Merf. Thinking is Hard.

Jha can has random thoughtz about tapirs, kitties, comics, pretty people, social justice, things in general.

 

vicemag:

The FBI Is Trying to Recruit Muslims As Snitches by Putting Them on No-Fly Lists
Dr Rahinah Ibrahim is not a national security threat.
The federal government even said so.
It took a lawsuit that has stretched for eight years for the feds to yield that admission. It is one answer in a case that opened up many more questions: How did an innocent Malaysian architectural scholar remain on a terrorism no fly-list—effectively branded a terrorist—for years after a FBI paperwork screw up put her there? The answer to that question, to paraphrase a particularly hawkish former Secretary of Defense, may be unknowable.
Last week, there was a depressing development in the case. A judge’s decision was made public and it revealed that the White House has created at least one “secret exception” to the legal standard that federal authorities use to place people on such lists. This should trouble anyone who cares about niggling things like legal due process or the US Constitution. No one is clear what the exception is, because it’s secret—duh—meaning government is basically placing people on terror watchlists that can ruin their lives without explaining why or how they landed on those lists in the first place.
This flies in the face of what the government has told Congress and the American public. Previously, federal officials said that in order to land on one of these terror watchlists, someone has to meet a “reasonable suspicion standard.” That means there have to be clear facts supporting the government’s assertion that the individual in question is, you know, doing some terrorist shit. Which seems like a good idea.
But not any more, apparently.
Continue

vicemag:

The FBI Is Trying to Recruit Muslims As Snitches by Putting Them on No-Fly Lists

Dr Rahinah Ibrahim is not a national security threat.

The federal government even said so.

It took a lawsuit that has stretched for eight years for the feds to yield that admission. It is one answer in a case that opened up many more questions: How did an innocent Malaysian architectural scholar remain on a terrorism no fly-list—effectively branded a terrorist—for years after a FBI paperwork screw up put her there? The answer to that question, to paraphrase a particularly hawkish former Secretary of Defense, may be unknowable.

Last week, there was a depressing development in the case. A judge’s decision was made public and it revealed that the White House has created at least one “secret exception” to the legal standard that federal authorities use to place people on such lists. This should trouble anyone who cares about niggling things like legal due process or the US Constitution. No one is clear what the exception is, because it’s secret—duh—meaning government is basically placing people on terror watchlists that can ruin their lives without explaining why or how they landed on those lists in the first place.

This flies in the face of what the government has told Congress and the American public. Previously, federal officials said that in order to land on one of these terror watchlists, someone has to meet a “reasonable suspicion standard.” That means there have to be clear facts supporting the government’s assertion that the individual in question is, you know, doing some terrorist shit. Which seems like a good idea.

But not any more, apparently.

Continue

(via bakethatlinguist)

sikssaapo-p:

"You are the goddang whitest person I’ve ever seen."

(Source: itellyouwhaht, via nethilia)

reistrider:

campdracula5eva:

bebinn:

rhrealitycheck:

Scarlet Letters: Getting the History of Abortion and Contraception Right 

Abortion was not just legal—it was a safe, condoned, and practiced procedure in colonial America and common enough to appear in the legal and medical records of the period. Official abortion laws did not appear on the books in the United States until 1821, and abortion before quickening did not become illegal until the 1860s. If a woman living in New England in the 17th or 18th centuries wanted an abortion, no legal, social, or religious force would have stopped her.


Reminder that records of contraception and abortion exist all the way back to 1550 BCE in ancient Egypt!
This was a really fascinating read. Until the early 19th century, abortion was legal until “quickening,” or when the pregnant person first felt the baby kick - anywhere from 14 to 26 weeks into the pregnancy. Society only began to condemn it when people decided white, middle- to upperclass women weren’t having enough children soon enough in their lives, and when male doctors started taking over traditionally female health care fields, like midwifery.
Yep, shockingly enough, it’s never, ever been about the life of the fetus - only about misogyny, racism, and classism (ableism, too, though the article doesn’t discuss it).

The bolded is hella important.

