🔥 Popular | Latest

Ass, Cinderella , and Click: kaylapocalypse:  ok  so i know what you’re thinking “oh i remember that scene i don’t need to click on the video to recall it”. But you should. Like… if you’re anywhere near your mid-twenties, chances are that you watched shrek (1) when you were a kid and maybe a few times again in your late teens, but your memory absolutely doesn’t do it justice. The comedic timing through this whole movie is insane. Also, the fact that the animation style is aging literally just adds to the hilarity instead of poorly dating it. The nuance of every gesture is so well done and specific.  I am literally convinced that this movie is a masterpiece and that will be historically relevant maybe 100 years from now as a perfect time capsule of our culture. This scene in particular illustrates it especially well; particularly for being only like 1 minute long. Highlights/Breakdown The timing in the way Robin says savior and the way he says beast.  the character solidifying disregard and disrespect of “Please! Monster!” Fiona’s sheer brute strength when she pokes him in the shoulder so hard it spins him around–strength that he disregards which is why hes surprised as hell when he gets his ass beat Just the entire french accent that isn’t even a good french accent at all. The accordion man in the tree, the prop bushes. that one of the prop bushes falls down to reveal that its a wood cut-out subtly in the background  Shrek and fiona watching with horror as he begins his song. Donkey never cracking his excited smile, fully immersed in the Lore™; which is actually part of a longer running joke through the film which is that occasionally when certain characters do things would be reacted to poorly irl, the surrounding characters react like you would if you saw that irl not like characters in a story. Like instead of getting drawn into the lore of their circumstances they just stand there, staring like “yikesssss” shrek’s exhaustion and impatience when the song goes into the “saucy little maid” bit.  “what hes basically saying is he likes to get paid.”  the chaos of that statement. combined with shrek and fiona having a eye contact conversation above the performance, exchanging “wtf” gestures.  When the song escalates into a dance fight, Shrek’s exhaustion turns into general mounting amusement like “wow is this really turning into a dance fight. wow hes really snapping in unison” which is additionally apart of the above long running joke Fiona interrupting robin with a kick. the fuckin sound his head makes when it hits the rock.  The fight after isn’t as dynamic timing wise, just a classic animated fight scene but that song though. *kisses fingers like a chef* Watching this does give me an appreciation for 2D animation though because say what you will but Cinderella has aged a lot better than Shrek in terms of visual quality.With 2D you get fairly consistent quality. With old 3D you get uncanny valley nightmares.
Save
Future, News, and Police: AL AL.com @aldotcom Follow Woman shot, killed estranged husband in driveway, police say trib.al/UC9EQ1k 10 9:00 PM-31 Jul 2018 97 Retweets 215 Likes Kurt Morton @kurtsmorton Follow She had a protective order against him He charged at her. She was arrested. Alabama is a stand your ground state. The man is described in the article as the "victim." AL.com @aldotcom Woman shot killed estranged husband in driveway, police say trib.al 5:30 AM -1 Aug 2018 250 Retweets 329 Likes Mia Brett Follow @QueenMab87 A woman kills her abusive husband after getting a restraining order and involving the police. The DA doesn't decline to prosecute but instead arrests her and will present her case to the grand jury. Stand your ground and self defense is only for men AL.com@aldotcom Woman shot killed estranged husband in driveway, police say trib.al/UC9EQ1k 6:00 AM -1 Aug 2018 19,984 Retweets 43,968 Likese9O brunhiddensmusings: thehighpriestofreverseracism: orangejuiceforguppies: earthshaker1217: niggawittablog: honey-amour: lovelyspider: gahdamnpunk: Not to disregard that stand your ground only protects white men.. Her name is Jacqueline Dixon and she’s from Selma, AL. Here’s the article: https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2018/07/woman_shot_killed_estranged_hu.html please help Jacqueline Dixon https://www.care2.com/causes/success-grand-jury-drops-charges-against-woman-who-shot-abuser-in-self-defense.html Some good news. yess!!!! yay its better news then most people realize- this sets precedent, any and all future similar cases can cite the outcome of this case in their own trial
Save
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Save
Children, Feminism, and Fire: There's a researcher in Canada who was looking at the injury rates between boys and girls _boys, by toddlerhood, are two to four times more likely to be injured than girls are, and their injuries tend to be more serious, and she was trying to uncover what was behind that. She was actually on maternity leave with her oldest son and spent a lot of time on playgrounds, and what she saw was this really striking difference in how boys and girls are encouraged, or not encouraged, to deal with risk. So she did a series of studies with little boys and girls on a playground, and she had parents teach their kids to slide down a pole like you'd see at a firehouse. And what she found is that boys were much more likely to be encouraged to be independent, while girls were much more likely to be cautioned about safety, about danger. Even though boys and girls had the same skill level _- both boys and girls were equally adept at actually using the equipment - the way parents treated them was very different, to the point where even when boys actually asked for help, parents said no. A couple of boys tumbled to the ground off this fire-station pole because they couldn't do it without assistance, and they were left on their own So while this kind of parenting may help protect girls physicallv, the research suggests that it also contributes to this feeling of vulnerability, that the world is a dangerous place. Because the message that sends to girls - encouraging them to be very cautious and alwavs highlighting safety and danger is that the world is a dangerous place, and that they can't cope on their own. And that feeling of vulnerability of course is a core belief of anxiety as well Another] study had young children who were told to make a world out of these sand toys with their parents. And what they found is, parents were much more likely to praise their sons when they were being assertive or independent, when they were telling their parents where to put a toy or directing the play. But when girls did that, parents were much more likely to talk over their children, ignore them, or dissuade what they were saying. So the message that sends is that you don't have control over your experience, oVer your world annaknitsspock: paulatheprokaryote: lenyberry: yayfeminism: Why does being a woman put you at greater risk of having anxiety?Part biology, part what we teach our kids about their place in the world. So we’re teaching girls to be anxious wrecks and boys to disregard the possibility of consequences for incautious behavior. This explains a lot of things. Like… why women are anxious wrecks and men are frequently surprised when it turns out their actions do in fact have consequences.And why men don’t bother asking for help even when they really need it, and thus more frequently die from treatable health conditions (including depression), while women end up getting a broad stereotype of being hypochondriacs (and then having a hard time getting treatment for legitimate health concerns). https://www.ted.com/talks/caroline_paul_to_raise_brave_girls_encourage_adventure/transcript Great example of how feminism serves not just women but people of all genders, including men.

