Figs and milk.

The needle has landed.

“Sports fans have caused actual riots, but people still take sports seriously. Boy band fans scream at concerts, and suddenly they’re “a spectacle of the natural world.” Things that are made for women, particularly young women, are automatically given less respect. Girls who get interested interested in comic books or video games or science fiction get called “fake geek girls.”

Magazines and television and advertisements tell teenage girls that they should like certain things, and then other magazines tell girls that they’re stupid for liking those things. Then magazines publish articles and TV shows run specials wondering why teenage girls don’t have better self esteem, like they didn’t make it that way.

There’s nothing wrong with teenage girls being enthusiastic about boy bands or (heaven forbid) having sexual feelings about the boys in boy bands. There is something wrong with the way that other people react to teenage girls and their interests.”
Boy Bands and Sexism: Can We Stop Hating Teenage Girls? (via brute-reason)

(Source: brutereason)

On inherent flaws

dearcoquette:

Humans are born selfish, therefore equality/end of discrimination will never be achieved, and we should stop working towards it. Your thoughts?


Humans are born wailing shit puddles of weakness and need. You know what happens? We grow. We develop. We become a little less weak, and if we’re lucky, we improve, both as individuals and as a species.

Achieving equality isn’t the point. Neither is the end of discrimination. What does that even mean, anyway? Are you talking about equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? And discrimination isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There are plenty of groups who deserve whatever discrimination comes their way. Men who catcall, for instance. People who wear finger-toed sandals. Anyone who voted yes on Prop 8.

The human condition is one big fucking tragedy, but that’s no reason to stop working towards something better. You don’t get to give up because of the inherent flaws in our nature. That’s the worst kind of weakness.

antieverythingism:

A brave IDF pointing his gun at a dangerous Palestinian terrorist.

antieverythingism:

A brave IDF pointing his gun at a dangerous Palestinian terrorist.

(Source: nowinexile)

All these people bitching about Jessica Sanchez being “un-Filipino” forget that she joined a show called American Idol.

theartful-dodger:

There are people bitching about Jessica Sanchez being un-Filipino? Uhhh?

(Source: petradactyl)

On a coke and a smile.

dearcoquette:

Is it okay that I like this even though it’s an advertisement?


I suppose it’s okay if you also recognize the ironic implications of the largest corporate brand on the planet utilizing the most Orwellian component of modern society to appeal to your cheapest level of sentimentality so that you will continue to be emotionally manipulated into mindlessly consuming its addictive and unhealthy product.

Yeah, I suppose it’s okay then.

On invisible children, inc.

dearcoquette:

I have no idea whatsoever how to read the audited financial statement of Invisible Children. I’m trying to educate myself more on them and Kony 2012 but I just don’t understand what’s bad and good about the statement.

Care to point anything out?


In fiscal year 2011, Invisible Children, Inc. took in a total of 13.7 million dollars in support and revenue, and spent 2.8 million dollars on direct services.

That’s really all you need to know.

In charity-speak, “direct services” is exactly what you think it is. It’s the money directly spent on actual charitable services. Everything else is administration, fundraising, and marketing. (In this case, documentary filmmaking.)

In 2011, Invisible Children doled out 2.8 million dollars in furtherance of “building an early warning radio network,” “educating local communities,” and “deploying search and rescue teams.” That’s noble work. So is raising awareness about Joseph Kony.

However, Invisible Children also spent 1.7 million dollars paying it’s employees, 1.2 million on film and production expenses, and another million on travel and transportation. It owns 1.2 million dollars of hard assets (computers and film equipment), it spent almost four hundred thousand dollars leasing office space, and it has 6 million dollars in cash just lying around.

None of this is good or bad. This isn’t about a value judgment. Nothing in the report is shady or duplicitous, and no one is lying to you about any of it.

This is all just useful information. I’m no expert, and you should do your own homework, but to me, the statement of functional expenses for 2011 reads like an operating statement of a production company, not a charity.

