PRESS CTRL OR COMMAND+ FOR BIGGER TEXT, CTRL OR COMMAND- FOR SMALLER TEXT
SKIP TO NAVIGATION & SEARCH | SKIP TO CONTENT

{ "Why do you have to overanalyze everything?" }

codalion:

anachronistique:

roxanneritchi:

skalja | alliterate | heroics:

eta: People don’t analyze things to ~*harsh on people’s squee*~.  “Oh no, you’ve pointed out an issue in this show/comic/film/whatever.  Clearly you’re doing it because it’s popular.  Or to ruin everyone’s fun!”

god seriously i am so goddamn tired of people asking me that. why is analyzing stuff bad? why is caring about stuff bad? why is not wanting to condone oppressive shit bad?

This seems like a good place for Moff’s Law:

Of all the varieties of irritating comment out there, the absolute most annoying has to be “Why can’t you just watch the movie for what it is??? Why can’t you just enjoy it? Why do you have to analyze it???”

If you have posted such a comment, or if you are about to post such a comment, here or anywhere else, let me just advise you: Shut up. Shut the fuck up. Shut your goddamn fucking mouth. SHUT. UP.

First of all, when we analyze art, when we look for deeper meaning in it, we are enjoying it for what it is. Because that is one of the things about art, be it highbrow, lowbrow, mainstream, or avant-garde: Some sort of thought went into its making — even if the thought was, “I’m going to do this as thoughtlessly as possible”! — and as a result, some sort of thought can be gotten from its reception. That is why, among other things, artists (including, for instance, James Cameron) really like to talk about their work.

Now, that doesn’t mean you have to think about a work of art. I don’t know anyone who thinks every work they encounter ought to only be enjoyed through conscious, active analysis — or if I do, they’re pretty annoying themselves. And I know many people who prefer not to think about much of what they consume, and with them I have no argument. I also have no argument with people who disagree with another person’s thoughts about a work of art. That should go without saying. Finally, this should also go without saying, but since it apparently doesn’t: Believe me, the person who is annoying you so much by thinking about the art? They have already considered your revolutionary “just enjoy it” strategy, because it is not actually revolutionary at all. It is the default state for most of humanity.

So when you go out of your way to suggest that people should be thinking less — that not using one’s capacity for reason is an admirable position to take, and one that should be actively advocated — you are not saying anything particularly intelligent. And unless you live on a parallel version of Earth where too many people are thinking too deeply and critically about the world around them and what’s going on in their own heads, you’re not helping anything; on the contrary, you’re acting as an advocate for entropy.

And most annoyingly of all, you’re contributing to the fucking conversation yourselves when you make your stupid, stupid comments. You are basically saying, “I think people shouldn’t think so much and share their thoughts, that’s my thought that I have to share.” If you really think people should just enjoy the movie without thinking about it, then why the fuck did you (1) click on the post in the first place, and (2) bother to leave a comment? If it bugs you so much, GO WATCH A GODDAMN FUNNY CAT VIDEO.

I’m about to get into an e-fight on the YJ forums so this was good to read. WHEW. All right, here goes.

Moff’s Law is basically my favorite internet law.

People act like you killed their cat if you say their favorite thing has some problems.  Get the fuck over it, fandom.  Soylent Green is people.  Snape killed Dumbledore.  Your fandom emperor has no clothes.  No cow is too sacred to be slaughtered if it’s promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other slice of oppression, because these are real problems affecting real people and a lot more important than whether you still feel one hundred percent comfy hero-worshipping your favorite fan idol.

oh my god reblog 4ever <3

(via justjasper)

{ LINK: guerrilla mama medicine: deer hunting with jesus }

guerrillamamamedicine:

deer hunting with jesus: dispatches from america’s class war is a book written by joe bageant about a white working class town, winchester, va and the folks who he knew and met there.  from the introduction he makes clear that he sees ‘the power of white skin’ as a myth that endures despite the fact that half of white americans are poor. ‘but just like black and latino ghetto dwellers, poor and laboring whites live within a dead-end social construction that all but guarantees failure.’

red flag.  once again we see the need to establish another group’s suffering by comparing and then displacing black suffering.  because black suffering is in america considered to be the arbiter, the final deciding point, of suffering, itself.  black experience is seen as being equivalent to black suffering.  and whether in the media we read that ‘gay is the new black’ or ‘fat phobia is worse than racism’ or such and such a campaign is the ‘new civil rights movement’, it is a time tested and successful method to establish the authenticity of your suffering, by one, comparing it to the black experience, and two, by displacing the black experience with your own. 

