October 20, 2014
http://jaiwithani.tumblr.com/post/100183587471/question-to-tumblr-a-lot-of-my-friends-have

ozymandias271:

jaiwithani:

jaiwithani:

Question to Tumblr: A lot of my friends have started posting that they refuse to have any contact with anyone who is “pro-gamergate”. I’ve only been vaguely aware of this mess until recently. Gamergate seems to be a combination of people harassing and threatening people they don’t like, and a…

Reblogging my own thing because I am kind of scared and want help and this is the best plan I can come up with because my brain starts to panic if I think about this for more than a few minutes at a time.

Here is my understanding of the situation:

the pro-Gamergate side includes many people who harass women, many anti-feminists, and Christina Hoff Sommers. It also includes a lot of people who are genuinely concerned about video game journalism ethics and some people who support Eron as an abuse survivor.

The anti-Gamergate side includes a lot of people who are legitimately concerned about misogynistic harassment of women in gaming and about good female characters; most of these people are not aware of the abuse allegations against Zoe Quinn. It also includes a fair number of people who are cheerfully taking this as an opportunity to attack low-status men and apologize for abusers.

I don’t think it’s wrong to recognize that some people who oppose harassment and are concerned about video game journalism exist. I am uncomfortable with identifying on either side— like, misogynistic harassment in the gaming community is definitely a problem, I don’t play video games but journalism ethics are basically a problem everywhere, and both sides have engaged in bad behavior. 

October 20, 2014
cartoonpolitics:

"We’ve had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don’t create jobs. Middle-class consumers do, and when they thrive, U.S. businesses grow and profit." .. (Nick Hanauer, from this article)

cartoonpolitics:

"We’ve had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don’t create jobs. Middle-class consumers do, and when they thrive, U.S. businesses grow and profit." .. (Nick Hanauer, from this article)

(Source: molotovcomics.com, via mysterysquid)

October 20, 2014

nonbinaryanders:

shiraglassman:

disaster-superhero-sluts:

Can we please take a moment to talk about this man? He is not what you would look and say “He is a superhero.” He also doesn’t have any type of superpower, he don’t fly, or have super strength, or has the mutant gene. But he had a choice to do between what was right or wrong, and even though he knew if he didn’t do as Rumlow was asking Rumlow would kill him and just do it, he preferred not to do and die. Because he wanted to do what was the right thing to do.

Okay here’s the super important thing about this guy. He has some incredibly distinct Jewish features. Obviously this doesn’t mean that the actor or the character is Jewish, but it means that when I first saw him, as a Jewish person myself, he reminded me of many boys I went to synagogue with, and my JCC’s summer camp, and so on. [EDIT: The actor is Jewish. It’s confirmed on IMDB. Also his name is Aaron Himelstein.]

I don’t think casting this man was an accident. Because HYDRA are NAZIS. No matter how far they come from that time, they’re still Nazis. And here we have this one man, possibly Jewish, who takes the only stand he can against Rumlow. He choses to die to protect the world against HYDRA, and I truly believe his decision is what turned the tide for the rest of the SHIELD agents to oppose the STRIKE team. It’s so powerful to have this be a person, a person whose family was most likely directly attacked by HYDRA, a person who is fully comprehending the price he’ll pay and what it means, be a hero. I love him so much. I have a lot of feelings about this man.

I noticed this in the theater and found it meaningful at the time. It makes me feel so good to know that it wasn’t just me.

I WROTE A FANFIC ABOUT THIS GUY IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEING THE MOVIE.

(Source: tonysassy, via datagoddess)

October 19, 2014

archiemcphee:

Hungarian artist Ervin Herve-Loranth has unleashed a giant on the city of Budapest. Entitled Feltépve (“Ripped up” or “Pop Up”), the cranky colossus is made of polystyrene and appears to be emerging from a secret subterranean lair beneath Szechenyi Square. He was created for Art Market Budapest, a 4-day-long international contemporary art fair.

Head over to We Love Budapest for additional images.

[via The Telegraph, The Huffington Post UK and We Love Budapest]

(via datagoddess)

October 19, 2014

bigeyesandstarrynights:

that was the best thing I have read in about 10 years.

