navigatethestream:

its the notion of boycotts

you wanna know why the bus boycotts of the civil rights movement were so successful?

because an alternative black run transportation system was created for those who couldn’t walk to work or whatever they had to go

they didn’t just tell people “oh the bus enforces racist policies so don’t take it and FUCK if you can’t get to work on time or where you need to be!” 

they said “hey you’re paying to get on the bus and not even being given a seat let alone being ejected if a white passenger needs your seat. here’s a potentially better alternative where you pay to sit down and get to where you need to go” 

all this “boycott Target, Walmart, Monsanto owned companies” comes from a notion of boycott located in the politic of privileged white people

and that’s why they are largely unsuccessful

its why Obama just gave Monsanto the green light to commit even more fuckery to your food

its the reason why cooperation are considered people

its the reason why Walmart is allowed to usurp safety and labor regulations in their factories, and underpay their American workers

because you say “don’t spend your money there” and that’s the end of the story 

you expect people to locate their survival in a politic of “abstaining from unethical choices”

and then from there those unethical choices are somehow supposed to magically disappear. when really only a small percentage of people are able to boycott so many things

there wouldn’t be a movement located around the “99%” if 99% of people could really afford to stop shopping at the unethical places and stop buying the unethical brands

good luck with your hocus pocus activist logic 

ihaveabsolutelynoidea:

Time uses a picture of a young woman taking a selfie to demonstrate how fucked up our generation is

Why not use a picture of a 50 year old white male banker masturbating with mortgage papers into the mouth of a senator

safe-behind-bars:

IM SHARING THIS FUCKING TWICE IN A ROW BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA HOW PERFECT THIS IS.

circuitfry:

shitstraightwhiteguyssay:

so-elegantly-disheveled:

I really, really love this. Can everyone please remember this?

The ultimate response

That’s a nice way of putting it, actually.

the-full-grohac:

urdchama:

foodnun:

DAMN

ohoSNAP.

This is an amazing campaign. 

warcrimenancydrew:

it is possible to care about multiple tragedies at the same time

it is possible to feel sad for boston but also islamophobia and also iraq and also pakistan

any posts that say “hey let’s only focus on this” are not recognizing that it’s ok to realize multiple sad things happen at the same time. we’re people. we’re made of feelings. sadness is not limited. feel as much of it as you need to.

personofcolour:

US foreign policy summed up by Spongebob

"Consider how textbooks treat Native religions as a unitary whole. The American Way describes Native American religion in these words: “These Native Americans [in the Southeast] believed that nature was filled with spirits. Each form of life, such as plants and animals, had a spirit. Earth and air held spirits too. People were never alone. They shared their lives with the spirits of nature.” Way is trying to show respect for Native American religion, but it doesn’t work. Stated flatly like this, the beliefs seem like make-believe, not the sophisticated theology of a higher civilization. Let us try a similarly succinct summary of the beliefs of many Christians today: “These Americans believed that one great male god ruled the world. Sometimes they divided him into three parts, which they called father, son, and holy ghost. They ate crackers and wine or grape juice, believing that they were eating the son’s body and drinking his blood. If they believed strongly enough, they would live on forever after they died.” Textbooks never describe Christianity this way. It’s offensive. Believers would immediately argue that such a depiction fails to convey the symbolic meaning or the spiritual satisfaction of communion."

— Lies My Teacher Told Me, James Loewen (via whoistorule)

"Even when a person is dead, bodily autonomy trumps right to life. After all, they still need permission to harvest organs from a corpse to save other lives. I just think that women [and other pregnant persons] should at least have the same right to bodily autonomy as a corpse."

—

A quote I just read in relation to abortion. Very well put. 

“Body Autonomy” or “Bodily integrity” is self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. You can’t be forced to give blood, bone marrow, or any part of you to another. You can’t even have them taken from you after you die without permission. The fact that you can save a life is irrelevant, nobody can forcefully take something from you.

Yet, there are people out there who believe 50% of the population *must* give up their body for 9 months, even if there’s risk of it killing them. 

This is my new favourite “anti-choice folk are ignorant, sexist, idiots” argument. 

(via justcarl)