That’s the point, though. Like I said before, this is all just a big media-driven anti-Kony marketing campaign. It says so right on the box. That’s fine, and I hope it works.

My ultimate point is that before you buy in to something, you should know what you’re buying. That’s all.

On donating to kony 2012.

dearcoquette:

Reading your thoughts on Kony 2012 is interesting, so do you think it would be a good idea to donate?


No, I don’t. I took the time to read the organization’s audited financial statement, and I didn’t like what I saw. These guys aren’t hardened in-the-shit organizers. They’re essentially a well-funded production company that makes slick documentaries. Noble intentions aside, they aren’t doing charity so much as they’re playing charity.

Then of course, there’s the project founder, Jason Russell. Read this interview where he says, “If Oprah, Steven Spielberg and Bono had a baby, I would be that baby.”

Yeah, those really are his own words. His middle name is Radical. His kid’s middle name is Danger. Yikes. The guy just doesn’t sit right with me. I’d say he was a narcissist with a savior complex, but it’s hard to tell through the fog of trust fund entitlement.

To be clear, I’m not saying that Russell is a bad guy, or that Invisible Children is corrupt in any way. He’s righteous, and it’s definitely a worthy cause. Still, you should know that if you donate your money to Kony 2012, you’re donating to little more than a marketing campaign.

That’s fine. Kony really is one of the most evil fucks on the planet, and he deserves all the attention he gets. If it makes you feel good, spend thirty bucks and wear a bracelet. Whatever.

On the other hand, If you want to donate to charities that actually get shit done, then send your money to Africare or Doctors Without Borders.

On joseph kony’s fame.

dearcoquette:

What’s your take on the Make Joseph Kony Famous movement?


It’s an interesting experiment in charity-based international justice. It’s also well timed. The movement has the potential for success, but only during the current administration, and only in this election year.

It comes down to whether President Obama finds it politically expedient to use the U.S. military to directly intervene and either kill or capture Kony.

That’s all that matters. Everything else is marketing and public relations in furtherance of fundraising.

If you want my prediction, Oprah will end up being the one who really takes this to Obama’s doorstep in a public way. The question is, can a movement like this put enough pressure on the President in the thick of campaign season so that he chooses to dust off SEAL Team Six for a sequel? Maybe. Probably not.

One thing’s for sure, if we hear President Obama mention Joseph Kony’s name in the same breath as Osama Bin Laden, that evil fucker’s days are numbered.

We’ll see.

As always, these things are more nuanced than the hipster documentarian from USC film school would lead us to believe.

On persona.

dearcoquette:

Coke, is your ‘raging bitch’ persona really all that different from wanting to be a fictional character? I mean, yeah there’s meaningful and creepy differences between playing a role and wanting to be a specific fictional character instead of putting a particular spin on yourself, but I feel like there’s a bit of pot calling kettle black going on here. Your whole ‘deal’ on this site feels a lot like that sort of fantasy. :/


On which fictional character am I based? Am I pretending to be someone else’s character, or would you at least grant that my online persona is somewhat original? That’s the point.

Everyone’s aspirational identity is based on various amalgams of both real and fictional role models. That’s not the problem. The problem is when people do it passively, without any self-examination or original thought.

Self knowledge is critical here. It’s the difference in being able to say, “I know who I am, and therefore I have adopted ‘X’ as an expression of my identity,” versus, “I don’t have a fucking clue who I am, and therefore I have adopted ‘X’ as an expression of my identity.”