he points out in the introduction as well, (while giving no evidence to this claim) that when white poverty is pointed out, the idea is mocked by minority antipoverty groups.  ‘the available antipoverty funding that exists is jealously guarded by the groups receiving it: they do not want to see it spread even thinner than it already is…but are poor whites any better-off than poor blacks?’ 

i know the folks he is talking about.  ive hung out in winchester, va and spent a couple of years living in and around roanoke, va (a bit farther south of winchester, but still white working poor community in the appalachian).  my partner at the time, his family’s roots went deep in roanoke, scotch-irish blood, his dad was a butcher, paid union dues every year, decorated his house in wal-mart, and raced cars on the weekend.  he cried when dale earnhardt died.  hell, the town shut down when dale died. 

and it is for this reason that i actually enjoyed the writing in this book, the portraits of folks like the ones i lived around, the old bars, the old guns, the old pride. 

and unfortunately, the book is a failure.  it fails at its mission to be a ‘potent antidote to what Bageant dubs ‘the american hologram’ — the televised, corporatised, virtual reality that distracts us from the insidious realities of american life’.  it fails because by taking the easy road out, the anti-blackness road, and trying to make its case by displacing black experience, in the end, the writer shows (ironically) that the true ‘american hologram’ that distracts the white working class (including the author, himself) from demanding a transformed society, is anti-blackness.

in the last couple of pages, as he is summing up his arguments, he does a curious turn.  he begins the paragraph, ‘america’s much ballyhooed liberty is largely fictional.’ he then spends the next few sentences talking about the prison system.  three percent of americans are in the prison/monitoring system.  and 25 percent of prisoners in the world are in the states.  he then says that his ‘much beloved wife’ doesnt find these stats shocking and most of his friends ‘find it comforting’. 

this is a curious turn, because he never mentions prisons, not once in the almost three hundred pages of his book.  he doesnt mention prisoners.  no one he talks to has been to prison, or has family in prison (unlike the amount of folks who have been soldiers, or have family fighting overseas).  but at the moment that he needs to establish that the primary stated value of americans, freedom. give me liberty of give me death.  ‘they are jealous of our freedom’.  freedom.  at that moment that he needs to show that this value is a lie.  he must turn back to the black experience. 

in the rest of the paragraph he says, the rest of us are captives of credit, our jobs, our need for health insurance, or our ceaseless quest for a decent retirement fund. 

and this is true, this is a form of slavery, but lets get real, it is a nicer form of slavery.  much nicer than a lifetime in prison because you like to smoke pot. 

what is even more curious to me, is that he never mentions that most of the prisoners are black and latino.  and most are there for non-violent crimes.  he never mentions that most likely the reason that his beloved wife and friends do not show much concern about the prison rate is because they associate prisons with blackness and they find it ‘comforting’ to know that blacks are where they should be.  in chains.  behind bars.  doing slave labor (because according to the us constitution, slavery is legal in prisons…)

and of course he cannot openly write about blacks and prisons, because if he did, it would destroy his entire argument, namely that white working class suffer as much, if not more than black working class. that white privilege is a ‘myth’.   like i said, this is a portrait of a white working class town, that does not include the prison experience. 

now when i lived in roanoke city.  i lived on the white side of town.  yes.  there was a very distinct line that divided that white and black parts of town.  the only time i would see blacks downtown, was when i went to the courthouse.  and then i would be surrounded all of a sudden, by young black men. 

furthermore, he would have to admit, if he were to mention blackness and prisons, that the primary distraction of the white working class to not demanding decent living conditions, is — at least they arent black.  he mentions that these are people who are proud to not take government handouts (even though a good number of them do just to survive), that they see themselves as middle class (even if its a two-income family that brings in 30,000 dollars a year), and they arent black. 

which reminds me of something that toni morrison wrote.  she of course said it much more eloquently, but her argument is that it is not a contradiction that the founding fathers wrote so movingly and frequently about the importance of freedom, and at the same time owned slaves.  (i mean jefferson owned his own children for fucks sake) of course they valued freedom so highly, when all around them they saw the consequences (black slaves) of not being free. and who would want to be a slave?  they had to fight ‘for freedom’ or else they would be no better than the slaves they owned. 

this book cannot function as a potent antidote to the virtual reality that the white working class lives in, because, it uses the same strategy as ‘the american hologram’, namely that one, that you are not black, and two, the legitimate way to establish one’s own suffering is to displace black suffering. 

that the way to establish one’s own humanity, is to show that one is not black.  because blackness is not human. 

we do not care about prisoners, because most prisoners are not human, they are black. 

the antidote to the american hologram, is the humanity of blackness.

really, really wonderful words.

