gay girl advice

a collection of social justice stuff, shameless self-promotion, and really hot people

deadrobinssociety:

'you can't just exclude us from from all of your spaces, that's so rude!! how would you like it if WE said that people like YOU weren't allowed in our spaces??'

well son u may want to be sitting down for this next part

I just snorted coffee, hope you’re all happy

(Source: jjeynepooles, via lgbtlaughs)

gradientlair:

This South African commercial for Bell’s scotch is so not what I thought it was going to be. It’s a familial intergenerational look at literacy and attaining literacy as a subject in one’s own experience versus as an object of pity and projection. And yeah, it’s sweet and I teared up; I liked that he was in his community and surrounded by family on this adventure, not just an object someone projects a White Savior narrative on.

It made me think of Quvenzhané’s Maserati commercial where a compelling story was told so much so that the product is beyond secondary, where the product could be removed and then you have a great short film, except with this commercial the product actually fits more than in the aforementioned. Creative ad.

This was really lovely to come across!

(Source: windycitylibrarian)

metaknighty:

why do straight ppl think they can whine about gay ppl “throwing their sexuality in our faces” when almost every waking second of every minute of every day of my life is filled with heterosexual romance media and heteronormativity. like u think 2 girls holding hands in public is rubbing their sexuality in ur face you have no fucking idea what queer people go through on a daily basis shut the fuck up

(Source: metaknighty, via lgbtlaughs)

Sweet mother of pearl, it’s a goddamn BLUE VOLCANO.

It’s Kawah Ijen in Indonesia and it’s the coolest thing I’m likely to see in EVER.

friendly reminder to myself that “start fasting at 8PM for blood work in the morning” doesn’t and really never ever should mean

"INHALE EVERYTHING IN SIGHT BEFORE 8 PM QUICK QUICK GO GO GO GO!!!!"

cognitivedissonance:

thisisnotjapan:

comfemgem:

val-kyrie-bliss:

I’m so tired of people who are a minority hurting their oppressors back as retaliation. Your hurtful actions against your oppressor are not justified, even if you are being oppressed. You’re just becoming the same kind of person they are. So stop.

Peak Liberal

image

MOTHER OF GOD

this is probably the dumbest argument I keep hearing.  ”You’re being a bad guy!”  Yeah well, you try some fucking institutionalized oppression and see what that makes you into, jackwad.

I NOW FIND MYSELF REQUIRING THIS WAFFLE IRON.

I NOW FIND MYSELF REQUIRING THIS WAFFLE IRON.

(via nearnigh)

cognitivedissonance:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

prolife-ruinslives:

I came across this picture and I love it.

The only way for those people on the right to advance in life is through their own effort, and conservative economic policies create the optimal environment for that to happen. Liberals must not care about people considering they prefer a restricted economy and an excessive tax burden.

You hear that, folks? Starving homeless kids just need to let themselves be exploited in sweatshops!
Bootstraps and such!
- Jane
EMPATHY?! EMPATHY?! THATS FOR FOETUSES -Ash

Bootstraps over dependency, economics over brainless liberal good intentions. If you care about the whole of society, voting republican is necessary.

Empty rhetoric, disregard for human life.
But vote republic, right folks?
I wish all of them were as transparent as this clown.
- Jane

What sort of regard for human life ought I have? What more have you done to alleviate poverty? There will always exist a certain amount of poverty and suffering. The question is what is good for all of society. And the answer to that question is conservatism. 

 “There will always exist a certain amount of poverty and suffering.”
Therein lies your problem. You think any amount of suffering, even the massive problems of poverty, is justifiable for the good of society. We don’t. We don’t think a society is good if millions of people are starving or living on the streets. A society is not a successful one if hundreds of thousands of people are dying every day from poverty-related ills. You may think those deaths are inconsequential, but we don’t.
- Jane

Poverty is an inherent part of human society. You can’t get rid of it. There are about 600,000 homeless people in the US at any given time. Out of 300 million people, that’s virtually nothing. If you want poverty to decline, support conservative pro-growth economic policies. 