One is clothing. The other is costume.

prufrocking:

antithet:

blanketforyourshock:

antithet:

talltaleteller:


In Defense of Fandoms

I’ve been called out several times over about how frustrating it is that I can’t just like something and leave it be. That I’ve crossed the line from appreciation towards obsession several times over, and that to pore over something thoroughly is not the same as adoring it abusively. I’ve had a long talk about it with my condiment bottles (don’t ask), and I have this to say:
It’s absolutely fine to have a spectrum of appreciation that delves into the disturbing sometimes. I think everybody has the potential to think this way, most just don’t let themselves because there’s an unspoken rule that says anybody who does is clearly insane. And those who do convene because people who understand feeling strongly about the same things happen to be a rarity.
And the moment they do, something brilliant happens: a new culture forms. A new culture bred out of a person’s work sparking something in people, ideas begetting further ideas, forging relationships, and creating a new zest for life, activity, and creativity.
I usually delve into a fandom after falling in love with something for the shallowest of reasons, at first. But then, how can you possibly not start seeing the real world better after loving something so intensely?
My first love that got me into fandom was Heroes, and I fell in love with it because I thought the contrast between the two primarily popular heroes was portrayed absolutely perfectly. Hiro Nakamura and Peter Petrelli both took the initiative to try to save the world, Hiro out of a sense of duty— with great power comes great responsibility — and Peter out of a quest of self-discovery, and finding a purpose in life.
Afterwards, that show introduced me to what would be my next, and most long-term love: Doctor Who. I learned that even the most godlike of creatures, who believed in people and taught that even the most ordinary of people have the potential to be fantastic. Also that things are best seen with a fresh perspective.
Doctor Who then introduced me to Sherlock Holmes. Oh, what a love affair that’s been ever since. I’ve gained a newfound confidence while learning to be humble, learnt to ask better questions and seek out more facts, find how to better my friends and how they can better me, among other things.
And this is only my personal, isolated experience of it. Once you find people who feel the same way, things change. People who appreciate the creative process and try to recreate it, themselves, who see the value of layers and layers of content, and how much heart and effort was put into all of it. I really do mean it when I say I wouldn’t be half as confident as I am today without the Sherlockians, or the fandom experience as a whole.
And the thing is, it is so difficult to find that in other people these days. Many of us have become so nonchalant, being bombarded with so much information and being asked to pay attention to so many needless things that it’s become so easy to get disenchanted with the creative world, because the things that are remiss tend to be oversaturated and mass-fed to the public without knowing they’re gorging on insubstantial stuff. Kind of like wonderbread.
So yes, I do love being an irrationally exuberant fan. I love how it gives me confidence and makes me learn to appreciate things better. I’ve learned to only be critical for the right reasons, and to seek value in all things. I’ve seen how people, given the right material to channel energy from, have the potential to be amazing. I’ve seen how different people can have different motives towards the same goal, and how those motives reflect different cultures and reveal essential similarities and difference that help to understand people better.
And most importantly, I’ve learned about the power of imagination, and how ideas can bring people of different cultures together and make their lives all the richer.
And if you have a problem with that, you can suck it.

First of all it’s pour over and secondly, yes there is something wrong. There is a line between appreciation and obsession and most people will, correctly, tell you that too much of something is bad for you. Call it a high level of personal involvement if you like that doesn’t change the fact that the high level of emotions people invest in such things is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with having favourite things that are significant to your life but when it gets to the point where it’s actually affecting your life, that’s when you need to stop. It’s not fine to border on obsession, it isn’t good at all.
This person is trying to give this obsession some form of credibility by discussing the creative side and the culture formed around it and how that’s a good thing. I agree with some of that. The creativity inspired by it, the fan artwork, the (less disturbing) fan fictions. Those are the good things. This ‘culture’, this feeling of validation is other people liking the same things as them. Giving them a sense of belonging, just like everyone has with other people. That’s how people create friends over mutual appreciation of things. The manner in which the person speaks about it is hypocritical. Discussing how meaningless other things in our lives are without realising that the same point could be made against exactly what they are trying to defend. Everyone has likes and it’s fine to joke about how they make you better than others, I do that all the time but don’t try to defend it as something actually more important than the other things because you’re wrong there.
After reading this and thinking over it, this sounds like the same rationale that an addict has, trying their best to make up any excuse they can to prove to themselves that everything they are putting into it is worth it. It’s nice to like things but when it gets to the point where you have to defend yourself against accusations of insanity, that usually means you’re taking it too far.