annaknitsspock: paulatheprokaryote: lenyberry: yayfeminism: Why does being a woman put you at greater risk of having anxiety?Part biology...

Save
Beautiful, Comfortable, and Energy: "TMI!" INTENSE!" "TOO EMOTIONAL!" OVER SHARING AND BP D TEXTSFROMTHEBORDERLINE.TUMBLR.COM WHAT IS IT? TEXTSFROMTHEBORDERLINE.TUMBLR.COM THE PROCESS People with BPD are emotionally intense, emotionally sensitive, and emotionally intelligent We need to feel like our thoughts, feelings, and experiences are received (and hopefully, reciprocated!) Oversharing is the process of us revealing these things in extreme detail, about every possible topic, in a effort to demonstrate the intricacies and depths of our inner processes e want you to understand + appreciate us WHY IT HAPPENS If we're (over)sharing anything with you, it means you make us feel comfortable, safe, loved+accepted. We are free to be ourselves, and we want you to know that! It's our attempt at building intimacy, trust, and care POSITIVE OUTCOMES Helps develop clear+strong communicat ion skills. Honestly conveys what's on our minod Can nurture amazingly close, fulfilling relationships. DIFFICULTIES The other person may feel overwhelmed Oversharing is not a substitute for healthy intimacy Can unintentionally disregard boundaries THINGS TO WORK ON Communicating with the appropriate time, place, and person; it's good to share, just make sure it's okay! It doesn't have to be an outburst; take your time. Be patient; give the other person time to respond SHARING +CARING HEALTHY INTIMACY Intimacy involves feelings of emotional closeness and connectedness with another person, along with the desire to share each other's innermost thoughts and feelings. There are different types of intimacy: emotional, intellectual, physical (sexual), experiential, and spiritual. Oversharing can encompass all five, but most commonly it involves emotional + intellectual ed A healthy level of intimacy is achieved when both the communicator and the receiver feel safe +comfortable to voice their inner processes, when they are respected + encouraged to do so, and when there is active listening, empathy (cognitive, at the very least) and enuine interest involved HEART TO HEART Having a discussion that is meaningful can leave you both feeling closer than ever before. You can build appreciation of each other's emotional life, interests, goals, fears, sorrows, and victories. Beautiful moments happen when they are free, spontaneous, and motivated by care instead of pressure. The exchange of energy+ perspectives can help Borderlines lessen anxiousness, fear of abandonment, feeling like they are a burden + help them learn how to communicate better OVERSHARING IS REALLY ABOUT LEARNING HOW TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY, NOT ABOUT BOTTLING YOURSELF UP AND THEN EXPLODING TEXTSFROMTHEBORDERLINE.TUMBLR.COM
Save
America, Donald Trump, and Memes: POLLAK: IN LEAVING IRAN DEAL, TRUMP ENDS OBAMA'S LEGACY OF APPEASEMENT OF THE Carsten Koall/Getty Images 🔷End of an Error🔷 President Donald Trump’s announcement Tuesday that the U.S. is leaving the Iran deal marks the end of what his predecessor, Barack Obama, considered his main foreign policy legacy. Trump will earn credit from his supporters for keeping his promise. But in truth, the Iran deal was undone by its own terms. It did not stop Iran from enriching uranium; it did not stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon, eventually; and it did not stop Iran’s global aggression. In fact, the Iran deal was not even a deal at all. It was never signed by any of the parties (the U.S., Iran, France, the UK, Germany, China, and Russia). It was unclear about crucial subjects like ballistic missiles, because the “deal” was described differently by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and by the UN Security Council Resolutions that were meant to implement it. And, crucially, it was never sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification. Obama’s disregard for the Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution was of a piece with his general disregard for the constitutional constraints on the power of the federal government and the presidency. His refusal to submit the agreement to Senate scrutiny, and his party’s abuse of the filibuster to prevent even a weak Senate vote, deepened the damage that Obamacare — his other struggling “legacy,” in domestic policy — did to American civic culture. More than Obama’s autocratic style, what Trump ended is Obama’s legacy of appeasement. Barack Obama came to power convinced that the United States was at best a negative force in world affairs, and at worst the cause of the world’s problems. He believed that America could be a force for good, but only if it renounced its traditional allies, abandoned its principles of freedom, and gave up its national interests in favor of rising regional powers elsewhere. “The United States no longer issues empty threats. When I make promises, I keep them,” Trump said. Thus ended Obama’s experiment with appeasement and autocracy.

🔷End of an Error🔷 President Donald Trump’s announcement Tuesday that the U.S. is leaving the Iran deal marks the end of what his predecessor...

Save
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 peteschult: libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever. Get rid of pigs!
