or societies definition of it

youtube

I love the message in this song that celebrates all types of girls; whether it’s the girls who love to dress up and going out every night, the girls who love to stay at home with a book, the girls who love competing in sports or the girls that express themselves within their art, that all of it is amazing and it doesn’t tear other types of girls down, but builds these type of girls up that society tends to bring down. I definitely want to be like “Most Girls”.

I’m not queer to suffer, and me being open as trans was never about expecting acceptance from cis people… by definition I have already rejected something cis society applied to me, and I feel like I shouldn’t have to look for permission to do that.

I love the Star Trek trend of characters who present themselves as loyal, exemplary members of their cultures but end up inadvertently or begrudgingly subverting tradition and becoming vanguards of major sociopolitical change.

Like we have Worf, originally introduced as this archetype of Klingon values; the guy who applies his strict honor-and-tradition moral compass to every situation, who has to be talked into bending the rules by both of his captains, whose interior design aesthetic is just knives. And yet everything he does has ripple effects throughout Klingon society. He’s the first Klingon in Starfleet, the traitorous son of Mogh, the reason Gowron has any significance at all, hell, he even becomes the deciding vote on whether to allow a clone of Kahless to become a religious figure on Qo'noS. And yet throughout all that we see him defending tradition to Alexander and butting heads with Odo on the concept of what law enforcement should mean. But when it comes to his actual effect on Klingon society, on the very definition of Klingon-ness, Worf is a revolutionary (as much as that would pain him to admit).

And then there’s Quark. He adheres so strongly to Ferengi customs, and yet he works to change them, sometimes accidentally through association and sometimes actively, through his own doing. He attributes his slip-ups in following the Rules of Acquisition to living on a station full of Federation and Bajoran ideals. But look at his family: he has a liberated feminist mother, his brother is an engineering genius and one-time union man, and his nephew is in (unprofitable) Starfleet. He claims not to respect “females,” but has relationships with Pel, Grilka, and Natima Lang (aka basically the three strongest-minded women he could possibly find) and a long-standing friendship with Dax. He defies the dogma of profit to prevent a genocide and nearly dies on a damn mountain to save a cop. And that’s not even mentioning the tangible impact he has on Ferengi politics and society through Brunt and the Grand Nagus. But every Quark episode basically ends with him shrugging and saying “I did it for the latinum”. Like NO you didn’t, bud, you’re a damn liar and also a revolutionary.

Honestly this trend applies to so many Star Trek characters. Spock (Extremely Vulcan Man feels everything deeply all the time and loves Kirk so much that he becomes a literal ambassador for Kirk’s values) Garak and Damar (spend a ton of time defending the State, then become actual resistance fighters who destroy the State to save Cardassia, as it were), even Seven of Nine could fit in this category (as someone who strives for Borg perfection but consistently undermines that goal by fighting for the individuality of herself and other drones).

This is one of my favorite things about Star Trek, because it’s an inherently complex concept but also one that rings true to anyone who both loves and critiques their home culture. Because you can do both. You can cherish some traditions and break others, because doing the real hard work of changing your society for the better doesn’t defy love for your culture, it requires it. It’s the necessary counterbalance to blind nationalism, the unstoppable force that keeps us moving forward. It’s an immensely positive, rewarding view of culture and I’m so glad that Star Trek has always promoted it.

Open To Interpretation: Negan x Reader

Originally posted by jdm-negan-mcnaughty

A/N: Ya’ll. I’m so fuckin’ swamped in responsibility. I feel a lil guilty about coming back with something non-Rami but fuck it. Some other things I wanna say: Send me anything. Send me asks. I wanna answer you guys’ questions. Be nosy as hell. Also, I have something you might be interested in coming up after my birthday which is in like 2 weeks. Please feel free to request more Negan stuff, I’m branching out bitches.

Masterlist 

Warnings: Inappropriate teacher/student relationship (student is of legal age in the US and UK), smut, the usual. Also, I wrote the character a little more like myself bc I feel like I keep writing the same kind of reader and its getting tedious. Hit my inbox if this is you af. ALSO HIT MY INBOX IF YOU’VE EVER HAD ANY KIND OF TEACHER/STUDENT RELATIONSHIP? SPILL THE TEA I’M NOSY.