Bolded the points that make me want to tear my eyes out.
How dare you assume we’re not doing well in our lives because we love something so intensely? Do we need to prove certain things that will show that we lead “proper, correct lives”? I don’t think adding something that makes your life richer and wonderful means that everything else is insignificant. Heck, if anything, fandom made us live life better.
So, in the words of Tintin: “And if you have a problem with that, you can suck it.”

You clearly didn’t understand what I was trying to get at there and several points you made seem only to prove me right.

Oh my god I don’t want to start a hatefest here but okay, here is where I am getting at.

You: “The manner in which the person speaks about it is hypocritical. Discussing how meaningless other things in our lives are without realising that the same point could be made against exactly what they are trying to defend.”

I said we could all be susceptible to disenchantment, not that it happens to everything else. Did I not say that fandom experience definitely enhances living in the real world? Yes, fandom interest does begin at a shallow point, sometimes it doesn’t penetrate to the core of why liking something is important, but it does lead to some degree of progress.
Lonely people forging new friendships, for starters.

You: “Call it a high level of personal involvement if you like that doesn’t change the fact that the high level of emotions people invest in such things is ridiculous.”

Please do not assume that you know how these people live outside of fandom. Please don’t. It’ll make them hate you, and I don’t want that happening.
Here is where I’m getting at, okay: have you ever thought that before fandom you always thought the worst of people? I did — a lot. Being very judgmental, always thinking badly of some people without even knowing them that well.
I’ve learned to decrease this impulse because fandom’s taught me that it takes time for wonderful qualities in people to be demonstrated. And that the most unlikely people can like the same things as you, and if you find core similarities between yourself and others — kindred spirits — is that not the most wonderful feeling in the world?
Here is a quote from The History Boys that sums up my feelings: 

“The best moments in reading are when you come across something — a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things — that you’d thought special, particular to you. And here it is, set down by someone else, a person you’ve never met, maybe even someone long dead. And it’s as if a hand has come out and taken yours.”

And imagine, having a personal connection not just with an author but with an entire community. How can you possibly dislike passion that betters lives?

prufrocking:

antithet:

blanketforyourshock:

antithet:

talltaleteller:

In Defense of Fandoms

I’ve been called out several times over about how frustrating it is that I can’t just like something and leave it be. That I’ve crossed the line from appreciation towards obsession several times over, and that to pore over something thoroughly is not the same as adoring it abusively. I’ve had a long talk about it with my condiment bottles (don’t ask), and I have this to say:

It’s absolutely fine to have a spectrum of appreciation that delves into the disturbing sometimes. I think everybody has the potential to think this way, most just don’t let themselves because there’s an unspoken rule that says anybody who does is clearly insane. And those who do convene because people who understand feeling strongly about the same things happen to be a rarity.

And the moment they do, something brilliant happens: a new culture forms. A new culture bred out of a person’s work sparking something in people, ideas begetting further ideas, forging relationships, and creating a new zest for life, activity, and creativity.

I usually delve into a fandom after falling in love with something for the shallowest of reasons, at first. But then, how can you possibly not start seeing the real world better after loving something so intensely?

  • My first love that got me into fandom was Heroes, and I fell in love with it because I thought the contrast between the two primarily popular heroes was portrayed absolutely perfectly. Hiro Nakamura and Peter Petrelli both took the initiative to try to save the world, Hiro out of a sense of duty— with great power comes great responsibility — and Peter out of a quest of self-discovery, and finding a purpose in life.
  • Afterwards, that show introduced me to what would be my next, and most long-term love: Doctor Who. I learned that even the most godlike of creatures, who believed in people and taught that even the most ordinary of people have the potential to be fantastic. Also that things are best seen with a fresh perspective.
  • Doctor Who then introduced me to Sherlock Holmes. Oh, what a love affair that’s been ever since. I’ve gained a newfound confidence while learning to be humble, learnt to ask better questions and seek out more facts, find how to better my friends and how they can better me, among other things.