Save
Another One, Bad, and Beef: work theater ab a movie and when sklnny biEches order diet, coke.laive them regular. Wahahahaha pomrania: fibrochemist: iambloggingthat: tired-philosopher: prismatic-bell: trickstersgambit: greenteamoon: 40yodater: fiaspice: carnistprivilege: evilythedwarf: untapdtreasure: willowfae82: minnigem: iopele: obstinate-nocturna: sailornightfury: toboldlygowherethewinchestersare: classykatelyn: housebuiltbyghosts: kimchicutie: acorn-burglar: theforcekeepers: DO NOT DO THIS. This makes me so angry. If you work in a movie theater and you do this I have no respect for you. My younger brother is Type 1 Diabetic. When we go to a movie theater, we always get him diet soda. If he were to get regular when we asked for diet, we would not give him the insulin he would need for it. If that happens, his blood sugar level could go so high he could go into a coma, go blind, or even die. If somebody gave him regular soda instead of diet without telling us, that person could be responsible for a nine-year-old being killed or blinded. Just thinking about that makes me so angry. I get scared every time we take him to a movie in case the people working there saw this picture and decide to do the same thing. Please signal boost this so people know. This also applies to baristas Fun story about the baristas doing this kind of shit.  I am very sensitive to lactose, not Lactose intolerant but because of stomach ulcers that are still healing. A couple years ago I went to Starbucks right after my classes with some friends and asked for a green tea latte with soy milk. The barista, for some reason out of malice and/or hate for her life so she took it out on me, gave me whole milk in my latte. 5 minutes after my first sip of latte, my stomach cramped BAD. Not the “Oh! time to poop!” kind of cramp but it felt like someone had stabbed me with a knife and twisted it. Now I’ve had this happen before so I knew the cause of it. I went up to the barista clutching my gut screaming at her that she put dairy in my latte rather than soy LIKE I REQUESTED. She denied it and called me a “pretentious white girl for wanting soy”and so my friends got the manager. I had to explain that I had stomach ulcers that were still healing and if I were to go to the hospital for this incident, they would be responsible for it. Manager flipped his shit and the barista was terrified out of her mind. Pretty sure both thought i was gonna sue. Manager actually fired her on the spot because of the negligence. My friends managed to get me home in one piece while I stayed home for 3 days in absolute agony and missed my midterm. So remember kiddies, if someone is asking for Diet or “Skinny” or “soy” or anything that is not regular, give them what they requested because it may not be them being healthy, but a dietary need that can possibly be life or death also if they ARE trying to be healthy you should give it to them to!! Its not your decision to police or question others food choices!!!  also im lactose intolerant AND ive had stomach infections/ulcers so i feel this.  I have Celiac Disease, so I’m very gluten intolerant. When I go out to eat at restaurants a lot of people just assume that I asked for my food gluten free because of the gluten free diet fad (which is usually a bullshit diet btw).  Last month I went out to dinner with a friend at an italian restaurant that had a small gluten free menu. I had been there once before and had their gluten free pasta and it was great! I think one of the managers had been there and was super helpful when taking my order to make sure that everything was gluten free for me. When I ordered the gluten free pasta again this time though, the waitress who took my order all but rolled her eyes at me. I didn’t think much of it at the time, because the restaurant was so accommodating before, I just assumed it would be the same this time. But sure enough, they brought out my pasta, I ate it, and about an hour later I had extreme stomach pains and was throwing up (in a movie theater no less). Barfing and agonizing pain aside, eating gluten when you have celiac causes a lot of internal damage that’s hard to notice. The biggest thing is that it damages your intestines, preventing your body from absorbing nutrients properly, which can take months to heal. So PLEASE, if you work at a restaurant or anything with food and someone asks for something a certain way, please listen to them and don’t just disregard someone’s order. It’s not funny and it can have serious consequences. I will reblog this with every single story about someone getting sick because of an asshole giving them the opposite of what they ordered until it sinks in for everyone. Recently on the news a 16 year old boy with a dairy allergy had gone to eat at IHOP with his family. The specifically asked if they could make dairy free pancakes and they said yes. Not too long after he had a reaction and was rushed to the hospital. This kid died because the was dairy in his pancakes that they asked for no dairy. His epi pen that his mother had wasn’t enough to help him. I know working in fast food or any job that’s serves food and beverage sucks but not as much as causing someone to get sick over negligence. My youngest cousin – who is now five, he just started kindergarten – has Celiac’s disease. You would not BELEIVE the amount of times I’ve heard my aunt say she’s ordered something gluten free, only to watch the waiter or waitress’s eyes go huge when she gives it to my cousin – my cousin with the medical id band on his tiny five year old wrist proclaiming I HAVE CELIACS and have to take it back.Shit like this could kill my cousin. Knock it the fuck off. I cannot tolerate caffeine–it makes me have chest pain and a racing pulse, and also gives me horrible body pain, so I always ask for decaf if I order coffee when I’m out, and doublecheck with the waiter/ress when they bring it. but instead of saying “is this decaf like I asked for?” I always say “oh, did I remember to order decaf?” I shouldn’t have to act like I’m the forgetful one (because I know damn well I asked for decaf) but it seems to work better than implying that they screwed up when I take the blame on myself like that. and if there’s any hesitation when they answer, I tell them, “if there’s any doubt, please get another one, or just give me water–if this is regular, it’ll mess up my heart” and lots of times when I say that, they look alarmed and go change it or