“So while the immediate responsibility for these attacks must be placed upon the young people who perpetrated them, the larger problem is one of deeply-ingrained racist stereotypes against people of color, which then create parallel and opposite stereotypes about whites, the latter of which can, in cases such as this, actually increase the likelihood of white injury. To end the latter, we have to attend to the former.
Likewise, to the extent folks of color (especially young black and brown teens) may be inclined to see whites in a negative light, there is an easy solution, which would not only likely dampen such bias, but would also help build antiracist solidarity among young people generally; namely, rather than talking less about racism and its history (as the right would prefer), we should talk more about it, but include the stories of white allies throughout history as well.
After all, if young people of color and young whites learned that there have been, in every generation, whites who stood with black and brown folks and challenged racial injustice, how might youth of all colors respond to one another differently? If white youth learned that there were role models in their community who they could follow in this regard, how might that change the racial attitudes of white people, and their willingness to challenge racism? And if young blacks in places like Milwaukee learned of those persons — as with Father James Groppi, who stood shoulder to shoulder with black leaders in that city to fight racist policies in the 1960s and 70s — how might such knowledge effect their perceptions of their white brothers and sisters?
In other words, teach not just about racism but antiracist resistance, including that engaged by whites, in Milwaukee and across the nation. Doing so would promote allyship, break down stereotypes on all sides, and encourage the kinds of solidarity that troubled and divided cities like Milwaukee need in order to move forward.
Oh, and you also might want to do what the Milwaukee Youth Council (a diverse group of young people from across the city) recently announced they were going to do; namely, convene a community forum where people can come together and offer real solutions to the problem of racial bias, rather than just point fingers at a community about which far too many negative things are already believed”

Tim Wise » Racism, Violence and the Irony of Stereotypes

***head****

please meet

***desk***

Is he KIDDING ME?????????????

if we start teaching black kids about the wonderful role white people played in anti-racist actions in the US—black kids WILL LIKE THEM MORE AND STOP ATTACKING THEM????????????????

this is just…astonishing, especially in context of “The Help” and the very important critiques of it by black feminists. Wise is showing a complete ignorance of 1. That black kids (and all kids of color) already ARE shown white people as anti-racist warriors and 2. this “education” comes at the expense of *black kids’* (and all kids of color) history!!  How many inspirational white teachers “educated” black kids (and all kids of color) about the civil rights movement in movies? How many insipirational white women “educated” their black maids about the rights those maids should be fighting for?

i mean—my god, thank heavens for michelle pfieffer, otherwise, coolio never would have had a chair thrown at him and woken up to the power of hope.

You want to know what this is called? Kids being expected to raise themselves. Back to work programs (which have been *extraordinarily* harsh in wisconsin), prioritize *punishing mothers* who had the audacity to need welfare—rather than raising children into quality adults or building the bond (and thus influence) between mother and child. 

This is *EXACTLY* what groups like welfare warriors said the effects of vicious cuts and criminalization of poor women would result in. 

But it’s good to keep those critiques (that are coming from poor mothers who have figured out how to do multi-racial/cultural organizing) quiet, isn’t it? Cuz then we couldn’t keep those prison pipelines from the black community to prisons open, could we? (yes, I think Wise’s understanding of how sexism plays out is bullshit too).

(via radicallyhottoff)

jeebus

I mean I felt it would come

but JEEBUS

(via blackamazon)

(via blackamazon)

{ And dont gimme that “preference” bullshit. }

victree-kel:

liquornspice:

black-girl-problems:

Its cool to have a preference, fine, whatever, but when you say someone is ugly because of the color of their skin, i dont care what kind of argument you have for that, thats not you having a preference thats you being an asshole.

Ohhhh I am so glad I decided to revisit this blog! ^_^

And really, even preferences are open to scrutiny, as they do not occur in a vacuum, but rather, within a culture that exalts certain groups of people as beautiful, while devaluing the beauty of certain other groups of people.

^ also this.