And this is only my personal, isolated experience of it. Once you find people who feel the same way, things change. People who appreciate the creative process and try to recreate it, themselves, who see the value of layers and layers of content, and how much heart and effort was put into all of it. I really do mean it when I say I wouldn’t be half as confident as I am today without the Sherlockians, or the fandom experience as a whole.

And the thing is, it is so difficult to find that in other people these days. Many of us have become so nonchalant, being bombarded with so much information and being asked to pay attention to so many needless things that it’s become so easy to get disenchanted with the creative world, because the things that are remiss tend to be oversaturated and mass-fed to the public without knowing they’re gorging on insubstantial stuff. Kind of like wonderbread.

So yes, I do love being an irrationally exuberant fan. I love how it gives me confidence and makes me learn to appreciate things better. I’ve learned to only be critical for the right reasons, and to seek value in all things. I’ve seen how people, given the right material to channel energy from, have the potential to be amazing. I’ve seen how different people can have different motives towards the same goal, and how those motives reflect different cultures and reveal essential similarities and difference that help to understand people better.

And most importantly, I’ve learned about the power of imagination, and how ideas can bring people of different cultures together and make their lives all the richer.

And if you have a problem with that, you can suck it.

First of all it’s pour over and secondly, yes there is something wrong. There is a line between appreciation and obsession and most people will, correctly, tell you that too much of something is bad for you. Call it a high level of personal involvement if you like that doesn’t change the fact that the high level of emotions people invest in such things is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with having favourite things that are significant to your life but when it gets to the point where it’s actually affecting your life, that’s when you need to stop. It’s not fine to border on obsession, it isn’t good at all.

This person is trying to give this obsession some form of credibility by discussing the creative side and the culture formed around it and how that’s a good thing. I agree with some of that. The creativity inspired by it, the fan artwork, the (less disturbing) fan fictions. Those are the good things. This ‘culture’, this feeling of validation is other people liking the same things as them. Giving them a sense of belonging, just like everyone has with other people. That’s how people create friends over mutual appreciation of things. The manner in which the person speaks about it is hypocritical. Discussing how meaningless other things in our lives are without realising that the same point could be made against exactly what they are trying to defend. Everyone has likes and it’s fine to joke about how they make you better than others, I do that all the time but don’t try to defend it as something actually more important than the other things because you’re wrong there.

After reading this and thinking over it, this sounds like the same rationale that an addict has, trying their best to make up any excuse they can to prove to themselves that everything they are putting into it is worth it. It’s nice to like things but when it gets to the point where you have to defend yourself against accusations of insanity, that usually means you’re taking it too far.

Bolded the points that make me want to tear my eyes out.

How dare you assume we’re not doing well in our lives because we love something so intensely? Do we need to prove certain things that will show that we lead “proper, correct lives”? I don’t think adding something that makes your life richer and wonderful means that everything else is insignificant. Heck, if anything, fandom made us live life better.

So, in the words of Tintin: “And if you have a problem with that, you can suck it.”

You clearly didn’t understand what I was trying to get at there and several points you made seem only to prove me right.

Oh my god I don’t want to start a hatefest here but okay, here is where I am getting at.

You: “The manner in which the person speaks about it is hypocritical. Discussing how meaningless other things in our lives are without realising that the same point could be made against exactly what they are trying to defend.”

I said we could all be susceptible to disenchantment, not that it happens to everything else. Did I not say that fandom experience definitely enhances living in the real world? Yes, fandom interest does begin at a shallow point, sometimes it doesn’t penetrate to the core of why liking something is important, but it does lead to some degree of progress.

Lonely people forging new friendships, for starters.

You: Call it a high level of personal involvement if you like that doesn’t change the fact that the high level of emotions people invest in such things is ridiculous.”

Please do not assume that you know how these people live outside of fandom. Please don’t. It’ll make them hate you, and I don’t want that happening.

Here is where I’m getting at, okay: have you ever thought that before fandom you always thought the worst of people? I did — a lot. Being very judgmental, always thinking badly of some people without even knowing them that well.