get another one.  but I shouldn’t HAVE to share my personal medical history with strangers just to get my order right! no one should! how is it their business? it makes me really uncomfortable to have to do that. JUST GIVE PEOPLE WHAT THEY ORDER! I’ve reblogged this maaaany times before but there’s a few new stories on here so i’m doing it again. cut this shit out don’t be that kind of asshole. As a diabetic, this would make me so beyond angry. Skinny doesn’t mean they don’t have a life threatening illness. Skinny doesn’t mean they can process sugar the way you do. People that do this are the worst kinds of people. DO NOT DO THIS! Me and my family went to a restaurant a few years back and one of the dishes we ordered was made with wine vinegar, which I am allergic to, so we asked the waiter to skip it, and he said sure, no problem, that’s fine.So my food gets to the table, and I start eating and then my throat closes and I can’t breathe and then I start coughing and throwing up right there in the middle of the restaurant and it was very fortunate that I was with my family and they knew what was happening to me. I had to be rushed to the hospital, and admitted, and I came damn near close to having my throat cut open so I could breathe through a whole on my neck. Because they put wine vinegar in my food when I explicitly told them not to, because they were assholes, and I could have died.They probably didn’t mean to hurt me but they did. I missed class, and work, and, again, I COULD HAVE DIED. i have cyclic vomiting syndrome and can’t tolerate dairy or red meat. violating my dietary restrictions triggers an acute episode, and i have to be hospitalized and given iv saline, ativan, and anti-emetics to stop the (extremely painful and incapacitating) vomiting. if somebody put regular milk instead of soy milk in my latte and i didn’t notice the taste immediately, i could wind up in the er and then spend several days in bed recovering, eating nothing but saltines and dry toast and clear liquids until my body was able to tolerate food again, unable to work or go out or do anything besides rest. whenever i go to starbucks, i WATCH them make my drink. cvs episodes are horrible and i hate them, and i can prevent them if i do everything right, but that means my damn barista has to cooperate. if somebody decided i was a stuck up white girl and gave me whole milk instead of soy they could put me in the hospital and cost me days of income. give ppl the food they fuckin order. it’s not that hard. Reblogging because it’s so important. I’m “lucky” I don’t have any food allergies or intolerence, but it makes me mad when people take them not seriously, think you are picky or just following a “white girl diet fad”. 90% of people don’t take my cats and dog allergies seriously when I tell them I’m allergic and wondering if a cat or a dog is present at X place. They think it’s just watery eyes. Nope. Well yeah, watery and itchy eyes, but I start wo wheeze and have trouble breathing. They don’t give epi-pen for those (anyway you have to go to the hospital after) just inhaler. It’s no miracle, specially if I didn’t take other meds before. When people tell you about their allergies or restriction, trust them! Reblogging for all the stories here because this is sooo important!  I have a severe allergy to gluten and relate to MANY of the stories above. My daughter has a severe allergy to milk fat, and I have had to hold her hair many times while she vomits on the side of the road because we couldn’t even make it home from the “accidental” whole milk instead of skim.  I’m super lactose intolerant so accidental milk is always fun. Severe diarrhea, stomach cramps, bloating, and gas like you wouldn’t believe. Better than death you might say but, I have other medical conditions, so that diarrhea could lead to vomiting(it’s so bad the vomit comes out my mouth AND nose) and dehydration that in turn becomes low cortisol and adrenal crisis. A bitchy barista can land me in the hospital with an intramuscular shot and saline iv. Hun, it takes no time to listen and follow my order. It takes me at least 24 hours to get out of the hospital. Be nice. I’m allergic to pork. Legit allergic. I can’t count how many times I’ve had to ask it off my food only to receive it with bacon or ham or something on it. Please respect peoples food requests. It costs 0.00$ to not be a dick. I actually have customers who say they’ll only eat at my restaurant when I’m there, because they know I require all policy to be followed, as in “I will kick you the fuck off your shift if you skimp,” if someone says the words “I have an allergy.” I developed our allergy policies, for that matter, because what we had in place before was “I guess you shouldn’t change your gloves … . ?” On my shifts your gloves get changed, that line gets wiped down with a new cloth, paper under EVERY ITEM for the person with the allergy, bag their food separately to prevent contact. If there’s a risk of cross-contamination with an allergen, like tomatoes in the guac because stuff spills when you’re moving as fast as we do, I’ll open a new bag of food. I learned the ingredients in every item we serve so I could advise people on hidden allergens (e.g., there’s a small amount of wheat in our beef as a thickener; we fry with safflower oil). We have a grease pencil to mark special builds and I use it liberally on allergy orders. If all of this sounds like overkill, you’ve never watched a child suffer from anaphylaxis. I don’t play around. Like, I bitch about my job a lot, but food allergies and special needs are not something I will ever bitch about. Even if you’re a complete asshole I won’t risk contaminating your food. (Although people with allergies seem to be way nicer than the general population, I gotta say.) Don’t do it. If someone’s a petty asshole to you, give them too much ice in their drink. Don’t play with their health. DO NOT FUCKING SCROLL PAST THIS P L E A S E Reblogging this again because it is important. Doing the right thing has no cost but doing the wrong thing can cost a person’s life. Don’t be a dick, give the person what they ordered This is why turning legitimate illness into fad is stupid! You’re fucking killing people. Just don’t be a dick. Seriously, if you hate a customer, just badmouth them once they’re gone, or give them the finger under the counter; you’ll get just as much satisfaction, and you won’t run the risk of accidentally killing someone.