(Source: , via summoner-controller-kel-deactiv)

{ LINK: Bronze Bikinis for Beneficence — Feministe }

midwestmountainmama:

ok, I don’t know if i’m going to have the time to come back to this or not—I really hope that I do. so this link is *officially* a bookmark so that I can find the page again when I have more time to comment on it.


But just in case I *don’t*—*please* read the comment thread on this post. and pay particular attention to Richard’s comments. Richard is anti-SPLC (southern poverty law center), one of the few mainstream-ish pro-immigrant think tanks that also does extensive research on hate groups/white supremacy orgs. Richard does not like this organization for various reasons—I would argue the biggest is that he’s a white supremacist nativist. the things I hope people notice from his comments:

1. that he consistantly defines himself as *reasonable* and *having a conversation*. 

2. he consistantly mocks the idea that his *reasonable discussions* could possibly make him a white supremacist. white supremacy is “unreasonable”—which he is not. thus he is not a white supremacist.

3. he uses tons and tons of statistics to *prove* his reasonable discussion is NOT about hating immigrants, but about disliking “being played.”

4. he consistently (and deftly) uses far right narratives (like “illegal alien is a legal designation NOT a hate slur) in his “reasonable discussion” and uses links to provide *proof* of how reasonable he is. 

5. he uses “facts” as a way to reframe the discussion about the work of the SPLC—instead of a pro-immigrant, anti-white supremacist organization—they become an organization that first and foremost have suspicious handling of money. (you should be remembering ACORN right now).

6. with exception of Zuzu—his *tactics work*. Not only are other commentors on the thread attacking Zuzu for *unreasonably* going after a “reasonable” commentor—but the moderator of the thread reprimands her as well—to be fair—the other commentor attacking Zuzu appears to be a problem (troll) on other threads and the moderator *does* apologize to Zuzu later on, but neither the moderator or any other person on the thread outside of zuzu (from what I saw, I may have missed something) *explicitly* calls richard out for what he is or his comments for what they are: a white supremacist nativist spewing out white supremacist hate.

and when the thread gets “back on track”—there is also *no “reframing of the reframe”*—Richard’s comments make it look like there is a lot of questionable shenanigans going on with the SPLC-other commenters point out that “this is how not for profits work”—but—Richard used several key phrases in just that argument alone (not to even get into his other comments on “illegal aliens” etx): tax payer money, waste, etc. which are *code words of anti-immigrant nativist organizing.*

—so those who point out how he doesn’t understand how not for profits work—are not *really* addressing what he is arguing: that big government is using tax payer money to give “special protections” to criminals who are invading our country. he has reframed the SPLC—and there is no reframing of *his* reframing so that, for example, poor white workers dealing with lengthy layoffs reading this thread can clearly see how what the SPLC does directly benefits them. All they see is *his* reframing and the “University Liberals” not really addressing his unnerving (for their lived reality) points.

Ok—that’s all I really have time for right now. But in case I can’t get back to this—this hopefully makes sense.

(via butterfacebooger-deactivated201)

“Those who argue against the use of “illegal” as a way to refer to immigrants say that while it may be illegal to reside in the United States without authorization, it’s dehumanizing to refer to a person as illegal, among other things. Others still argue that undocumented is a euphemism that is no better, and that the proper term should be “unauthorized.” And some, of course, prefer “illegal.” Readers, what do you think?”

The ‘undocumented’ vs. ‘illegal’ debate continues | Multi-American

hm. let’s be *clear* on who the “some” are that “prefer” illegal. it was a massive campaign by *white supremacist nativists* that got the “neutral” press to change from undocumented worker to illegal immigrant—and it’s STILL the *white supremacist nativists* that “prefer” illegal and who will “reasonably” and “politely” let you know that they are simply following the rules which is why they are protesting and starting boycotts and theatening defunding when a particular press calls the illegalz “undocumented worker.” 

i mean—if we’re going to have a public debate about this shit, let’s get ALL the shit out there. Trying to remain neutral through decontextualization and asking readers what they think rather than demonstrating what your OWN opinion is and why—all when you haven’t told the readers the entire story does a disservice to the reader, to the people who we’re all attempting to label, and to the “press” who is attempting to remain credible even as they compromise on word choice with white supremacists.

(via midwestmountainmama)

[image at link: person holding a sign.  sign reads: “NINGUN HUMANO ES ILEGAL”.]

