percy-the-tree-stump:

artofnatiq:

joshosoarus:

cupidssoftquiver:

chunks-of-what:

botanize:

Ain’t clitoris that big red dog

Thats clifford babe. Clitoris is that guy who flew too close to the sun and his wings melted

no no you’re thinking of icarus. Clitoris is a part of a song that is repeated after each verse.

No that’s Chorus. Clitoris is a candy made from the root Glucyrrhiza glabra.

No. You’re thinking of licorice. Clitorus is Sherman Klump’s dad on the Nutty Professor.

No, you’re thinking of Cletus. Clitoris is a draught horse breed named after s county in Scotland.

kane52630:

ruinedchildhood:

sharabp:

Throughly enjoying other restaurants reacting to IHOb

Lmao!!!

yourbigsisnissi:

Step one-

Take some time on your own to decide what healthy relationships and friendships are. Make a list of the things you want, and also the things you need (ex: would be nice if we had things in common, not always necessary. But I need honesty)

Step two-

Commit yourself to the standards you have for your relationship. Articulate what you will not tolerate. Promise yourself that you won’t allow specific behavior from anyone.

Step three-

Mean it.

Step four-

If a person does not adhere to your boundaries, let them know they have crossed a line. Not in a week from now, not later on when it happens again. Immediately address the disrespect, let it be known that it wasn’t ok, and say you cannot be around a person who behaves that way/treats you that way

Step five-

Mean it.

Step six-

Give the person space to demonstrate they understand your boundaries. No need to nag or continually bring up how to felt slighted. Give the person space to change their behavior.

Step seven-

If the person crosses your boundaries again, create space from them. You may or may not decide for that space to be permanently cutting them off, or just demoting them from friend to acquaintance. Do not pretend that it didn’t bother you. Do not ignore it. Do not immediately forgive them. They did not respect your boundaries, so they are not equipped to be in your life.

Step eight-

Understand that this applies to you too. If you violate somebodies boundaries, they are entitled to eliminating you from their life. Respect them enough to take yourself out of their life until they invite you back in. Don’t get mad when they don’t forgive you right away. The reason why you don’t cross boundaries is because you respect the person and value the relationship/friendship too much to ever do something that could end it. Think of your consequences before you cross the line, not after.

ruinedchildhood:

sharabp:

Throughly enjoying other restaurants reacting to IHOb

“Now, I don’t smell like wet dog.”

This is so wild.

Riots

infinite-liminal-beings:

queeranarchism:

elliegrine:

queeranarchism:

queeranarchism:

While we’re on the topic of the kind of lawbreaking ‘civil’ society frowns upon, let’s say out loud for a moment that rioting in response to injustice works.

Is it dangerous? yes. Will the media lie about it? yes. Will people in our own communities tell us that we’re ruining it for the good activists? probably.

But when every police shooting is answered with riots, smashed windows, burned trashcans, the direct result is that police departments find themselves under pressure to not create more ‘incidents’ because riots are expensive, cost politicians votes and break through the illusion of total state control.

Riots actually make cops think twice about the consequences of their actions while politely appealing to recognition of our humanity and reforms and  sensitivity trainings generally achieve fuck all.

Further reading:

• How Nonviolence Protects the State
• The Failure of Nonviolence

skye-is-blu: Really? You’re advocating violence? Civil disobedience works, just look at history. Nonviolent protests work. Look at Ghandi, Montgomery bus bycott, women’s suffrage, MLK washington march. There are so many examples of peaceful protests that have either sparked conversation about the way we do things and treat others or have even contributed to the end of the injustice in question altogether.

I’m gonnna quote Peter Gelderloos How Nonviolence Protects the State here because he said it better than I ever could:

The pacifist history of India’s independence movement is a selective and incomplete picture. Nonviolence was not universal in India. Pacifists white out those other forms of resistance and help propagate the false history that Gandhi and his disciples were the lone masthead and rudder of Indian resistance. Ignored are important militant leaders such as Chandrasekhar Azad, who fought in armed struggle against the British colonizers, and revolutionaries such as Bhagat Singh, who won mass support for bombings and assassinations as part of a struggle to accomplish the “overthrow of both foreign and Indian capitalism.”

The pacifist history of India’s struggle cannot make any sense of the fact that Subhas Chandra Bose, the militant candidate, was twice elected president of the Indian National Congress, in 1938 and 1939. History remembers Gandhi above all others not because he represented the unanimous voice of India, but because of all the attention he was given by the British press and the prominence he received from being included in important negotiations with the British colonial government. 

and

The common projection is that the movement against racial oppression in the United States was primarily nonviolent. On the contrary, though pacifist groups such as Martin Luther King Jr.‘s Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) had considerable power and influence, popular support within the movement, especially among poor black people, increasingly gravitated toward militant revolutionary groups such as the Black Panther Party. Pacifist, middle-class black activists, including King, got much of their power from the specter of black resistance and the presence of armed black revolutionaries.