I’ve learned to decrease this impulse because fandom’s taught me that it takes time for wonderful qualities in people to be demonstrated. And that the most unlikely people can like the same things as you, and if you find core similarities between yourself and others — kindred spirits — is that not the most wonderful feeling in the world?

Here is a quote from The History Boys that sums up my feelings: 

“The best moments in reading are when you come across something — a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things — that you’d thought special, particular to you. And here it is, set down by someone else, a person you’ve never met, maybe even someone long dead. And it’s as if a hand has come out and taken yours.”

And imagine, having a personal connection not just with an author but with an entire community. How can you possibly dislike passion that betters lives?

(Source: )

squashed:

pantslessprogressive:

“In August, the administration announced new rules requiring all new insurance plans to cover birth control and emergency contraception by 2013. At an early October fundraiser in St. Louis, President Obama himself hailed the rule. And when President Obama appeared before the U.N. in September, the administration touted the contraception rule as an example of America’s commitment to women. So when Carney says “this decision has not yet been made,” he’s wrong. It has been made—and by reopening it, President Obama is succumbing to pressure from anti-choice groups.

Even worse, Carney says President Obama is trying to “strike the right balance between expanding coverage of preventive services and respecting religious beliefs” without acknowledging the fact that the rules announced in August already included an exemption for churches.”

White House says Obama considering rolling back mandatory insurance coverage of contraception

This issue is not that simple.1

First, let’s get some facts straight. The rule issued previously was an interim rule, effective August 1, 2011. Public comments on the interim rule were accepted through September 30, 2011. The whole point of issuing an interim rule with request for comment is that you read the comments, and consider whether or not to amend the rule. The real scandal would be if the Obama administration didn’t consider the comments it solicited.

Second, I think it’s misleading to suggest that an exemption for churches is enough to satisfy all concerns about religious beliefs. Religious organizations also operate hospitals, schools, universities, etc.. That’s what the Catholic church is concerned about..

The Catholic church opposes contraception in pretty much all cases. While I disagree with them on this—I can’t deny that they’re sincere about it. We have a history of protecting religious beliefs from undue governmental interference. It’s part of that separation of church and state thing enshrined in the first amendment. And that’s where the issue gets messy.

Co-pay free access to contraception is extremely important for a whole slew of important societal ends. (Because I’d be preaching to the choir on this one, I won’t reiterate all those reasons here.) On the other hand, forcing Catholic organizations to provide services they believe are religiously prohibited is a serious burden on religious liberty. It raises some serious constitutional concerns as well.


  1. Like many things, I haven’t made up my mind on this one. Yes, I think employers and insurance companies should be required, in general, to provide access to birth control without a copay as part of a full health insurance plan. That’s good policy. And yes, I think that organizations should follow suit. But whether they should be required to provide insurance that provides access to birth control or sterilization even if it violates strongly held religious beliefs is a much tougher call. 

thedailywhat:

Contraceptive Controversy of the Day: President Obama today tried to distance himself somewhat from the Department of Health and Human Service’s decision to overrule the FDA’s recommendation that girls under 17 be allowed to purchase the Plan B contraceptive — also known as the “morning-after pill” — without a prescription.
“I did not get involved in the process, this was a decision of [HHS Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius,” Obama said. He did, however, suggest that he concurred with the controversial veto, saying that “[a]s he father of two daughters, it makes sense to apply some common sense.”
Sec. Sebelius, the President continued, “could not be confident a 10-year-old or a 11-year-old going to a pharmacy would [not] be able to … buy a medication that could have an adverse effect.”
Lawmakers, doctors, and women’s health organizations were outraged by the decision, and excoriated the Obama administration for putting politics ahead of health.
“This administration is unwilling to stand up to any controversy and do the right thing for women’s health,” said Kirsten Moore of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project. “That’s shameful.”
[thehill / wapo.]

thedailywhat:

Contraceptive Controversy of the Day: President Obama today tried to distance himself somewhat from the Department of Health and Human Service’s decision to overrule the FDA’s recommendation that girls under 17 be allowed to purchase the Plan B contraceptive — also known as the “morning-after pill” — without a prescription.