From the first article: “Increased female independence was also perceived as a threat to male power and patriarchy, especially as Victorian women increasingly volunteered outside the home for religious and charitable causes.”

reistrider:

campdracula5eva:

bebinn:

rhrealitycheck:

Scarlet Letters: Getting the History of Abortion and Contraception Right

Abortion was not just legal—it was a safe, condoned, and practiced procedure in colonial America and common enough to appear in the legal and medical records of the period. Official abortion laws did not appear on the books in the United States until 1821, and abortion before quickening did not become illegal until the 1860s. If a woman living in New England in the 17th or 18th centuries wanted an abortion, no legal, social, or religious force would have stopped her.

Reminder that records of contraception and abortion exist all the way back to 1550 BCE in ancient Egypt!

This was a really fascinating read. Until the early 19th century, abortion was legal until “quickening,” or when the pregnant person first felt the baby kick - anywhere from 14 to 26 weeks into the pregnancy. Society only began to condemn it when people decided white, middle- to upperclass women weren’t having enough children soon enough in their lives, and when male doctors started taking over traditionally female health care fields, like midwifery.

Yep, shockingly enough, it’s never, ever been about the life of the fetus - only about misogyny, racism, and classism (ableism, too, though the article doesn’t discuss it).

The bolded is hella important.

From the first article: “Increased female independence was also perceived as a threat to male power and patriarchy, especially as Victorian women increasingly volunteered outside the home for religious and charitable causes.

(via bakethatlinguist)

sistahmamaqueen:

i-sucked-dick-on-accident:

lindsaychrist:

prozdvoices:

Request: Goofy sings BRING ME TO LIFE

image

Anonymous asked:

I know you get asked to do Goofy too much, but a cover of Bring Me to Life would be hilarious <3

Let me transport you to a simpler time, where you’re putting the final touches on your Inuyasha AMV in Windows Movie Maker.

Welcome back to 2003.

bye

good fucking bye i couldn’t get past twenty seconds of this

this was way too good to not reblog.

(via bakethatlinguist)

shan-is-a-fan:

tezthinks:

postwhitesociety:

every time i see black people create a space for black people only, i also see them start to struggle with whether or not to make it open to all poc, and then utlimately to white people, too.

i hate that, yo

make spaces for us by us and don’t hesitate or feel bad about it, cause nobody has ever lost slept over shutting us out of spaces

THIS.

agreed.

(via blackraincloud)

(Source: heathledgers, via ouyangdan)

In honour of Shakespeare’s birthday, let’s look at his wonderful sonnets and what they’re actually about:

selchieproductions:

Sonnet 135: A sonnet about a guy wanting to fuck a woman, because apparently she’s already fucked loads of other guys, so it’s mean of her to find his cock too boring for her and deny him sex.

Sonnet 136: A sonnet about the same guy, this time his cock is super big, and consequently he can make the woman he’s addressing happier than she’s ever been before.

Sonnet 20: A poem where Shakespeare tells a young man that he’s as beautiful as a young woman, and thus it’d be great if they could fuck.

Sonnet 151: A sonnet about how a girl is so sexy that the mere mention of her name gives the poet an erection.

Sonnet 129: A sonnet about a guy who regrets having a one-night-stand the morning after.

Sonnet 4: The first stanza quite explicitly tells a young man to stop masturbating, because he’s too handsome to not have sex with actual women.

Sonnet 130: A piss-take on traditional love poems, aimed at a black prostitute that Shakespeare fancied at the time. Though not conventionally beautiful according to British beauty norms back in the 16th century, this woman was so good at sex, that her looks didn’t really matter to Shakespeare.

that post of scalzi’s tweets is fueling a slow rage inside of me

watch him mull about how many followers he’s got after he links to a WOC’s callout of him (among others)

when a marginalized person is moved to call you out, expending spoons as they do so, the least you can do is thank them, not say “BUT I DIDN’T SAY THAT PLUS I DID ADMIT I COULD BE WRONG” the former sentiment is defensiveness the latter is covering your ass

NO ONE’S OBLIGED TO AGREE is a mighty fine sentiment and not innocent when it comes from a position of privilege

if you know you have privilege and you still feel the need to have a rebuttal, no matter how brief (and however much of a bone you throw to us by signal boosting us, an action which you know will draw ire our way), you probably ought to ask why.

Brigitte Lin in Peking Opera Blues (1986).

I love that hairstyle and it makes me sad that I don’t have the face for it and it also requires so much styling for me to really pull it off anything close

(Source: smallnartless, via zuky)