Conservatives like you think 600,00 homeless people (that you know of - the count is most likely higher, since it can be difficult to count people with no home address) are virtually nothing, and we’re supposed to trust you? No. Poverty is a part of our current society, but it doesn’t always have to be. And I’d much rather be a ~bleeding heart liberal~ than someone who can look at 600,000 homeless people and say they don’t matter.
- Jane

You shouldn’t operate by emotion. You should think rationally. What’s best for the majority is what is reasonable and practical. Policy making inherently involves trade-offs. Clearly providing enough funds to end poverty altogether would require enough taxation to end economic prosperity altogether, which in turn creates more poverty. Being a bleeding heart liberal seems to mean in this context that public policies should be evaluated by their ability to do the impossible. That isn’t rational analysis. And it leads to the advocacy of policies that are costly, anti-growth, and anti-prosperity, which yields even greater suffering and poverty. I don’t know how anybody could live in reality and think like that. 

Hang on, I’m still laughing, sorry to jump in here but wow.
Policies that are the best for the majority… well, 16% of the country is living in poverty. And 20% of children are living in poverty. That’s a huge ass chunk of people.
You know what is good for the majority number of people? Education, health care and food. (And don’t spout that conservative nonsense about free health care being impossible to maintain, because New Zealand, United Kingdom, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Canada, Australia, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Spain, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Switzerland ALL have free, universal healthcare and some have since the 60’s and they are doing just fine).
You know what helps a majority of Americans? Not leaving other Americans to suffer and starve. It doesn’t hurt the economy to feed children. It doesn’t hurt the economy to take care of your own fucking citizens. You keep them well fed, educated and healthy and they’ll be more productive and happier. This isn’t even shocking news, it’s been fact for centuries.
Jesus, how does anyone live to be as soulless as you?
-Lemon

There’s no reason why health care can’t be allocated by markets. Markets are the most efficient way to allocate goods and services, this has been proven time and again. There does need to be some sort of social safety net, and there is. Still, do you think that our society should strive for more hand outs, or more prosperity? Of course the best way to create an environment where society can improve and opportunity can be created for people is to promote economic growth.

The USA already uses a market system. Do you know what your global ranking is for health care? 37th. Your health care system is worse than Saudi Arabia’s. So no, using markets for a basic necessity like health care has not been ‘proven’ more effective, certainly not when you have people dying because their insurance won’t pay for their cancer treatments because it’s a ‘pre-existing condition’
Also, giving people free education, food and health care, AKA meeting their basic necessities of life is VERY good for the economy. Or would you like me to point out that in countries they do this, like Canada and Japan are economically much better off and weather economic recessions much better than the USA does or is?
The best way to promote an environment where society can improve is by focusing on the HUMAN BEINGS and making sure PEOPLE do not suffer. The USA has 57.7 million people suffering from a mood disorder. Does THAT sound like a great improvement to society?
And when your ‘economic growth’ is at the cost of human lives, the planet, human suffering, people starving to death… is that realy the society you think is great? How can you call your nation great if you’re willing to encourage the suffering of the poor? If you think CHILDREN should suffer and starve for a few million dollars? I mean if you spent less than a third of what you did on the war in Iraq the USA could have eradicated poverty so tell me, how is it you can support war funding for the ‘economy’ that costs $757.8 billion but not support feeding actual human beings for $500 million?
Please explain what is so great about the USA’s society when you’re willing to sacrifice the health and well being of literally millions of people for a few extra dollars in revenue because I’m definitely not seeing it.
-Lemon

This is beautiful. And illustrates how the right-wing thinks: Fuck you, got mine.
It’s hard to pull yourself up when you’re continuously slapped down. Just sayin’.

cognitivedissonance:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

prolife-ruinslives:

I came across this picture and I love it.

The only way for those people on the right to advance in life is through their own effort, and conservative economic policies create the optimal environment for that to happen. Liberals must not care about people considering they prefer a restricted economy and an excessive tax burden.

You hear that, folks? Starving homeless kids just need to let themselves be exploited in sweatshops!

Bootstraps and such!

- Jane

EMPATHY?! EMPATHY?! THATS FOR FOETUSES -Ash

Bootstraps over dependency, economics over brainless liberal good intentions. If you care about the whole of society, voting republican is necessary.

Empty rhetoric, disregard for human life.

But vote republic, right folks?

I wish all of them were as transparent as this clown.

- Jane

What sort of regard for human life ought I have? What more have you done to alleviate poverty? There will always exist a certain amount of poverty and suffering. The question is what is good for all of society. And the answer to that question is conservatism. 

“There will always exist a certain amount of poverty and suffering.”

