Congress in August.In Britain, the Brexit campaign was built on the demand to “take back control” and fear-mongering about refugees and immigrants. Withdrawal from the world economy was never on the program. On the contrary, the Brexiteers championed a pivot from the European economy to the global one unfettered by the regulations of Brussels and the European Court of Justice. Almost all negotiations since the vote to leave have been in pursuit of a vision in which the free flow of goods and money across the channel can be preserved while labor migration can be squelched. A recent report from British and American think tanks close to the Brexiteers proposes a new free trade agreement between the two countries that could act as an embryonic World Trade Organization 2.0 that would target more directly Chinese state subsidies for industries and the lingering state-provided social services like the National Health Service.The pattern of right-wing alter-globalization is repeated in Germany and Austria, where the Alternative for Germany and the Austrian Freedom Party have recently recorded electoral wins. Neither party proposes national self-sufficiency or economic withdrawal. In their programs, the rejection of economic globalization is highly selective. The European Union is condemned, but the language demanding increased trade and competitiveness is entirely mainstream. The Alternative for Germany takes fiscal conservatism to an absurd degree with criminal charges demanded for policymakers who overspend. Both parties call for no inheritance tax and burdensome regulations, even as they make new promises for social spending.EDITORS’ PICKSThe Bright Future and Grim Death of a Privileged Hollywood DaughterA Tragedy in the Tattoo ParlorThe Nazi Downstairs: A Jewish Woman’s Tale of Hiding in Her HomeADVERTISEMENTFree market capitalism is not rejected but anchored more deeply in conservative family structures and in a group identity defined against an Islamic threat from the East. Several of the Alternative for Germany’s leaders are also members in a society named after Friedrich Hayek, often seen as the arch-thinker of free-market globalism.Even the alt-right, usually seen as the epitome of the fortress mentality of separatist survivalism, contains significant strains of alter-globalization. Some of the alt-right’s most prominent figures, from Richard Spencer to Christopher Cantwell (better known as the “crying Nazi” from the 2017 Charlottesville, Va., protest), have expressed their sympathies for the radical form of libertarianism known as anarcho-capitalism.Many people on the alt-right — including the premier anarcho-capitalist thinker, the German economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe — believe that cultural homogeneity is a precondition for socio-economic order. Mr. Hoppe envisions a dissolution of the current world map of states into thousands of tiny units the size of Hong Kong, Andorra and Monaco without representative government and ruled only by private contract.Like Hong Kong and Singapore, these zones would not be isolated but hyper-connected, nodes for the flow of finance and trade ruled not by democracy (which would cease to exist) but market power with disputes settled through private arbitration. No human rights would exist beyond the private rights codified in contract and policed through private security forces. As Mr. Hoppe argues, the alt-right and identitarian vision of “a place for every race” need not conflict with a global division of labor. None of this need disrupt commercial exchange and the international division of labor. As Mr. Hoppe wrote, “not even the most exclusive form of segregationism has anything to do with a rejection of free trade.” The maxim would be: separate but global.The varieties of right-wing alter-globalization differ significantly in degrees of horror. What they share is a rejection not of the “postwar international order” — as many pundits fruitlessly argue — but of the order of the 1990s. In the cross hairs are the products of that decade, above all, the crown jewels of neoliberal globalism: the W.T.O., the European Union and Nafta (which was recently renegotiated and renamed).The right’s alter-globalizers unite in a condemnation of the structures of multilateral governance that emerged from that decade along with their implication that democracy and capitalism were twins joined at the reported “end of history.”Instead, in a forthright embrace of inegalitarianism, they question the ability of every country and every population to practice democratic capitalism and, in many cases, propose a departure from status quo democratic capitalism themselves.The idea that openness is under attack is too vague. The formula of right-wing alter-globalization is: yes to free finance and free trade. No to free migration, democracy, multilateralism and human equality.

Opinion | Trump, Populists and the Rise of Right-Wing Globalization

Hey! I was wondering, what does intersectional feminism mean? I see it a lot and I can’t find a description… thanks in advance!

tiny-personal-university-thing:

Yes!!!

