You call me an extremist to insult me. I say it puts me in good company.
but did MLK advocate the oppressed being hateful or behaving hatefully towards their oppressors, necessarily? Like he said, it depends on the KIND of extremist you choose to be, fandomsandfeminism.
Go read his Letter from Birmingham Jail. MLK did not advocate people coddle those who benefit from their oppression. He has some pretty damning things to say about white people, ESPECIALLY white moderates who pulled tone argument bullshit.
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
Arundhati Roy (via raygender)
I love this quote and completely agree with it but when I started thinking about my own use of the word “voiceless” I use it to refer to the dead who are, essentially voiceless. Prehistoric archaeology and forensic anthropology do indeed give voices to those who no longer have them.(via redintoothandclaw)
why are twin beds made for just one person shouldn’t they fit two people
I can appreciate that there was once a need for this narrative. This line of thinking has served a purpose and helped bring conversations about consent into mainstream public consciousness. There was a time and a place for common sense arguments like, “Isn’t it so much hotter to get enthusiastic consent from a partner who whispers, ‘I want your cock’ than starting to fuck someone who isn’t into it?” The concept of consent was so far removed from mainstream conversations that we needed something catchy and simple and kind of glamorous for people to latch onto in order to hear what we had to say.
But I feel like at this point, we’re beyond that narrative. A lot of people get the concept of enthusiastic consent. We’re talking about it in more places and with more people than we ever have (though not nearly enough, I know). We’ve made some semblance of progress when it comes to talking about consent. And so it’s time to start framing consent differently. Because, to be quite honest, a thong with the words “consent is sexy” is not just not doing it for me, it’s actively offensive to me.
Because why is the end goal always for women to be sexy? Why is that what we’re supposed to aspire to (and while consent is not exclusive to hetero pairings, we usually only talk about consent as it relates to them, thus being that I, as a woman, should want to aspire to be sexy for a man)? Why is it that we feel like we need to frame consent as something appealing to men in order to make it worth talking about? What if I don’t want to be sexy? What if I just want to be respected? What if I just want to have agency? What if I just, you know, don’t want to be raped?"
i don’t trust people who are super into “proper grammar” and “correct punctuation” because what lies just beyond that smug superiority is some sinister classism that gets acutely racist in a red hot minute, so for similar reasons I’m instantly wary of anyone who takes great pride in their love of “logic” and “intellect”
I’m really glad I’ve gotten over that because I used to be actually kind of shitty to people about grammar/spelling etc and now I’m in a process of moving beyond that kind of petty judgement.