Like am I the only person on earth who doesn’t think it’s ok to make fun of the way people - especially women - look? Like, why are gay men obsessed with calling Sarah Jessica Parker a horse?
I’ve been hardcore cleaning the house today and somehow I ended up throwing away my DENTURES. I went into panic mode and after sifting through the contents of the vacuum and trash bags and scouring my room almost in tears for about an hour, my mom finally found it in one of the trash bags. Oh my god major crisis averted.
I think India Ferrah is an asshole and Carmen Carerra is perfect.
WHEN YOU’RE JUST SCREWING AROUND AND PRACTICING WITH MAKEUP TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR THE PRACTICALITY/FABULOSITY OF A POTENTIAL NEW LQQK SO IT’S SUPER SLOPPY AND NOT UP TO YOUR OWN STANDARDS AND SOMEONE SAYS “OH I LOVE THAT!”
WHEN YOU WORK REALLY HARD ON YOUR MAKEUP AND YOU’RE FEELING FIERCE AND FLAWLESS AND YOU FEEL LIKE YOU’RE MADE OF STEEL AND SOMEONE SAYS “HMM THAT’S NOT MY FAVORITE LOOK ON YOU…”
IN SHORT, EVERYONE IS FUCKING STUPID. DON’T EVER LOOK AT ME. AVERT YOUR GAZE. CUT OUT YOUR OWN TONGUE. HOW DARE YOU SPEAK TO ME OR POINT YOUR EYES IN MY GENERAL DIRECTION. THERE IS NO DANA, ONLY ZUUL.
katnissisoliveskinneddealwithit:
“I loved The Hunger Games when I devoured the trilogy in a week (the first book, in a day). As a woman of color (brown, not olive skinned) who grew up in a third world country, the idea of being a revolutionary hero in the world of YA seemed to speak to my childish self. When I found out it was going to be made into a movie, I was so excited to see who would be cast to play my black-haired, olive-skinned heroine. This week, Jezebel reported that Jennifer Lawrence may be cast in the lead: she is most decidedly not the black-haired, olive-skinned woman of color I imagined kicking butt as the Girl on Fire. Jezebel bases its argument that casting should include non-Caucasians on explicit descriptions of characters in the book, and not on the omissions or the overall metaphor that I found to be the most compelling argument for why Katniss is not white. In short, the entire metaphor that runs through the book about oppression, hunger, and excess is meaningless if none of the main characters are people of color.”
(click to read the rest)
It’s not “pro life” it’s “anti people with uteruses.”
It’s not “catholic child abuse” it’s “the systematic rape and torture of children at the hands of supposed men of god.”
It’s not “insensitive” or “misguided” or an “unfortunate choice of words” or “racially charged” it’s “RACIST.”
Proposed definifion:
euphemasia : deliberately using euphemisms to kill moral outrage
Co-signed.
Is it to soften the impact of the story because those “journalists” don’t want to offend the “delicate sensibilities” of their readers? If that’s the case, it not only points to a massive amount of cynicism on the part of the writer, but it’s also fucking irresponsible to want to soften the blow of a story like the murder of Trayvon. Why should people who read the news be babied when it comes to horrific and racist stories like this one? If something terrible and racist has happened, why don’t journalists report it as terrible and racist? White people who read the news should not be made to feel more comfortable when reading about the racist murder of another innocent black teenager. How dare anyone report this story in a way that “tries not to hurt anyone’s feelings with language that some readers may deem too gory or descriptive.” No. When something terrible and racist happens, you’re not a fucking journalist if you aren’t reporting every gruesome detail. Reality is reality, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not. There is an ocean of difference between headlines which start with “The murder of Trayvon Martin…” and “The death of Trayvon Martin…” One tells the truth of what happened, while the other pads the story with comforting (for white people) lies from the very beginning. If you call yourself a journalist and you rely on euphemisms to report stories, you’re a liar. Tell the truth, unwhitewashed and unsoftened. If your story about the murder of an innocent black teen at the hands of a paranoid, violent person with white passing privilege who followed Trayvon despite the police’s requests that he not, and it’s only making people shake their heads as if to say “darn, what a shame!” instead of making them want to fucking puke their insides out, then you aren’t a journalist. You’re a liar. You spread lies. Fuck you.
It’s not “pro life” it’s “anti people with uteruses.”
It’s not “catholic child abuse” it’s “the systematic rape and torture of children at the hands of supposed men of god.”
It’s not “insensitive” or “misguided” or an “unfortunate choice of words” or “racially charged” it’s “RACIST.”