Okay, so when we say intersectional, we are referring to the concept of intersectionalities. Intersectionalities can include gender identity, race, ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, and the likes. The idea is that these identities synergize and work together in interlocking forms of oppression.

So, a white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied woman is privileged because she is white, cis, straight and able-bodied, but still marginalized because she is a woman.

Moreover, a black woman who is also cis, straight and able bodied, now has two forms of systematic oppression to deal with: her race AND her gender.

So when you think of intersectional feminism, think of feminism that addresses and respects all aspects of where we come from. It isn’t enough to stand together in our womanhood, as that does a huge disservice to WOC, or women who aren’t straight. We have to recognize how our differences make the path to equality more/less challenging for each of us.

When we say, “if it isn’t intersectional, we don’t want it,” when referring to feminism, we are addressing the racist past of feminism in the 1st and 2nd waves.

I hope that helps clear things up! Great question. If you want to learn more, I would strongly suggest reading “Colonize This!” -Hernández & Rehman. It’s a book of short stories from WOC addressing how WOC have a hard time finding a place in feminism. Amazing read.

skarchomp:

my philosophy is “nothing an individual can do could possibly be worse for the environment than major corporations dumping tons of pollutants into the atmosphere every day but also don’t just toss shit on the ground you idiot have some manners” 

eliciaforever:

randomslasher:

hustlerose:

fuck every democrat who says the issue of trans rights is a “distraction.” fuck every single liberal who say that the threat of stripping every trans person of legal recognition is a red herring or a losing issue and if we focus on it too long we’ll throw the election. we’re talking about human rights, access to medical care, sex education, discrimination, citizenship, and a whole lot else, for millions of people.

trans people aren’t a “distraction.” we’re human beings. the fact that so many liberals turn their backs on trans people is fucking despicable.

Okay…but this, right here? This is exactly what the Republican party wants. Young voters turning against the Democratic party and either not voting at all, or voting in favor of some third party candidate that has literally zero chance of pulling in enough votes to win. They want division among the ranks. They want to split our vote. 

In political terms, calling something a ‘distraction’ means it’s a distraction tactic, not that the issue itself isn’t important. The Republican party has a very longstanding history of dropping hints of major policy changes right before big elections in the hopes of getting the “hot-headed liberals” all fired up about it so we start bickering among ourselves. They deliberately drop issues that they know are hot-button topics because these are the topics that have the potential to be the most divisive. 

They’re awful but they’re not dumb. They know trans rights is an issue that could potentially split the democratic vote. It’s an issue that’s very heavily weighted toward the younger side of the party, which again, was a deliberate move on their part. If they can convinced you that the “big bad Democrats don’t care about you little trans and nonbinary kids so why bother,” then they’ve effectively won the election in a walk because the democrats went in divided–again.

Look, the democratic party isn’t perfect. Not by a long shot. But it’s literally the only party that has a snowball’s chance in hell at overtaking the republican majority right now. If we as trans and nonbinary individuals ever want our identities respected and protected, it’s the only party that’s going to be able to get us there, because it’s the party going in the direction we need to go. If you want to vote in favor of our rights, then vote Democrat. No number of videos with pennies is going to change the fact that right now, in this political climate, third party candidates are not going to have enough power to effect the changes we want. 

Warning against something being a distraction doesn’t mean “don’t look at it or worry about it,” it means, “hey, I know this is majorly upsetting, and absolutely something needs to be done, but don’t let it divide us.” It’s literally because the issue is so important that democrats are warning against it as a distraction tactic–if we want to prevent that kind of change from happening under republican rule, we have to keep our heads and not let them keep us from voting as a unified party. 

Please don’t let the political rhetoric make you think that the democratic party isn’t going to be fighting for us and our rights. That’s kind of exactly what the Republican party wants you to think. It’s a division tactic. Don’t fall for it.

The Republican party has a very longstanding history of dropping hints of major policy changes right before big elections in the hopes of getting the “hot-headed liberals” all fired up about it so we start bickering among ourselves.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

I’ve been voting since 1998. This is what they do every single election.