In the spring of 1963, Martin Luther King Jr.‘s Birmingham campaign was looking like it would be a repeat of the dismally failed action in Albany, Georgia Then, on May 7 in Birmingham, after continued police violence, three thousand black people began fighting back, pelting the police with rocks and bottles. Just two days later, Birmingham — up until then an inflexible bastion of segregation — agreed to desegregate downtown stores, and President Kennedy backed the agreement with federal guarantees. The next day, after local white supremacists bombed a black home and a black business, thousands of black people rioted again, seizing a 9 block area, destroying police cars, injuring several cops (including the chief inspector), and burning white businesses. A month and a day later, President Kennedy was calling for Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act, ending several years of a strategy to stall the civil rights movement. Perhaps the largest of the limited, if not hollow, victories of the civil rights movement came when black people demonstrated they would not remain peaceful forever. Faced with the two alternatives, the white power structure chose to negotiate with the pacifists, and we have seen the results.

And while we’re at it:

Privileged white people were instrumental in appointing activists such as Gandhi and King to positions of leadership on a national scale. Among white activists and, not coincidentally, the white-supremacist ruling class, the civil rights-era March on Washington is associated first and foremost with Martin Luther King Jr.‘s “I Have a Dream” speech. Mostly absent from the white consciousness, but at least as influential to black people, was Malcolm X’s perspective, as articulated in his speech criticizing the march’s leadership:

“It was the grassroots out there in the street. It scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, DC, to death; I was there. When they found out this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in…these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, “Call it off.” Kennedy said, “Look, you all are letting this thing go too far.” And Old Tom said, “Boss, I can’t stop it because I didn’t start it.” I’m telling you what they said. They said, “I’m not even in it, much less at the head of it.” They said, “These Negroes are doing things on their own. They’re running ahead of us.” And that old shrewd fox, he said, “If you all aren’t in it, I’ll put you in it. I’ll put you at the head of it. I’ll endorse it. I’ll welcome it….

This is what they did at the march on Washington. They joined it…became part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. It ceased to be angry, it ceased to be hot, it ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all…. No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover….They controlled it so tight, they told those Negroes what time to hit town, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn’t make, and then told them to get out of town by sundown.”

The end result of the march was to invest significant movement resources, at a critical time, in an ultimately pacifying event. Demonstrators received premade protest signs with government-approved slogans; the speeches of several protest leaders, including SNCC chairman John Lewis, were censored to take out threats of armed struggle and criticisms of the government’s civil rights bill; and, just as Malcolm X described, at the end, the whole crowd was told to leave as soon as possible.

And finally:

Even Gandhi and King agreed it was necessary to support armed liberation movements where there was no nonviolent alternative, prioritizing goals over particular tactics. But the mostly white pacifists of today erase this part of the history and re-create nonviolence to fit their comfort level.

King’s more disturbing (to white people) criticism of racism is avoided and his clichéd prescriptions for feel-good, nonviolent activism are repeated ad nauseum, allowing white pacifists to cash in on an authoritative cultural resource to confirm their nonviolent activism.

Further reading: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state

So in short, assuming I understand correctly, peaceful protesting can only succeed when fighting for the same cause as a militant group and only do so because the provide the state an option to pacify the masses with a smaller change than what is demanded. 

The state will find it better reach out to the pacifists as they, knowing they posses little power over the state, are more eager to settle for a solution less drastic than the militants will. And with there being an agreement, a small improvement, some of the militants will no longer see enough left to gain to make up for the costs of remaining militant - thus leaving the movement without enough steam to continue, and without having reached more than a few of its goals

YES.

Often respectable non-violent activist groups who speak to power in a civilized manner get nowhere for decades because the system doesn’t need to listen to them, because it loses nothing from ignoring them.

But then a radical activist group shows up who are prepared to just burn the system down. And then suddenly listening to that reasonable non-violent group becomes very attractive to those in power.  

And the non-violent group will always claim that their non-violence was what changed the system, but it was the fear of something worse that made the system change.

When the change becomes history, the system will loudly claim that it was the non-violent group that created the change, it will paint that group to be even more absolutely pacifist than they ever were and will provide funding to foundations that train young activists in this fundamentally ineffective non-violent method so that this process can repeat itself.

tldr: Non-violent activism doesn’t create change, it is utilized by those in power to manage and limit change. 