(via butterfacebooger-deactivated201)

{ LINK: putain laisse-moi tout seul: flymetothemooon: soydulcedeleche: i keep seeing vegan arguments fly by... }

soydulcedeleche:

madamethursday:

cherry-jelly:

flymetothemooon:

soydulcedeleche:

i keep seeing vegan arguments fly by my dash.

one thing i noticed…alot of vegan people will acknowledge economic privilege…lack of access to shit….but often times in the same sentence they will go into “but if you have access to it, and you know about…

i totally agree, but the improper grammar and vulgar language weaken the whole point.

Wow, blatant tone argument. I’d say I haven’t seen that in a while, but I see it daily. 

Just wanted to comment to say: HELL FUCKING NO. The point is valid no matter how you say it, no matter what vulgarity is in there. 

Logically speaking, the tone argument is invalid on its face. Saying the sky is blue in the “wrong” manner does not diminish the truth of the fact that THE SKY IS A GODDAMN MARVELOUS FUCKING BIG-ASS SHADE OF BLUE. 

You can say that with as much vulgarity and bad grammar as you want. The sky remains blue. Telling me that my argument that the sky is blue is weakened by my rill bad spellin and gramur just proves that you’re not getting it and you’re more interesting in policing than participating and listening. 

LOL i just had to laugh at that. i am not writing my motherfuckin dissertation on here so i will be cussin and using hood slang and fucked up grammar…on purpose!

let me go continue happily “nulling and voiding” everything i post haha

reblogging for soydulcedeleche's first post and all comments except for cherry-jelly's.

(Source: bad-dominicana, via bad-dominicana)

blackamazon:

With feeling.


Please do not look at Arizona thinking that the question is about why is Arizona so bad .

The answer is simple : they can.

Let’s question why they can?

I’m on my phone so I can’t link , but champagnecandy has a link from CNN

that encapsulates what WOC and activists and more recently BFP has said very deeply and truly

It’s about in this case literally access and its COMFORTABLE

to point at that or this racism but it’s not factual

We have a country that allows this to bear and that is something much more complex and much more real

iamseafoamgreen:

The face of fear is most definitely brown | openDemocracy

TW for racism, harassment. Racist policemen doing the harassment.

juthikakijawani:

ontologicalterrorist:

Amber Ansari:

Walking around Covent Garden last Tuesday, I found myself nearly knocked over by a speeding police car with no sirens or lights down a small street. I thought it was strange: such hurry and no warning system.

As I reached Tesco in Covent Garden, I saw six heavily armed police officers surrounding some-one. I walked past and saw a small, middle aged, Indian man. He was holding a white charity bucket in one hand. Two police officers were standing behind him telling him not to move and to spread his legs; they were going to search him. Another two officers were taking all his belongings out of his small beige rucksack and reading every piece of paper and asking him about its contents. At the same time another officer was asking him who he was, what his name was and why he was behaving suspiciously.  Someone else was going through his wallet. The man spoke broken English and he did not seem to quite understand what was going on. He kept saying he was collecting money for charity and you could see from his body language and the way he was looking at them that he was stunned and very scared.

These men were tall, heavily built, all Caucasian, talking loudly, moving him around physically, going through his things and saying he had been reported for suspicious behaviour. Someone, they said, had seen him collecting money for charity outside Covent Garden station and had called the police saying they had seen a terrorist. You could feel the adrenalin rising in these men as they went through his bag and I remembered the terrible outcome with Jean Charles de Menezes six years ago. 

If a Caucasian man or woman had been standing outside Covent Garden station with a charity bucket and a rucksack would someone have rung the police reporting a ‘possible terrorist’? Do people go around calling the police every time they see a Big Issue seller? Or one of those chuggers? They look more threatening half the time than this small framed middle-aged man. But then, Jean Charles had no padded jacket on and did not jump over any tube barriers, as was first alleged. He was not even carrying the dreaded rucksack. But he was the wrong colour. The colour of a terrorist.

They spotted me watching and I felt myself get worked up. I wanted to cause a scene.  To let people know what was going on here. I said ‘Racists’ out loud. They heard me and none of the armed men could look at me in the eye. But an Asian bobby who had turned up couldn’t stop eyeballing me. I stared right back. 

After reading all his personal papers, and telling him they thought he could be a terrorist, they had to admit they had found nothing. They formed a ring around him. They could see me watching, so they blocked my view. The biggest of them was laughing and asking where he should go next? ‘To the next brown man’, I suggested. He ignored me. People walked by but no one could see what was happening because they had ringed him in. It was clear now that he was not carrying a bomb- so now they formed a tighter ring around him- to hide what? The fact that they had been searching a man based on the colour of his skin, perhaps?