Therein lies your problem. You think any amount of suffering, even the massive problems of poverty, is justifiable for the good of society. We don’t. We don’t think a society is good if millions of people are starving or living on the streets. A society is not a successful one if hundreds of thousands of people are dying every day from poverty-related ills. You may think those deaths are inconsequential, but we don’t.

- Jane

Poverty is an inherent part of human society. You can’t get rid of it. There are about 600,000 homeless people in the US at any given time. Out of 300 million people, that’s virtually nothing. If you want poverty to decline, support conservative pro-growth economic policies. 

Conservatives like you think 600,00 homeless people (that you know of - the count is most likely higher, since it can be difficult to count people with no home address) are virtually nothing, and we’re supposed to trust you? No. Poverty is a part of our current society, but it doesn’t always have to be. And I’d much rather be a ~bleeding heart liberal~ than someone who can look at 600,000 homeless people and say they don’t matter.

- Jane

You shouldn’t operate by emotion. You should think rationally. What’s best for the majority is what is reasonable and practical. Policy making inherently involves trade-offs. Clearly providing enough funds to end poverty altogether would require enough taxation to end economic prosperity altogether, which in turn creates more poverty. Being a bleeding heart liberal seems to mean in this context that public policies should be evaluated by their ability to do the impossible. That isn’t rational analysis. And it leads to the advocacy of policies that are costly, anti-growth, and anti-prosperity, which yields even greater suffering and poverty. I don’t know how anybody could live in reality and think like that. 

Hang on, I’m still laughing, sorry to jump in here but wow.

Policies that are the best for the majority… well, 16% of the country is living in poverty. And 20% of children are living in poverty. That’s a huge ass chunk of people.

You know what is good for the majority number of people? Education, health care and food. (And don’t spout that conservative nonsense about free health care being impossible to maintain, because New Zealand, United Kingdom, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Canada, Australia, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Spain, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Switzerland ALL have free, universal healthcare and some have since the 60’s and they are doing just fine).

You know what helps a majority of Americans? Not leaving other Americans to suffer and starve. It doesn’t hurt the economy to feed children. It doesn’t hurt the economy to take care of your own fucking citizens. You keep them well fed, educated and healthy and they’ll be more productive and happier. This isn’t even shocking news, it’s been fact for centuries.

Jesus, how does anyone live to be as soulless as you?

-Lemon

There’s no reason why health care can’t be allocated by markets. Markets are the most efficient way to allocate goods and services, this has been proven time and again. There does need to be some sort of social safety net, and there is. Still, do you think that our society should strive for more hand outs, or more prosperity? Of course the best way to create an environment where society can improve and opportunity can be created for people is to promote economic growth.

The USA already uses a market system. Do you know what your global ranking is for health care? 37th. Your health care system is worse than Saudi Arabia’s. So no, using markets for a basic necessity like health care has not been ‘proven’ more effective, certainly not when you have people dying because their insurance won’t pay for their cancer treatments because it’s a ‘pre-existing condition’

Also, giving people free education, food and health care, AKA meeting their basic necessities of life is VERY good for the economy. Or would you like me to point out that in countries they do this, like Canada and Japan are economically much better off and weather economic recessions much better than the USA does or is?

The best way to promote an environment where society can improve is by focusing on the HUMAN BEINGS and making sure PEOPLE do not suffer. The USA has 57.7 million people suffering from a mood disorder. Does THAT sound like a great improvement to society?

And when your ‘economic growth’ is at the cost of human lives, the planet, human suffering, people starving to death… is that realy the society you think is great? How can you call your nation great if you’re willing to encourage the suffering of the poor? If you think CHILDREN should suffer and starve for a few million dollars? I mean if you spent less than a third of what you did on the war in Iraq the USA could have eradicated poverty so tell me, how is it you can support war funding for the ‘economy’ that costs $757.8 billion but not support feeding actual human beings for $500 million?

Please explain what is so great about the USA’s society when you’re willing to sacrifice the health and well being of literally millions of people for a few extra dollars in revenue because I’m definitely not seeing it.

-Lemon

This is beautiful. And illustrates how the right-wing thinks: Fuck you, got mine.

It’s hard to pull yourself up when you’re continuously slapped down. Just sayin’.

Anonymous asked: Shut the fuck up about vaccinations. Not everyone has to have them, not everyone believes in them. Uneducated fuck.

cognitivedissonance:

inthearena1:

cognitivedissonance:

of-shoes-of-ships-of-sealing-wax:

aspiringdoctors:

restless-wafarer:

aspiringdoctors:

image

You know, my homie and secret best friend Neil deGrasse Tyson said it best….

image

This isn’t an issue of belief or should even be up for discussion. It’s not a debate- like gravity or that the Earth revolves around the Sun isn’t up for debate. It’s a fact, whether or not you like it. Sorry bro.