Save
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 <p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p> <p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</b><br/>Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p> <p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</b><br/>Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p> <p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</b><br/>The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p> <p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.</p> <p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p> <p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.</p> <p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.</p> <p>U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).</p> <p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.</p> <p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p> <p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p> </blockquote> <p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p> </blockquote> <p>Important </p> </blockquote> <p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>
Save
9/11, Africa, and Being Alone: now you kno! In 2002, Kenyan Masai tribespeople donated 14 cows to to the U.S to help with the aftermath of 9/11. nowyoukno.com thestoicgod: hutchj: thestoicgod: velocicrafter: markingatlightspeed: cyanwrites: iammyfather: evilelitest2: petitepenquin: mehofkirkwall: disputedthreshermaw: natrsrants: deadcatwithaflamethrower: jadedhavok: randomthingsthatilike123: gweatherwax: awesomonster: obese-starving-artist: the-treble: nowyoukno: Source for more facts on your dash follow NowYouKno That was super nice of them. And now I’m mad that nobody told us we were given cows. Cause that’s really f*cking nice and nobody mentioned it at all. American media tends to disregard that anyone donates to the US. And then Amurricans complain about money going abroad because “nobody helped the US in our disasters.” . Also, do you know how much a cow costs? O.O It isn’t just a matter of how much a cow costs, its a matter of considering that Masai life is based around their cattle. Its their wealth, their food, and a significant part of their religion. Here’s a quote from Wikipedia: “Traditional Maasai lifestyle centres around their cattle which constitute their primary source of food. The measure of a man’s wealth is in terms of cattle and children. A herd of 50 cattle is respectable, and the more children the better. A man who has plenty of one but not the other is considered to be poor.[37] A Maasai religious belief relates that God gave them all the cattle on earth, leading to the belief that rustling cattle from other tribes is a matter of taking back what is rightfully theirs, a practice that has become much less common.[38]” So its not just “they gave us 14 cows”, its that they gave us something that is very important and significant to them, it is more than just a kind gesture that definitely deserves to be known and its a genuine shame that more people don’t know about it. Wait, you guys DON’T KNOW that we offer help to the US when you have disasters??????? Shit, down here in Brazil we not only offered to send tracking units and doctors to help in 9/11 but we wanted to send a whole lot of donations to help with Katrina (we have experience with floods down here so we knew what kind of medicine to send to prevent outbreaks).  We alone had like 2 army airplanes full of medicine and non-perishables like baby formula, diapers, bottled water, mosquito nets and other stuff that’s needed to fight opportunistic diseases that hit flooded areas, enough to assist a good few thousand people at least, ready to go the day after it hit, but your government refused the donations.  The same thing happened to the Canadians and Europeans who offered help, the US embassies around the world told us all to give money to Red Cross. And so we did, we all gave hundreds of millions of dollars to them, and then this happened: Red Cross scandals tarnish relief efforts ‘Breathtaking’ Waste and Fraud in Hurricane Aid So please, don’t you go spreading misinformation and prejudice against the rest of the world, WE DID OFFER HELP AND ORGANIZED IT EVEN FASTER THAN BUSH DID, BUT Y’ALL REFUSED IT.  Oh wow I had no idea this happened it’s really not talked about in media at all wow this is something good to know about wow I’m so angry. I didn’t know that other countries tried to help after 9/11 or Katrina. Like, that’s something we, the people, should hear about and we don’t. Please don’t blame us for the shitty decisions our government makes. We don’t have as much control over our government as we would like to think and they keep a lot from us. Spread this shit.  After Katrina, Cuba donated several hundred blankets. Think about that. A country that is suffering economically due directly to the US embargo offered to help us when we needed it by sending what they could. And once again, it was refused. We have a government that is so self-righteous that we refuse to accept disaster aid in order to maintain this facade that we are the most generous nation on earth. Okay, Katrina thing.Only Texans really knows this? and even then it’s not wide spread.Mexico sent their army.They sent their army for relief efforts. Didn’t call ahead, they drove all the way to San Antonio with doctors and food and all sorts of supplies.When people actually got a call from them saying “Hey, we’re sending people up.”The people who answered said “What? We can’t…”“Too late, already there.”This was while the government was turning down help.So yeah, other countries send relief.Forest fires up in Washington last year? Firefighters from Australia came up to assist.Like… we don’t hear about this shit. At all. I can second the above with the fires.  Most the time, when people say “oh FEMA or something sent people right?” re: fires, its actually people from other countries showing up and kinda ignoring the government telling them to fuck off and staying on behalf of local departments because we REALLY need them.  If there’s a huge ass disaster, and the government is sitting there with a thumb up it’s ass, help is offered and most the time– shit, it gets there!But then the feds do something really fucking dirty.They insist they were the help, if it’s talked about at all.  They insist those people putting out fires were federal people, because to most people a fireman’s a fireman. The people handing out water and food, a relief worker is a relief worker. So on and so forth.  We had people come up when the fires were so bad a while ago– not the Australians, but i think there was like a German group of like 3 guys that flew themselves over? They came out of sheer “this is horrible and we’re helping” and my dad [local fire chief] had them working with our guys and the feds lost no time telling every news outlet that it was THEIR people doing all the fire knockdowns and structure work when these guys were running into buildings and grabbing people, pets, and people’s important documents because they knew papers were a pain in the ass to replace.  