(Source: best-of-memes, via datagoddess)

October 19, 2014
"

Ernest Hemingway would have died rather than have syntax. Or semicolons. I use a whole lot of half-assed semicolons; there was one of them just now; that was a semicolon after “semicolons,” and another one after “now.”

And another thing. Ernest Hemingway would have died rather than get old. And he did. He shot himself. A short sentence. Anything rather than a long sentence, a life sentence. Death sentences are short and very, very manly. Life sentences aren’t. They go on and on, all full of syntax and qualifying clauses and confusing references and getting old. And that brings up the real proof of what a mess I have made of being a man.

"

Ursula K. Le Guin on being a man – the finest, sharpest thing I’ve read in ages 

(via ananthymous)

(Source: explore-blog, via datagoddess)

October 19, 2014
"There’s a second interesting tidbit in all that “lesbians are more likely to be fat” business. As it turns out, queer girls (lesbians AND bisexuals) are ALSO more likely to NOT THINK they’re fat, even when their BMI puts them in one of the “overweight” categories. On the flip side, straight girls are more likely to think of themselves as fat even when they’re not. That’s right, “overweight” queer ladies tend to be less critical of their bodies than straight women. Researchers want to call this a problem of self-perception, but I have a different theory. It could be, perhaps, that queer girl culture doesn’t suffer the incessant, unreasonable pressure of the male gaze in the same way that straight girl culture does. After all, if you don’t have to concern yourself with attracting men as romantic partners, it’s considerable more reasonable to not give a fuck about their photoshopped-magazine-and-mainstream-pornography-fueled beauty standards, and you might be less likely to internalize that garbage."

Lesbian Obesity Study Misses the Point: We Don’t Care If We’re Fat

(via knightliest)

I suspect this is basically right but also oversimplified.

(via datagoddess)

October 19, 2014
strangelybeautifulworld:

nympherret:

like how much more obvious does this need to be made for people to get it?

this isnt even an exaggeration 
like at all

strangelybeautifulworld:

nympherret:

like how much more obvious does this need to be made for people to get it?

this isnt even an exaggeration 

like at all

(Source: america-wakiewakie, via datagoddess)

October 19, 2014
georgetakei:

Talk about a cat litter.
Source: Awwww Pets!

georgetakei:

Talk about a cat litter.

Source: Awwww Pets!

(via mysterysquid)

October 19, 2014

ozymandias271:

I’m poking OKC and I found a guy whose “you should message me if” is, like, entirely descriptions of how he wants his dream girl to be a total nympho who fucks strangers, like, “I want to pick random guys off the street and dare you to fuck them, I want you to lie to me and say you’re going out for coffee and fuck a dude, I want you to be a cum whore”

and it’s weird how repulsed I can be by someone who shares my kinks

I think it’s because he is not showing enough fantasy/reality distinction? like, even for casual sex, even for casual sex where I’m getting off on being sexually objectified, I want someone who thinks of me as a person first.

I am happy to fulfill all your sexual fantasies as long as you recognize that I have properties other than Person Who Fulfills All Your Sexual Fantasies?

also lbr this is half because he’s not hot in his photo

"I am happy to fulfill all your sexual fantasies as long as you recognize that I have properties other than Person Who Fulfills All Your Sexual Fantasies"

This should be on someone’s business card.

"also lbr this is half because he’s not hot in his photo"

Just as the not-hot portion of humanity has always suspected!  :-p

October 19, 2014
This Woman Is Strong, Sexy, And Brave—Even If She Does Have Both Legs

disabilityhistory:

Satire of inspiration porn.

(via dreadedfork)

October 19, 2014
red3blog:

hackerbentacost:

The twentieth anniversary edition of the Princess Bride has one of the nicest ambigrams I’ve seen

Sorcery.

red3blog:

hackerbentacost:

The twentieth anniversary edition of the Princess Bride has one of the nicest ambigrams I’ve seen

Sorcery.