And any ‘educated fuck’ knows that vaccines are necessary and everyone who can have them should have them.

Have a lovely day, sugar. 

Actually there’s a lot of research and knowledge supporting the fact that vaccines are NOT necessary. It is simply another thing that today’s health system is super big on, just like hospital births and c-sections. And a lot of people actually have long term and short term complications from getting vaccines. Ahem.

Dang guys, you thought I didn’t check my activity log every now and then? Because I knew shit like this would pop up. And, I just finished my block exam and am feeling fiesty.

Actually you’re wrong. That ‘research’ is either completely fabricated OR grossly misinterprets the data OR uses shitty research techniques to get the data they want- all which are grossly unethical, in case you’re curious. I’ve got slides from a recent lecture on vaccines (aka why I am so fired up about this nonsense). You can check out the citations on each slide if you don’t believe me… something unsurprisingly missing from literally every anti-vaccine comment I’ve gotten and website that I have visited. Show me your sources, honey, and if you do, I will blow them out of the water because not a single one stands up to current scientific research standards.

There are however tomes and tomes of research for the safety end efficacy of vaccines. Don’t believe me? Look at a simple google scholar search.

So! Here we go! 

image

image

Holy shit, it’s almost like vaccines SAVE SOCIETY MONEY. In fact, they give money back to society, along with the other programs indicated by red arrows. Which would be really weird for something that is just a healthcare fad like c-sections and hospital births.

And most people have no complications for getting vaccines, and if they do, most of them are short term. In fact, it is devilishly hard to prove an adverse effect was because of a vaccine. Why? Because it’s how we’re wired. We falsely see connections and causes where there are none (called a type 1 error; you are rejecting a true null hypothesis). People are more likely to attribute an adverse health event to a shot- even if that shot is the placebo and the numbers are just the background rate for whatever health event in the population.

image

And here is a graph showing the sample sizes necessary to prove that an adverse event is caused or related to a vaccine.

image

You know what, it was a really good lecture and I’m going to share more more relevant slides in case any one else feels like contradicting me.

These slides show the public health impact of vaccines. Note the differences between the historical peak and post-vaccine era deaths columns. Because saving literally thousands of lives is totally a conspiracy you should beware of.

image

image

And this is why herd immunity is so important! See how high it has to be for measles? Guess what we’re seeing outbreaks of thanks to anti-vaxxers? Don’t forget that one of the deadly complications of measles is SSPE.

image

Look how Hepatitis A infections in older adults when down after kids started getting immunized. Shocking! Could vaccines be… good for …. everyone????

image

Ahem.

Anti-vaxxers are a danger to the world and we need to stop them tbh

GODDAMMIT. I AM SICK OF THESE ANTI-VAXXER SHIT GOBLINS.

VACCINATE THOSE WHO CAN BE VACCINATED TO PROTECT THOSE WHO LEGITIMATELY CANNOT.

I DON’T GIVE A FUCK IF YOU THINK YOU’RE A SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE FLOATING AROUND IN YOUR SPARKLY CLOUD OF YOUR OWN SELF RIGHTEOUS FARTS THAT WILL PROTECT YOU FROM DISEASES LIKE POLIO.

GET. A. GODDAMN. CLUE. THEN GET VACCINATED. VACCINATE YOUR SPAWN.

YOUR BATSHIT BELIEFS ARE KILLING PEOPLE.

In my opinion, refusing to vaccinate a child who can be vaccinated is tantamount to medical neglect. I am 100% done with being nice to anti-vaxxers. We need to bring back exiling people. Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy are the first to go.

Welcome to forced injections, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood liberal.

You’re goddamn right. Nothing says individual freedom like infecting newborns with measles because you’ve got your head jammed so far up your Ayn Rand-hypnotized, objectivist, unvaccinated butthole that vaccinations are suddenly LibertyStompers™ and therefore, causing an epidemic is no big — even though the parents of those too young to be vaccinated, or people who are immunocompromised don’t even get a choice about exposing themselves to harm from your special snowflake irresponsibility.

So yeah, if it’s Typhoid Mary² or “forced injections,” roll up your sleeve, wankstain.