After half an hour the armed police officers left. Two plain clothes were left taking his details and the Asian bobby kept eye balling me. I had nothing to hide. I eyeballed him back. Eventually they walked away and the man was left crouching in the street putting his things away. I went up to him and put my hand on his shoulder. Asked him if he was fine. I did not want to scare him. I told him I had seen what had happened. He seemed wary and said yes he was fine. I said I would have been scared, I was scared because of how many men there were. And his eyes started to fill with tears and he said yes he was scared but he was okay. He asked me my name and where I was from. He said he did not understand why he had been stopped. I told him it was because he was carrying a rucksack, he did not understand what that word meant, and because he was brown. He understood that with resignation.

Just as I was asking him if he needed anything the Asian bobby turned up again. They had been sitting in the police car watching me. He looked down at where I was crouched with the man and asked me if I was okay. I said ‘yes thank you fine’. He would not move. He looked at my brown paper bag from the teashop in Neal Street. There was a terracotta tea pot in there and some jasmine tea. I told him I did not have a bomb and would he like to arrest me for being brown too. He said nothing. I said I am having a private conversation please would you go away. He said I heard you called us ‘racists’ and I wanted to explain that we are not and I am Asian as well. Good for you, I said. You stopped this man because of the colour of his skin. He started to say no and get quite pushy. Provocative, I would call it. I was not going to be riled. I told him I was exercising my human right to have a private conversation, he was disturbing this, he had no legal right to stop me from speaking to someone and to go away. He would not go away. He said he wanted to explain to me why they had stopped this man. Perhaps he thought I was from the press. Perhaps he thought this would go further. I turned my back on the bobby and finished my conversation with the man. I wandered dazed and upset into Tesco to get away from the meddling bobby, who would not even let me extend some generosity to the man they had just harassed.

After aimlessly moving through chillier cabinets and food aisles, I went to leave and there he was, resilient, by the entrance, with his white charity bucket. He was not making any noise. Just silently standing there with his bucket collecting for charity.  We spoke some more. He seemed stunned but he thanked me for being kind to him.

This incident is a sharp reminder of what the so-called ‘war on terror’ has done to us. Take this incident and change a few variables. The man had a beard and was wearing Muslim dress. The man was younger, resented being stopped, and resisted the police.  The man had no papers to prove who he was. The man didn’t speak any English. The man had a Koran on him and anti-war literature. The man knew people who wanted to teach him a lesson for annoying his neighbours, and who reported on him. All these and you are one step closer, perhaps, to cases like those of Baber Ahmad and Shaker Aamer, who is still languishing in Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

Wrong place, wrong time, and most definitely the wrong colour.

tearing up.

Really worthwhile read.

(via iamseafemme)

{ UGHHH }

champagnecandy:

blackamazon:

I have to resist an urge to post my picture cause I’m not looking for approval.

But I am gorgeous.

I’m also fat and even when I am not my biggest I am blessed with a donkey and Huge ass tits ( scroll down)

I walk with a switch ( born bowl legged AND pigeon toed)

and my lips ……

look even better wrapped around something

I am also a nerds’ nerd

Cerebral

quick to give hugs

You see all those ” ethnic” traits  if you notice the description they can’t even be cohesively DESCRIBED in language that is for me

that’s right if you have a certain type of ethnic beauty like CNN values your beauty isn’t your own

because your body isn’t your own.

Your body is on display everytime you leave your house and before anyone tells me wel all women experience that

Well no sorry not like this.

Not everyone looks for definite reasons to find you ugly AND subhuman . AND

NEEDS THAT TO PROP UP

everything from the social order to billion dollar industries

My natural hair  is a fashion and political statement because the common knowledge is

OF COURSE I would want to change it .

so no it’s not okay it’s not exciting.

It’s not exciting to be reduced to your parts for the explicit purpose of taking those away from you.

when the other purpose was to make you a hideous unrapeable she beast

no it’s not affirming all these beauty blogs that are new variations on white is right

No it’s not exciting to have hips and legs and thighs reclaimed because teh explicit idea is to prove once again

that while white women are women we are consumable parts

that are no necessary for the unending search to reaffirm our uglyness

AND are acceptable as spank material in as demeaning a way you can think off

THIS.

also can we just stop stop STOP bringing “back” hips and thighs and boobs and “ethnic” looks as if they WENT AWAY?