“I did not get involved in the process, this was a decision of [HHS Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius,” Obama said. He did, however, suggest that he concurred with the controversial veto, saying that “[a]s he father of two daughters, it makes sense to apply some common sense.”

Sec. Sebelius, the President continued, “could not be confident a 10-year-old or a 11-year-old going to a pharmacy would [not] be able to … buy a medication that could have an adverse effect.”

Lawmakers, doctors, and women’s health organizations were outraged by the decision, and excoriated the Obama administration for putting politics ahead of health.

“This administration is unwilling to stand up to any controversy and do the right thing for women’s health,” said Kirsten Moore of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project. “That’s shameful.”

[thehill / wapo.]

buyhercandy:

Hillary Clinton:

Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm.

I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country’s record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.

Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere.

(Source: advocatenews)

God Save the Queens!

vivatregina:

Wow, CBCP. Is this true?

You want all provisions about sexual orientation removed from the Anti-Discrimination Bill? So basically, what you’re saying is that you think it’s okay for homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered citizens of the Philippines to be discriminated against? That you think it’s right that they’re discriminated against? That the government make no preemptive measures to protect them and their rights?

I am so fucking angry right now.

I don’t understand why these people have no concept of “separation of Church and State.” This government’s responsibility is, first and foremost, to the people, and the people include the LGBT community.

If you can’t effectively ~teach your flock~ to do what you want them to do, then whose fault is that, really? Yours, diba? Has it really hit a point where you feel you have to enforce your beliefs? Wow.

And this whole, these concessions shouldn’t be made for the gays the same way they are for old, disabled, and poor people because they chose to be gay thing that Jo Imbong is spouting, well, gay friends, I’d really like to know: For how many of you was your homosexuality a choice? For how many was it just something innate, that you were born with, that’s always been part of you? Is the choice you made the choice to love other guys/girls, or the choice to come out and admit that you do? Because there’s a distinct difference between the two, and honestly, in the case of most (if not all) of the gay people I know, they didn’t choose to be gay. They didn’t just wake up one day and decide, “Oh, I don’t want to be into girls anymore, I’m going to be into guys now and until the end of time, amen, honeychild!” That’s not how it worked for them.

But my friend Zoe is right, at the end of the day, it doesn’t fucking matter. Because you can love whoever you want to love, and nobody should be able to tell you that it’s wrong.

I mean, if the provisions in the bill make it so that the Church can be penalized for refusing to facilitate gay marriages someday, then understandably, that needs to be amended. Basic respect. But really, I doubt they would disrespect the Church in that way.

Like, seriously, I think what would Jesus do? and I dunno about you, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t it.

After this and the priest last week who basically spoiled Santa Claus for all the little kids attending Mass because ZOMG these lies are perverting the true spirit of Christmas (like, seriously, outing Santa is a parent’s responsibility, and who are you to decide that kids can’t wake up on the morning of the 25th to a lovely surprise present because it’s not part of Christian tradition), sometimes I really doubt how Christian some Christians really are.

“I don’t like this expression “First World problems.” It is false and it is condescending. Yes, Nigerians struggle with floods or infant mortality. But these same Nigerians also deal with mundane and seemingly luxurious hassles. Connectivity issues on your BlackBerry, cost of car repair, how to sync your iPad, what brand of noodles to buy: Third World problems. All the silly stuff of life doesn’t disappear just because you’re black and live in a poorer country. People in the richer nations need a more robust sense of the lives being lived in the darker nations. Here’s a First World problem: the inability to see that others are as fully complex and as keen on technology and pleasure as you are.”

What’s Wrong with First World Problems

This times a million, plus the fact that everyone talking about “first world problems” is bragging about them.

(via katherinestasaph)

Theme by paulstraw.