gay men and lesbians will talk a big game about queer solidarity and then say absolutely nothing while the entire world collectively takes a dump on bisexuals
this will always be funny
"You can still have fun and still be sexy and still have dreams and still live for yourself. I don’t have any shame about being sexual. I’m not embarrassed about it and I don’t feel like I have to protect that side of me."
“Sex negative” and “sex positive” are relatively useless terms in terms of discussing feminist approaches to issues of sex and sexuality. The terms convey the message that “sex positivity” equals support for a vision of sex and sexuality that is defined by patriarchy and one that is primarily libertarian. What’s defined as “sex positive feminism” tends to translate to: non-critical of the sex industry, BDSM, burlesque, and generally, anything that can be related to “sex.” “Non-judgement” is the mantra espoused by so-called “sex-positive feminists,” which is troubling because it ends up framing critical thought and discourse as “judgement” and therefore negative. Since I tend to see critical thinking as a good thing, the “don’t judge me”/”don’t say anything critical about sex because it’s sex and therefore anything goes” thing doesn’t sit well with me.
“Sex negative,” on the other hand, tends to be ascribed to feminists who are critical of prostitution, pornography, strip clubs, burlesque, BDSM and, really, sex and sexuality as defined by patriarchy and men. The reason that feminists are critical of these things is because they want to work towards a real, liberated, feminist understanding of sex and sexuality, rather than one that sexualizes inequality, domination and subordination, is male-centered, and is harmful and exploitative of women. To me, that sounds far more “sex positive” (from a feminist perspective, anyway), than blind support for anything sex-related, because sex."
these stills of joffrey look like someone just said something really offensive
Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
While this may be a big “duh” to a lot of U.S. citizens, a recent study which has been made open for public viewing concludes that the United States’ system of government is closer to that of a (corporate) oligarchy than it is a democracy. That is to say that power is vested within a small group of people, as opposed to the majority.
Historically speaking, oligarchies generally devolve into tyrannical states due to the concentration of power (usually based on class) with a smaller group of people who generally do not agree with the interests or preferences of the majority; these types of frictions lead to oppression by making some people more “equal” than others, as demonstrated in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, essentially giving people certain rights, but allowing those rights more freely to certain groups.
I remember in the 6th grade when we were learning about different types of governments and we got to oligarchy I said to the teacher “Oh so that’s what America is right?” and he looked at me like i was crazy and said “No Elijah, America is a democracy because the citizens also have power” and I said “what power?” and he said “We can vote” and I was kind of quite for a little bit because i thought he was gonna say something else and I was like “Is that it?” and he just went on to the next lesson