Am Indian, we extensively learn about the freedom struggle in history in schools, and-

“The pacifist history of India’s struggle”-

Lel.

The struggle was not pacifist. Civil disobedience, in practise, was not pacifist. During the civil disobedience movement, there were riots across India. People set fire to places, there were mobs, hundreds were arrested.

And even if one works within the purest definition of civil disobedience- it’s not exactly peaceful. Civil disobedience literally implies, well, disobeying the law. Strikes are civil disobedience. Protests blocking traffic, or protests without police permission, are civil disobedience. Resisting the police is civil disobedience. A crowd of people walking kilometres to draw attention to an unjust salt law is civil disobedience.

Just amused every time someone brings up Gandhi and the civil disobedience movement as an example of pacifism.

Also, uh. Mutiny among Indian soldiers drafted to fight for the British was, uh, alkso a pretty big part of India’s struggle. See also: Mangal Pandey, Rebellion of 1857

- Blue

Can all the black men who love black women and vice versa reblog this so we can find each other?

best-seen-in-snow:

mysticalcoffeequeen:

theshortchickwiththefro:

sammienatural:

jojothree:

urxstaci:

drenchmybeard:

amberporcelain:

👀

Always

I love my queens. You’ve found me😊

Always loving a black king ALL SHADES

Black Kings ughhh🖤👑

Can black men who love and RESPECT black women UNCONDITIONALLY please Reblog this???

🤟🏿

ask-finny:

official-sachsen-anhalt:

trapperweasel:

ethanredotter:

trapperweasel:

I asked my boyfriend in Canada once, how he deals with polar bears because I was curious about what to do and he was like, just be calm, let them know you’re there, and give them space and they’ll usually just go away. 

In Finland on the other hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7_pVrIshxA

Lmao Finland Man ain’t taking shit from bears.

PERRrrRrrRrKELE

((Two kinds of people))

Don’t just accept the new Terms of Service

riotbrrrd:

expatgirl:

the-mad-duchess:

Tumblr’s at it again, thanks to the new European Privacy Laws. There’s probably nobody who will read this, but it pissed me off so much that I decided to make a post about it. (Ignore the weird language mish-mash, depending on your country the language might differ.)

OK, so many of us get this screen when we try to access our dash:

Realise how the ‘OK’ button is a nice, attention-grabbing blue? If you’re like me, you’re not exactly into reading a 100 pages document and tend to just click it.

My tip? DONT. Instead click on ‘Manage Options’ right next to it:

Now you’ll see this page:

Still pretty harmless, right? That ‘Accept’ button is looking really attractive right now. Instead, click on Verwalten (Probably something like ‘Manage Options’ or something in english) and you’ll get to this page:

Now that’s not too bad, right? I just switched all the buttons to ‘off’, because I’m jealously guarding my personal information and don’t want Tumblr to go off and do who knows what with it. Looks like we’re done! But wait: There’s a SHOW option.

When we click on that one, what we will get is this:

A HUGE list with OVER 300 ENTRIES of companies that can use your data by default if you’d just clicked ‘OK’ on that very first page. Coincidence that this list is hidden that much? Me thinks not. They’re all switched on by default, but I am still a petty bitch that doesn’t want to give out her data, so I switched them all off. All 300+ of them. There is no option to switch them all off at once, and even if you disable all the options above, the companies are still switched on.

(If you wonder how i got that number, I copied the list into excel and looked at the cell number. No way am I actually counting all those entries)

I too, am a petty bitch who unticked every single one.

OKAY BUT IT DOESN’T WORK

Like, if you’ve already gone through this you can find it again under the confidentiality tab of your settings:

here, if you try to deactivate the “cookie consent” thing, you get sent back to the “before you continue” screen.

You can follow all the instructions as described in the OP, BUT

once you’ve unticked all the 300 buttons off you get a “done” button here

WHICH SENDS YOU BACK

TO THE “BEFORE YOU CONTINUE” SCREEN

AND IF YOU CLICK “OK” NOW YOU BASICALLY RE-ACCEPT TO SEND YOUR DATA TO ALL THE BOXES YOU’VE UNTICKED

Same if you go to the second screen and try to click “ok” here

I know because I just unticked all those boxes 6 times while trying to find where the loophole was :))))))))))))))))))

And every goddamn time when I go back to my settings it shows the cookie consent thing activated and all the boxes ticked. I tried unticking only some of them but nah, it keeps doing it. It’s “required to use tumblr” so as far as I know you have actually no say in it.

I’ll keep you updated if I finally find a way to deal with this shit permanently