What you gotta understand is that our government is very intent on selling us and the rest of the world [as much as possible] the idea of a powerful and self reliant country. All our reporting on disasters, starts with the scaremongering and then moves to “but our people can handle it because we’re the best at handling things” and then they move on before the idea it’s out of control comes to mind. The average person outside of the disaster has no idea, if they have never been around such an event or met someone who regularly deals with these things, they will kinda probably nod along with that. Because we have no real scope on the scale and impact– by design. Our media intake is very controlled to slant everything to the “eh, we can handle it and everyone else out there– they need our help because they’re not so good at handling disasters like we are.”People who know better, reading international news, interacting with international social groups, looking outside their sphere of community– we know better but that kinda slant is really hard to break from because of that grip American media has on information.So, taking that knowledge, we further have restricted reporting on certain disasters because they’re considered unimportant. Hurricanes are considered important, earthquakes are only considered important if it wrecks something the government cares about or somewhere a couple million people live that they’ll upset the national money flow/they can throw money at someone to make the news care, floods are only important if it’s in a similar manner to earthquakes but since they occur annually they’re rarely reported on nationally, mudslides that kill people or leave hundreds homeless aren’t important to the government even through they happen constantly, wildfires that consume most of the nation/continent each year generally are unimportant until they consume a town or threaten a government interest/money flow location. Terrorist attacks are always important because people will talk about them. So, when we do get help for any of the above, it’s possible that most people may have no idea about what’s happened, let alone that help’s been sent. Or if people know something happened, the details are vague– the news don’t care to give the nitty gritty. You’ll know something happened and people are suffering and “gee, isn’t it good you’re not them” and then now the weather. So, yeah, basically no one really knows we get help. International response to Hurricane Katrina: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina  We got HELLA help, but nobody really talks about it American Media really fails regularly  Hurricane Sandy, Quebec sends power line crews down to assist in restoring power.  California gets rid of water bombers due to budget cuts, Canada sends theirs down to help fight wild fires. Amazing what living on the border and having outside TV News does to your information flow. After Katrina, Denmark offered to donate water purification units so people wouldn’t get sick from drinking contaminated water, but the offer was declined. A private Danish company built a mobile satellite phone booth and drove it around the poor neighbourhoods in Mississippi and Louisiana so people could call their families and insurance companies for free (apparently there was a deadline for reporting damages but people couldn’t call in because their mobile phones were dead and landlines were down). American propaganda is not a thing of the past, nor is it a new thing. It has been around forever, telling stories of exceptionalism and self-reliance while our government tries its hardest to refuse the help of others and offer its own to them, to try and force other nations onto their back foot and remain aggressively benevolent in international matters, so that it can lord that shit over them in negotiations and the media in general.I guarantee you America would have a less jingoistic, less xenophobic populace overall if this sort of information were actually reported to us. If we weren’t always fed the lie of helping the world without any gratitude or help in return. If the media didn’t present us as world police and instead as a part of the community, as other countries try hard to include us as, then maybe Americans would actually act like they’re part of a fucking community.But global citizens are hard to monger fear and distrust and xenophobia and nationalism with. They’re hard to control with propaganda and hate. They’re hard to keep ignorant and docile and saying “this is fine” while the empire burns.A lot of Americans wonder why our country is seen as a worldwide bully. Shit like that, my friends. Shit like that. Its hubris is seemingly limitless. C O M M E N T A R Y FYI: They left out the part where America’s rudeness kicked in and turned down the offer of the cows. The US government is really tryna kill its people. Someone offered water purification units and they were like “nah,” let those tricks get sick. @hutchj how about the U.S. passed a law recently making CBD, the non-psychoactive derivative of cannabis, illegal as a Schedule A drug, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO REDUCE EPILEPTIC SEIZURES IN CHILDREN TO ZERO among a dozen other ailments having been reduced to nominal levels allowing ppl to function normally (ADHD, chronic pain, IBS, menstrual cramps, Alzheimer’s, etc). Doctors around the country (that Big Pharma can’t buy off) are fighting back for their patients’ well-being. 😡
Save
Children, Feminism, and Fire: There's a researcher in Canada who was looking at the injury rates between boys and girls _boys, by toddlerhood, are two to four times more likely to be injured than girls are, and their injuries tend to be more serious, and she was trying to uncover what was behind that. She was actually on maternity leave with her oldest son and spent a lot of time on playgrounds, and what she saw was this really striking difference in how boys and girls are encouraged, or not encouraged, to deal with risk. So she did a series of studies with little boys and girls on a playground, and she had parents teach their kids to slide down a pole like you'd see at a firehouse. And what she found is that boys were much more likely to be encouraged to be independent, while girls were much more likely to be cautioned about safety, about danger. Even though boys and girls had the same skill level _- both boys and girls were equally adept at actually using the equipment - the way parents treated them was very different, to the point where even when boys actually asked for help, parents said no. A couple of boys tumbled to the ground off this fire-station pole because they couldn't do it without assistance, and they were left on their own So while this kind of parenting may help protect girls physicallv, the research suggests that it also contributes to this feeling of vulnerability, that the world is a dangerous place. Because the message that sends to girls - encouraging them to be very cautious and alwavs highlighting safety and danger is that the world is a dangerous place, and that they can't cope on their own. And that feeling of vulnerability of course is a core belief of anxiety as well Another] study had young children who were told to make a world out of these sand toys with their parents. And what they found is, parents were much more likely to praise their sons when they were being assertive or independent, when they were telling their parents where to put a toy or directing the play. But when girls did that, parents were much more likely to talk over their children, ignore them, or dissuade what they were saying. So the message that sends is that you don't have control over your experience, oVer your world annaknitsspock: paulatheprokaryote: lenyberry: yayfeminism: Why does being a woman put you at greater risk of having anxiety?Part biology, part what we teach our kids about their place in the world. So we’re teaching girls to be anxious wrecks and boys to disregard the possibility of consequences for incautious behavior. This explains a lot of things. Like… why women are anxious wrecks and men are frequently surprised when it turns out their actions do in fact have consequences.And why men don’t bother asking for help even when they really need it, and thus more frequently die from treatable health conditions (including depression), while women end up getting a broad stereotype of being hypochondriacs (and then having a hard time getting treatment for legitimate health concerns). https://www.ted.com/talks/caroline_paul_to_raise_brave_girls_encourage_adventure/transcript Great example of how feminism serves not just women but people of all genders, including men.