October 19, 2014

spookycyborg:

the reviews say “gritty realism” but the heart whispers “suburban straight boy libertarian fantasy with a limited color palette”

(via mysterysquid)

October 16, 2014
hrhthebirthdayprincess:

barrydeutsch:

lacigreen:

just literally cannot with these judges.  brb barfing  (x)

That’s not what either judgement said.
There are a thousand crucial problems for feminists to be concerned with - the wage gap, the high prevalence of rape, revenge porn, the caregiving gap, sexual harassment, street harassment, attacks on reproductive rights, and I could go on and on. But fortunately, this graphic is about a fictional problem, because neither of these judgements said that upskirt shots are protected free speech.
The Texas judgement said that the law they overturned was unconstitutional because it banned too many photos in too vague a way. The law they overturned wasn’t focused on upskirt shots, but could be applied to virtually any photo taken of a person in public. In fact, the court even said that laws banning upskirt shots are constitutional:

We agree with the State that substantial privacy interests are invaded in an intolerable manner when a person is photographed without consent in a private place, such as the home, or with respect to an area of the person that is not exposed to the general public, such as up a skirt.

The DC judgement wasn’t about upskirt shots; it was about under what circumstances cops have sufficient grounds to search a camera’s contents.The judge specifically noted that there was no evidence he was taking upskirt shots:

While the Government has repeatedly attempted to characterize this as an “upskirt” case, there is no evidence that the Defendant positioned his camera on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial or otherwise underneath individuals’ clothing in order to capture clothed or concealed portions of the body.

As far as I can tell, nothing in either decision said that a creep sticking his camera under a skirt is protected by the First Amendment.

In the D.C. case the issue was Christopher Cleveland intentionally taking underwear shots of women seated on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. […
So she agrees the guy was shady but I do fault her for differentiating ‘incidental glimpses’ from longer term but still accidental exposure. I am pretty sure lots of women would immediately adjust their position if someone was seen to be aiming a camera between their legs from three steps down. Cleveland achieved stealth by distance rather than secret camera placement and I would categorize his behavior as a form of upskirting.

I would call that upskirting, too. But from what the judge’s ruling says, it doesn’t seem like the photos he was taking at the time the cops observed him were upskirt photos of the sort you describe.
According to the judge:

The photographs recovered from Mr. Cleveland’s camera memory card depict a variety of images fro mlong shot photos of the Washington Monument and Reflecting Pool and groups of people sitting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, to close up photos of individual women seated or standing in the area. As Defendant’s Response acknowledges, some of these women are seated in such a way that their private areas, including the upper inches of their buttocks, are clearly visible. Other photographs capture images of women wearing sheer or form fitting clothing through which the outline of their breasts and buttocks are visible. However, all of these images were similarly readily visible to other passersby in the area.
Footnote: While this Court in no way equates Mr. Cleveland’s actions with the great work of long time New York Times photographer Bill Cunningham, famous for his candid street shots of women and fashion, many of the images captured by the Defendant are no different than photos contained in Mr. Cunningham’s weekly photo spread “On the Street” in the Sunday Style section. See http://nyti.ms/1sGodZW and http://nyti.ms/1nDQJdg.

Unless the judge is deliberately trying to cover up for Cleveland - which seems unlikely, given her open disdain for him - I don’t think there were any upskirt photos (including upskirt shots as you define them) on his camera when he was arrested. And in any case, her ruling definitely doesn’t stand for the proposition that upskirt shots have first amendment protection,.
The article you link to quotes the court spokeswoman as saying “There was absolutely no evidence that on the day of his arrest, the defendant engaged in behavior that could be described in any way as ‘upskirting’ (the taking of photographs up a woman’s skirt).” That seems pretty unambiguous, and to match what the judge described in her ruling.
You can still disagree with the ruling, of course. But given how little I trust cops, I think the idea that cops can’t arrest someone for taking photos of people on a public mall, if he’s not shooting under people’s skirts in any way, is pretty defensible even if we agree that Cunningham was acting like a sleaze.

hrhthebirthdayprincess:

barrydeutsch:

lacigreen:

just literally cannot with these judges.  brb barfing  (x)

That’s not what either judgement said.