If Christianity is true, why does the bible contain only a set of stories (or “metaphors” if you’re that kind of “Christian”) that happened in the distant past? If god exists today as much as he supposedly did 2000 years ago, why is the bible not constantly being added to, in order to contain contemporary examples of god’s will and words an actions? Why does the god of Christianity expect people in the present to live their lives based solely on a set of ancient documents that contain not only things that are considered morally reprehensible by contemporary standards, but in the present seem either completely irrelevant to the way we live our daily lives or just plain bizarre or both? Did god stop performing miracles thousands of years ago? Many people don’t believe so. So why aren’t these new events being constantly attached to the end of the bible, in order to continually record the works and wishes of this supposed god? The bible was written by many people (men) and translated many, many times, had parts added to it and parts excluded from it. Why can’t contemporary “people (most likely men) of god” continue adding to these documents? Is contemporary “evidence” (as a Christian would call it) of the Christian god considered less worthy or holy or important than these ancient stories? Why or why not? If they are, why can they not be included in the bible? Many Christians believe the bible is “unalterable” (which is just weird because it was assembled and translated by humans over a very long period of time so it has certainly been altered before) so I could understand their objections to the questions I’m asking here. I think these people are fools, but at least they are honest and consistent fools. But why don’t more liberal Christians find it necessary to update the bible in a way that fits more neatly with contemporary standards of morality? Catholicism now generally considers evolution to be a fact, and even compatible with the teachings of the bible, and even consider evolution to be “the work of god.”. So why not update the book in order to include something that explicitly states this belief? How does this relatively new Catholic belief square with the account of Genesis? Why does the bible have to vague and metaphorical? Why can’t it be explicit and leave no room for interpretation? Contemporary morality differs vastly from ancient morality (a good thing that has happened not BECAUSE of any good that is supposedly inherent in religion and its ancient holy texts, but because of religion’s attempts to bend its backward beliefs to accommodate a contemporary audience.) If a modern Christian rejects the parts of the bible that condone slavery and genocide, why can they not consider excising those parts from their holy book if even they recognize it as morally reprehensible and irrelevant? What possible “metaphor” can a contemporary Christian take away from the lines in the bible which tell a slave master how he can treat his slaves and how hard he is allowed to beat them? At best, these part of the bible are bloody and violent historical documents that may show us how society operated at that time. But now that this is NOT how most of “modern” society acts, what possible value can they have as the “word of god?” Why can’t a prominent Christian from the present claim to have a revelation from their god that says “these parts of the bible are evil and have nothing to do with how we should act today! I have a new revelation! Do not rape! Do not stone people to death! Do not beat your children! Parents must earn the respect of their children! Genocide and slavey are UNQUESTIONABLY EVIL! Depsite what much of our holy book says, RACISM IS NOT OK! WOMEN ARE NOT PROPERTY!” This person would, at best, be ignored and, at worst, be committed. So why is it ok to listen to these written words of men who lived thousands of years ago? Couldn’t it be entirely possible that they were just as delusional in their hearing of voices as we say people are today? If you are a modern christian who believes that being anything other than straight, cis and monogamous is a sin, then why not have one of your prominent leaders write a passage to be included in the bible that explicitly states this, instead of desperately clinging to a vague 2000 year old idea about sex and sexuality that mainly has to do with trying to encourage human reproduction during a time when something like that was kind of important (unlike today, where we now live on planet with a population that exceeds 7 billion people.) If you truly believe that they speak with your god and that god speaks through them, then why are their words not good enough for a new bible? If you are a modern, liberal Christian, WHY do you not consider it important to update your religion’s holy books in a way that it can more easily be applied to a contemporary society, as opposed to desperately trying to squeeze contemporary meaning out of these many irrelevant and even wicked ancient passages?
fyi
apdt:
i’m all for listening to constructive criticisms and being open to improving yourself in all aspects of your life including makeup application but just saying that someone’s face made you laugh is not constructive. and at the end of the day, the improvements that one makes for themselves are SELF improvements. my opinion of myself is held higher than the opinion of anyone else.
apdt:
the beauty standards that are held in the drag world are an extension of the unrealistic misogynistic beauty standards from heterosexual realm. if you want to express yourself with makeup and perhaps don’t have the education in application or expertise, why does that negate your expression? beauty doesn’t come from makeup or sequined dresses, it comes from the confidence and bravado to walk down the street in whatever expression you choose.
I really can’t stand this man. He claims to be a representative of the whole LGBTQ movement and then says it’s not a problem he only prioritizes marriage equality.
No, Dan Savage, that is the only issue faced by the queer community and you cannot try to stand there and pretend to represent all of us when you say transfolk are just being “victimy victims” by wanting the supposed queer messiah to speak for us.On a side note, why tell kids to tolerate bullying because it will potentially get better in the future? News flash Dan Savage, it doesn’t get better unless you make it better and the last thing you tell a suicidal teen is tomorrow is brighter. When you’re suicidal, there is no tomorrow and there sure is hell no light. So instead of making a shit ton of money, you take yourself down to a homeless shelter full of queer teens that got kicked out or go to a mental institution where a trans kid got sent by their religious parents. You look them in the eye and tell them it gets better with a straight face.
Fucking hate Dan Savage.
goats are the best animal ever like they’re so cute when they’re babies
but then they grow up to be a badass and metal as fuck hail satan
I apologize for basically liveblogging my descent into…whatever that was. It was no ordinary anxiety attack, it was very scary. It was the worst out of all the ones I’ve had before. It was really a “I want my mommy” moment, and that worries me. She took me out of the setting I was in, put me in a different, more comfortable and quiet one. I took a few Xanax. I feel like me again, rather than a stranger in my own body. My hands aren’t shaking anymore. My iPad isn’t a terror inducing object to me like it was for the last five minutes I had it my hands before I threw it away from me before curling up into a ball waiting for my mom to come hug me and remove me. I was looking at tumblr trying to calm myself but it was just scaring the shit out of me for some reason. Mom put on Capote for me, which I liked. I’m sorry if I scared anyone. And thank you to all the nice people who offered me their advice. I feel much better now. Whatever it was, it has thankfully passed
I think I’m going to barf or have a panic attack.
