Sexy politics blog

talentedrabbitholefest:

murr

No, it makes sense. Cut funding to mental hospitals, so all the crazy people have to live on the street. Then when they act out (which they will, because THEY’RE CRAZY), just let the cops kill them.

cliffordcorrupt:

thebluesader:

goneidentitymad:

transhumanisticpanspermia:

thebluesader:

Not sure why California is using the “North Korea method,” but YOU CAN’T ARGUE WITH RESULTS.

…Well, you can, but no one wants to pay more taxes, so…

Baltimore’s got a similar system, but with actual criminals.

-Point a hidden camera at a drug dealer

-Make huge slew of arrests of just his customers

-Give them short sentences

-Drug dealer branded as snitch

-Gets shot

-More dead drug dealers = less drug dealers

-Less drug dealers = lighter prisons

-Lighter prisons + no tax decrease because of it = PROFIT!

I mean…it’s fucked up, but it works……besides, then the police don’t get involved and we have less dead cops.

It’s a win win right? 

.

It makes sense. Use victimless crimes to help further the “drug war” and place people in prison, while advocating the deaths of drug dealers to help solve the “drug war”. Perfect sense.

You know what bugs me?

The phrases “male identified” and “female identified”

Trans men are men and trans women are women. If you’re referring to a gender collectively, don’t say male or female identified people, it should be a given that trans people are included when you say men or women.

Something that always bothered me.

douchefuckpositive:

honeydjelly:

I’m not sure if I’m in the minority (pun intended) about this, but the phrase “person of color” really bothers me. Before my argument gets dismissed – yes, I am a “person of color.”

And that’s exactly the problem; the fact that I’m part of a minority doesn’t make my argument any more valid than if I were 100% white. When I see the term “POC” thrown around, it’s usually accompanied with an element of superiority (and possibly exclusivity as well). This probably related to the SJ ideal of privilege/oppression and the view that labeling oneself as a “POC” automatically gives the person +1 oppression point.

On top of this, I think using “POC” creates a superficial division between people who are white and “colored.” I’d like to think that we’re (most 1st world countries) at a point in society where discrimination isn’t so blatantly black/white. And it’s not. Grouping together minorities under the umbrella “colored” equalizes the struggle of minorities from different communities (East Asians will typically be more prosperous and face less discrimination than Hispanics). It also implies that minorities are united and aren’t racist toward each other. Speaking from experience, that’s just complete shit. Korean people look down on Southeast Asians, Blacks, the Chinese, and Hispanics (lol pretty much everyone). I’m sure this type of sentiment is present in other communities as well.

This is just a personal criticism but, “POC” just sounds really tacky. It sounds like something that belongs in the Jim Crow-era South. The issues we face today are far more profound than the color of our skin and I think, more intersectional. I may be completely off base, but sometimes I feel that racism isn’t all about skin color anymore. For example, most people would feel no sense of animosity towards Oprah or Kobe, but poorer blacks tend to be demonized and mocked. Though not as big as racism, I do think economics/social class play a large role in discriminating against an individual (or it maybe it’s still all 100% racism cuz of the model minority stereotype, idk idk).

Anyways, I don’t think simplifying the issue by creating a distinction between white/colored really furthers the discussion. I do understand when people want to use the term to create a sense of pride and identity in their heritage, but for me, the term’s been so overused that it’s lost much of its flavor.

To sum it up, I hate big clunky terms that ignore all elements of depth and subtlety. And when that term is used to further an agenda or pat someone’s ego/self-esteem, I can’t help but feel put off.

I was actually planning on making a post similar to this later on this week. This is exactly how I feel.

i like how

stripitdown:

if some genderqueers are meant to be neither male or female gender, they always go on about feminism and woman’s issues and relate them explicitly to themselves ALL THE TIME. if you are not a woman how do things like that even apply to you any more than it applies to a man? you might have a vagina, you might be ‘misgendered’ as a woman, but you have no say in feminist issues concerning women any more than a man does because you are not one…

i also like how i’ve seen some of them describe their attractions to men as ‘gay’ even though they’re not men (cis or trans) so how the fuck can it be ‘gay’? do you just like the sound of that word and use it because it makes your romantic or sexual attractions sound more oppressed? the vast majority of you, if you held hands with a male, walking down the street, would not get beaten up, so please, carve a dildo with your consonantal name on it and truck on to the next league of things you want to appropriate sloppily from other marginalised

another thing that makes me want to puke is when SJA lesbians call themselves lesbian when they’re dating transmen and then get all pissy when someone calls them out on it. oh right so you don’t even recognise the person you’re dating is a man! wow, you really are enlightened beyond belief!

please fuck off back to st. eileen wuornos college because you really are nauseating and a joke

When they’re not doing that, they also like to appropriate the identities of trans people, claiming they’re just as oppressed, and complaining they’re being “erased” when actual trans people are being discussed without including their million identities in every conversation ever. And to see this concentration of nonbinaries in one group, one that focuses on who has the most say in a conversation based on how marginalized they are seems awfully suspicious. I’ve said this before, I don’t know enough about genderqueer and the like to know if it’s a biological thing on the same level as being straight, gay, or transgendered, but I don’t rule it out. With that said, I think at least a portion of these tumblr nonbinaries are consciously or unconsciously creating these identities for themselves to feel like they’re part of the SJ community without constantly having their ideas shot down because of how privileged they are. Therein lies a huge problem with said community, the fact that they seem to be unconsciously encouraging people to either develop a victim complex or appropriate the  identities of those who are transgendered, have DID, mental disorders, and more in the name of activism that’s supposed to include everyone.

(Source: cuntpuppet)