There are a thousand crucial problems for feminists to be concerned with - the wage gap, the high prevalence of rape, revenge porn, the caregiving gap, sexual harassment, street harassment, attacks on reproductive rights, and I could go on and on. But fortunately, this graphic is about a fictional problem, because neither of these judgements said that upskirt shots are protected free speech.

The Texas judgement said that the law they overturned was unconstitutional because it banned too many photos in too vague a way. The law they overturned wasn’t focused on upskirt shots, but could be applied to virtually any photo taken of a person in public. In fact, the court even said that laws banning upskirt shots are constitutional:

We agree with the State that substantial privacy interests are invaded in an intolerable manner when a person is photographed without consent in a private place, such as the home, or with respect to an area of the person that is not exposed to the general public, such as up a skirt.

The DC judgement wasn’t about upskirt shots; it was about under what circumstances cops have sufficient grounds to search a camera’s contents.The judge specifically noted that there was no evidence he was taking upskirt shots:

While the Government has repeatedly attempted to characterize this as an “upskirt” case, there is no evidence that the Defendant positioned his camera on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial or otherwise underneath individuals’ clothing in order to capture clothed or concealed portions of the body.

As far as I can tell, nothing in either decision said that a creep sticking his camera under a skirt is protected by the First Amendment.

In the D.C. case the issue was Christopher Cleveland intentionally taking underwear shots of women seated on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. […

So she agrees the guy was shady but I do fault her for differentiating ‘incidental glimpses’ from longer term but still accidental exposure. I am pretty sure lots of women would immediately adjust their position if someone was seen to be aiming a camera between their legs from three steps down. Cleveland achieved stealth by distance rather than secret camera placement and I would categorize his behavior as a form of upskirting.

I would call that upskirting, too. But from what the judge’s ruling says, it doesn’t seem like the photos he was taking at the time the cops observed him were upskirt photos of the sort you describe.

According to the judge:

The photographs recovered from Mr. Cleveland’s camera memory card depict a variety of images fro mlong shot photos of the Washington Monument and Reflecting Pool and groups of people sitting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, to close up photos of individual women seated or standing in the area. As Defendant’s Response acknowledges, some of these women are seated in such a way that their private areas, including the upper inches of their buttocks, are clearly visible. Other photographs capture images of women wearing sheer or form fitting clothing through which the outline of their breasts and buttocks are visible. However, all of these images were similarly readily visible to other passersby in the area.

Footnote: While this Court in no way equates Mr. Cleveland’s actions with the great work of long time New York Times photographer Bill Cunningham, famous for his candid street shots of women and fashion, many of the images captured by the Defendant are no different than photos contained in Mr. Cunningham’s weekly photo spread “On the Street” in the Sunday Style section. See http://nyti.ms/1sGodZW and http://nyti.ms/1nDQJdg.

Unless the judge is deliberately trying to cover up for Cleveland - which seems unlikely, given her open disdain for him - I don’t think there were any upskirt photos (including upskirt shots as you define them) on his camera when he was arrested. And in any case, her ruling definitely doesn’t stand for the proposition that upskirt shots have first amendment protection,.

The article you link to quotes the court spokeswoman as saying “There was absolutely no evidence that on the day of his arrest, the defendant engaged in behavior that could be described in any way as ‘upskirting’ (the taking of photographs up a woman’s skirt).” That seems pretty unambiguous, and to match what the judge described in her ruling.

You can still disagree with the ruling, of course. But given how little I trust cops, I think the idea that cops can’t arrest someone for taking photos of people on a public mall, if he’s not shooting under people’s skirts in any way, is pretty defensible even if we agree that Cunningham was acting like a sleaze.

October 16, 2014
johnnyideaseed:

daveboogie:

Here is a pic of Grace Jones shoving cake into Divine’s mouth at what I believe was Grace’s 30th birthday party…you’re welcome!

It’s like “The Creation of Adam,” but relevant to my interests.

Reblogged for the Creation of Adam comment.

johnnyideaseed:

daveboogie:

Here is a pic of Grace Jones shoving cake into Divine’s mouth at what I believe was Grace’s 30th birthday party…you’re welcome!

It’s like “The Creation of Adam,” but relevant to my interests.

Reblogged for the Creation of Adam comment.

(via datagoddess)

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »