Here’s some cats because I know some of you dig cats.
I am very worried about the sad cat here someone please hug this cat and give them pettings it is important okay ;_;
Guys buy this stuff because Alissa is great.
It’s Harry Potter’s birthday, so here’s a bunch of gifts you can get… for yourself.
Anonymous said: I wanna ask about the previous image, you mentioned the "world being a better place if people with low IQ's couldn't reproduce" and evolution and creationism both being taught in school as reasons as to why you wouldn't date someone. That seems pretty shitty of you, i mean like, objectively the human race would be better off if eugenics was in place, it's a fact, it's an awful thing to do but you can't deny that the human race would be better off with it. They're not saying they support it.
No, actually, the world wouldn’t be a better place. I’d love to see one iota of fact based research, as every attempt at eugenics in society has been a massacre of human rights and personal liberty. But, no, please tell me how “it’s a fact.” I would love to see your data. Having a high IQ doesn’t make you a better person, it just means you have a higher IQ. Anecdata ahead, I would guess everyone reading this knows shitty people who have high IQs and great people who have lower IQs. Did you know that poverty has been shown to reduce your IQ by an average of 13 points?
The modern pro-eugenics movement, starting in the early 19th century in the US has a history of being tied to racist thinking, as a movement primarily linked to anti-immigration, classist, and anti minority thinking. The laws in thirty US states held the sterilization of lower class women to a different standard than women from wealthy families. 61 percent of the 62,162 total eugenic sterilizations in the United States were performed on women. None of these happened on women who were in the middle class or above; all were on women who were poor. Most of them were inflicted on women of color.
Also, there a negative effects to having a higher IQ. Those with higher IQs tend to stay up later at night. Did you know that people who stay up late are three times more likely to suffer from depression and have a higher risk for heart disease? People with IQs above 125 also have a higher rate of alcohol dependency than their lower IQed counterparts.
Which of course, brings us to the question, what is the cut off? Anything above average? Average usually falls around 90, though some scales put it at 85. Or are we only letting kind of bright people reproduce? So is 110 a good cut off? Most of the above average scales start at 110, or maybe we should go with the Stanford-Binet scale fifth edition that starts at 111. I mean, really, what’s 1 more IQ point going to hurt? Or should it be 125-130, which is generally considered very bright, but not genius levels? Or should only geniuses be allowed to have children? Maybe we should just arbitrarily cut it off at wherever this Anon commenter fell when they took an IQ test in third grade. Or maybe just one more point above that?
The human race would be better off without racism, sexism, classism, and elitism. People who believe otherwise are not people I am interested in dating. Because they’re shitty.
Yeah, if you want to die on the hill of eugenics and creationism, you’re a terrible person.
Two Men Contemplating the Moon (1819-1820 - Caspar David Friedrich)
revelation in the night, alternate universe edition
Post with 1 note
4:30 and I’ve been trying to sleep for a solid three hours now. Can’t even sleep like a regular human anymore, what fucking good am I
A common theme in these user-submitted signs is that the women don’t need feminism because they believe in living traditionally. Some specifically state that they are stay-at-home moms. One woman does not need feminism because she likes to cook for her family. On its surface, it’s pretty easy to understand where they’re coming from—you don’t hear a lot about feminists fighting for a woman’s right to cook for her family. But that’s because the option to cook for your family was always on the table (so to speak). Our feminist predecessors had that option, and they wanted more options—like to have job opportunities and to vote. You don’t give up one right when you gain another. The option to be a stay-at-home mom has always been there (if you can afford to live on one income and so forth). You’ve heard about suffragettes fighting for the right to vote because it was a big deal. You haven’t heard about suffragettes fighting for the right to be stay-at-home mothers, not because it’s frowned upon but because there wasn’t a need to vocalize support for the status quo. If someone tells you “your only meal option is beans,” you don’t need to stand up and demand beans. The beans are right there, beaning around in front of you.
However, if you want to talk about a group that has historically voiced support for families, and specifically mothers, of all types—including, yes, stay-at-home moms—we must, I’m sorry to say, talk about feminists. Here’s an incomplete list of mother or family-related issues that feminists have fought for: maternity leave, incarcerated women’s right to give birth without being in shackles, and basic rights for domestic workers. Women Against Feminism would point out that feminists don’t work toward the same rights for men, so what gives? Feminists do actually work toward things like paid paternity leave, for one thing. But similar to the point made by my incredibly insightful bean metaphor, men already, uh, have a lot of rights. That’s why you don’t hear about feminists pursuing them. Maybe if feminists do eventually start fighting harder for the rights of men, there could be a highly paid male executive, or hell, even a male president!
Not usually a fan of Vice, but this is a good quote.
Source: Vice Magazine
if someone says that they’re not a feminist because they believe in equality for “both” genders you have jesus’s permission to repeat everything they say in a baby voice
A Facebook friend of mine had the perfect thing to say about this creep:
This is why, despite being a nonbeliever and a scientifically minded person, I hesitate to identify as a member of the skeptic/atheist community- it is dominated by pompous white men who find doing things like categorizing rape into different “levels” of badness, and playing logical fallacy “gotcha” games with anyone hurt by this, to be a diverting intellectual exercise. In truth, they may act like this is nothing more than a fun little project, but this is to hide how much emotional validation and sexual enjoyment they derive from this game. Their intent is to do harm, and to assert power by the further gaslighting and violation of boundaries of those who protest. The more you ask them to stop, the more excited they get, and the more they will try to pull you into a “debate” and harm you further. This is not done in the spirit of true inquiry and debate; it is abuse disguised in the sterile wrapping of “discourse.”
His profile said he’s a passionate MRA and that feminists are trying to destroy what few rights men have left.
I’m not saying I had a small internal rejoice when Khloe filed for divorce buuuuuut….
Not everyone has to deal with abuse and harassment, but enough do that Twitter must take action. In a disproportionate amount of cases of harassment, those individuals are women, LGBT individuals and people of color. These individuals find value in the service, but the problem is their attackers mean as much to Twitter as they do. The weapons to fight abuse must be kept locked up, for the good of the product. This tacit statement that profit comes before people has to stop.
'Why on Earth would someone commit air piracy just to finance a terrible movie decades later?' 'People are very strange these days.'
Same person who thinks Chipotle costs $90.
Taylor Swift leaving the gym in NYC, July 29
WHO LOOKS LIKE THIS LEAVING THE GYM UGH
Page 1 of 1223