annaknitsspock: paulatheprokaryote: lenyberry: yayfeminism: Why does being a woman put you at greater risk of having anxiety?Part biolog...

Save
Crying, Family, and Guns: Chwistopher @Loudwindow Concept: Pirates slay a monster mermaid to steal its treasure chest. Pirates open chest, finds a sleepy baby mermaid within. Monster mermaid was using the treasure chest as a cradle. Pirates: <p><a href="http://dragonsateyourtoast.tumblr.com/post/169373651900" class="tumblr_blog">dragonsateyourtoast</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://otherwindow.tumblr.com/post/169340235270/otherwindow-this-is-how-the-golden-age-of-piracy" class="tumblr_blog">otherwindow</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://otherwindow.tumblr.com/post/169291615220/this-is-how-the-golden-age-of-piracy-ended" class="tumblr_blog">otherwindow</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>This is how the golden age of piracy ended.</p></blockquote> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="677" data-orig-width="1000"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/51eb1c65a8936859a4b9e9ed54eb60d9/tumblr_inline_p22tdbtzyD1qdd180_540.jpg" data-orig-height="677" data-orig-width="1000"/></figure><p>The first mermaid to get tattoos :)</p> </blockquote> <p>“we didn’t know any better,” the crewman says, and swallows, presenting the chest to the captain. “what do we do now?”</p> <p>“kill it,” the captain says, but the ice is melting in his eyes.</p> <p>“we can’t,” the first mate says desperately, praying she won’t have to fight her captain on this. “we can’t. we - i won’t. we won’t.”</p> <p>“i know.”</p> <p>x</p> <p>“daddy,” she says, floating in a tub of seawater in the hold, “daddy, la-la, la-la-la.”</p> <p>her voice rings like bells. her accent is strange; her mouth isn’t made for human words. it mesmerises even the hardiest amongst them and she wasn’t even trying. the crew has taken to diving for shellfish near the shorelines for her; she loves them, splitting the shells apart with strength seen in no human toddler, slurping down the slimy molluscs inside and laughing, all plump brown cheeks and needle-sharp teeth. she sometimes splashes them for fun with her smooth, rubbery brown tail. even when they get soaked they laugh. they love her.</p> <p>“daddy,” she calls again, and he can hear the worry in her voice. the storm rocking the ship is harsh and uncaring, and if they go down, she would be the only survivor.</p> <p>“don’t worry,” he says, and goes over, sitting next to the tub. the first mate, leaning against the wall, pretends not to notice as he quietly begins to sing.</p> <p>x</p> <p>“father,” she says, one day, as she leans on the edge of the dock and the captain sits next to her, “why am I here?”</p> <p>“your mother abandoned you,” he says, as he always has. “we found you adrift, and couldn’t bear to leave you there.”</p> <p>she picks at the salt-soaked boards, uncertain. her hair is pulled back in a fluffy black puff, the white linen holding it slipping almost over one of her dark eyes. one of her first tattoos, a many-limbed kraken, curls over her right shoulder and down her arm, delicate tendrils wrapped around her calloused fingertips. “alright,” she says.</p> <p>x</p> <p>“why am I really here?” she asks the first mate, watching the sun set over the water in streaks of liquid metal that pooled in the troughs of the waves and glittered on the seafoam.</p> <p>“we didn’t know any better,” the first mate says, staring into the water. “we didn’t know- we didn’t know anything. we didn’t understand why she fought so viciously to guard her treasure. we could not know she protected something a thousand times more precious than the purest gold.”</p> <p>she wants to be furious, but she can’t. she already knew the answer, from reading the guilt in her father’s eyes and the empty space in her own history. and she can’t hate her family.</p> <p>“it’s alright,” she says. “i do have a family, anyways. i don’t think i would have liked my other life near as much.”</p> <p>x</p> <p>her kraken grows, spreading its tendrils over her torso and arms. she grows too, too large to come on board the ship without being hauled up in a boat from the water. she sings when the storms come and swims before the ship to guide it to safety. she fights off more than one beast of the seas, and gathers a set of scars across her back that she bears with pride. “i don’t mind,” she says, when the captain fusses over her, “now i match all of you.”</p> <p>the first time their ship is threatened, really threatened, is by another fleet. a friend turned enemy of the first mate. “we shouldn’t fight him,” she says, peering through the spyglass.</p> <p>“why not?” the mermaid asks.</p> <p>“he’ll win,” the first mate says.</p> <p>the mermaid tips her head sideways. Her eyes, dark as the deep waters, gleam in the noon light. “are you sure?” she asks.</p> <p>x</p> <p>the enemy fleet surrenders after the flagship is sunk in the night, the anchor ripped off the ship and the planks torn off the hull. the surviving crew, wild-eyed and delirious, whimper and say a sea serpent came from the water and attacked them, say it was longer than the boat and crushed it in its coils. the first mate hears this and has to hide her laughter. the captain apologizes to his daughter for doubting her.</p> <p>“don’t worry,” she says, with a bright laugh, “it was fun.”</p> <p>x</p> <p>the second time, they are pushed by a storm into a royal fleet. they can’t possibly fight them, and they don’t have the time to escape.</p> <p>“let me up,” the mermaid urges, surfacing starboard and shouting to the crew. “bring me up, quickly, quickly.”</p> <p>they lower the boat and she piles her sinous form into it, and uses her claws to help the crew pull her up. once on the deck she flops out of the boat and makes her way over to the bow. the crew tries to help but she’s so heavy they can barely lift parts of her.</p> <p>she crawls up out in front of the rail and wraps her long webbed tail around the prow. the figurehead has served them well so far but they need more right now. she wraps herself around the figurehead and raises her body up into the wind takes a breath of the stinging salt air and sings.</p> <p>the storm carries her voice on its front to the royal navy. they are enchanted, so stunned by her song that they drop the rigging ropes and let the tillers drift. the pirates sail through the center of the fleet, trailing the storm behind them, and by the time the fleet has managed to regain its senses they are buried in wind and rain and the pirates are gone.</p> <p>x</p> <p>she declines guns. instead she carries a harpoon and its launcher, and uses them to board enemy ships, hauling her massive form out of the water to coil on the deck and dispatch enemies with ruthless efficiency. her family is feared across all the sea.</p> <p>x</p> <p>“you know we are dying,” the captain says, looking down at her.</p> <p>she floats next to the ship, so massive she could hold it in her arms. her eyes are wise.</p> <p>“i know,” she says, “i can feel it coming.”</p> <p>the first mate stands next to the captain. she never had a lover or a child, and neither did he, but to the mermaid they are her parents. she will always love her daughter. the tattoos are graven in dark swirls across the mermaid’s deep brown skin and the flesh of her tail, even spiraling onto the spiked webbing on her spine and face. her hair is still tied back, this time with a sail that could not be patched one last time. </p> <p>“we love you,” the first mate says simply, looking down. her own tightly coiled black hair falls in to her face; she shakes the locs out of the way and smiles through her tears. the captain pretends he isnt crying either.</p> <p>“i love you too,” the mermaid says, and reached up to pull the ship down just a bit, just to hold them one last time.</p> <p>“guard the ship,” the captain says. “you always have but you know they’re lost without you.”</p> <p>“without you,” the mermaid corrects, with a shrug that makes waves. “what will we do?”</p> <p>“i don’t know,” the captain says. “but you’ll help them, won’t you?”</p> <p>“of course i will,” she scoffs, rolling her eyes. “i will always protect my family.”</p> <p>x</p> <p>the captain and the first mate are gone. the ship has a new captain, young and fearless - of the things she can afford to disregard. she fears and loves the ocean, as all captains do. she does not fear the royal fleet. and she does not fear the mermaid.</p> <p>“you know, i heard stories about you when i was a little girl,” she says, trailing her fingers in the water next to the dock.</p> <p>the mermaid stares at her with one eye the size of a dinner table. “is that so?” she hums, smirking with teeth sharper than the swords of the entire navy.</p> <p>“they said you could sink an entire fleet and that you had skin tougher than dragon scales,” the new captain says, grinning right back at the monster who could eat her without a moment’s hesitation. “i always thought they were telling tall tales.”</p> <p>“and now?”</p> <p>“they were right,” the new captain says. “how did they ever befriend you?”</p> <p>the mermaid smiles, fully this time, her dark eyes gleaming under the white linen sail. “they didn’t know any better.”</p> </blockquote> <p>Yooooo</p>

dragonsateyourtoast: otherwindow: otherwindow: This is how the golden age of piracy ended. The first mermaid to get tattoos :) “we didn’t...

Save
Bad, Be Like, and Boner: Just because he has an erection, doesn't mean he wants to f**k. an erection is not consent DON'T BE THAT GIRL. http:l/www.huffingtonpost.com 2012/12101/women-raping-men-a-surviv_n_2224204.html Shortlink huff.tolTANFFR http:l/www.ibtimes.com/six-women-rape-man-death-nigeria-uroko-onoka-wealthy-nigerian-bentue-state-killed-his-six-wives Shortlink: bit.lylQ5vBxx someoneintheshadow446: tree-of-blue-squirrel: cognitivedissonance: hakuna-mituna: dreamsofkittens: abbysucks: mundanematt: The swinging pendulum of sexism arrives! Ladies, Men can get raped too. Remember that. Just to put some perspective in this for those people who may be confused at how a guy can get a boner but not really be sexually charged, so to speak…Ladies, you know how your nipples get hard for seemingly no reason (sans stepping into a cold room anyway)? You go to put on a shirt and your nipples are poking out like they haven’t seen daylight in over 40 years? Or you brush them up against something and BAMMO, nipple town? Or someone slaps you in the tits and they’re standing full mister? You get where I’m going with this? Your sexual organs are built to respond to stimulus, be it one you personally find sexually gratifying or not.  Saying a dude who gets a boner while he’s otherwise not consenting to sex is lying about the fact would be like saying any girl who gets wet while getting raped is actually enjoying it/wants it. so… you know… dont be stupid about this people. guys can get raped too and girls can most definitely be the fuckin perps. People who think men don’t get raped are just as bad as the people who think men can’t control their urges to rape women. It happens less often, but it still happens, and it’s just as traumatizing for the male victim. You can’t just disregard a victim based on their gender. Can we also include that females can rape other females and males can rape other males too?Every.Single.Person.Can.Be.A.Victim.Or.An.Offender All of the above. Basically, if a person doesn´t give you any verbal consent, IT IS NO CONSENT!ALSO! If they are under influences of legal or illegal drugs/alcohol, IT IS STILL NOT A CONSENT! like seriously, what´s so hard to understand about that geez Also a common response to rape is to freeze in fear and allow it to happen. So just because a person didn’t scream or fight back, doesn’t mean they consented to it. 
Save