Word count: 4448  


“Preserving innocent life, orderly living in society, worshipping god, educating children, and reproducing.” His deep, gravelly voice fills the lecture hall. All his students are enraptured, a rare thing for many teachers. He pauses before continuing. “What are the issues with these precepts that Aquinas put forward?”

You bite your lip anxiously. Answering questions in class isn’t an issue for you, in fact your teachers often tell you to give the other students a chance, but your Philosophy and Ethics professor makes you somewhat nervous. Tall, late forties, gorgeous black beard with silver streaks and piercing hazel eyes. The recipe for a crippling medley of anxiety and attraction.

Despite this, impressing him and getting your grade is often the reason you manage to pluck up the courage to respond to his queries, his opinion of you is something you are very conscious of. You glance around the room to see no one has raised their hand. You decide to take one for the team, slowly lifting your arm from the desk.

Keep reading

What’s Love Got to Do With it?

Your opinions are so interesting… So I ask you, what you think about Furuta’s love for Rize? What was revealed recently with Mutsuki makes me think they are same in a some way, I mean a twisted love and unhealthy obsession in a one-sided.
Asked by Anonymous

An interesting question posed to me in an ask that I’ve decided to turn into a full meta because I think the asker is missing that Furuta and Mutsuki are not the only ones with unrequited love this arc. Luckily I’ve drawn up a chart.

Why all of this unrequited love all of a sudden? Is it because Ishida wishes to write a Shoujo manga with corpses, and has decided to convert the last arc into one? It goes deeper than that, so let’s analyze it under the cut. 

Keep reading

Life begins when one realizes it isn’t about pleasing other people but satisfying thyself; not about looking good to other people but being true to himself; and definitely not about following the standards set by the society but breaking it and living life the way he desires.
—  juanlucio 

shout out to all the lesbians who arent conventionally attractive!

to the lesbians with acne scars, balding lesbians, lesbians with crooked teeth, fat lesbians, lesbians who dress and look masculine (including trans lesbians!), trans lesbians who don’t look feminine, hairy lesbians, lesbians with frizzy hair, lesbians who dress “frumpy,” lesbians who are loud and unfeminine and aggressive and everything they are told not to be

yall are lovely and you are beautiful, society’s definition of beautiful is based off white supremacy, misogyny, transphobia, and whatever else will make money, and will never be able to accommodate how valuable, lovable, amazing, and beautiful you really are. thank you for being part of our community <3 <3 <3

The biggest problem with this boy
is that he doesn’t seem to believe
that he’s beautiful.
This is a problem, of course,
because he knocks the wind out of you
every time he so much as looks at you
and you can’t help but think
that if he understood his own radiance
he would never touch you
again.
—  THE PROBLEM WITH BEAUTIFUL BOYS by Ashe Vernon

There are no two groups within the community that face exactly the same struggles. And the community was never intended to be a gathering of people who fell under the same umbrella. What the LGBT+ community was meant to be was a gathering of many, varied types of people whose relationship to their own sexuality, whether by theory or manifestation, was abused, oppressed, and locked out of the hegemonic discussion around “acceptable sexuality”.

Over the generations it has included many groups which have nothing to do with today’s fringe conversation about same gender attraction, and while the specific language for members to discuss themselves and their experience typically doesn’t come until much later, this in no way means that they have not historically always been represented somewhere. Language changes after all and there are many terms and umbrellas which have been retired but which originally grouped very different people together.

Asexuals and aromantics are frequently villainized, abused, and locked out by hegemonic society and by the definitions Straight people use to explain “acceptable sexuality”. Their experiences cannot, by definition of intersectionality, be the even as each other’s. but because they are oppressed and abused as are other members of the community, the community is and has always been a place where they are able to come and find empowerment, protection, and support.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained, as a community, by grouping ourselves exclusively by like experience. Bisexual women and gay men are not likely to have much of anything in common about the way they experience their oppression, and black lesbians and white trans men certainly don’t share much in the way of common experience. What all these people share, including asexuals and aromantics of all types, is a common motivation and a common need. Every single one of us needs society’s hierarchy of sexuality and gender destroyed, and the oppression that is built off that system erased from cultural interactions. Working individually in small groups towards this goal is fruitless. Working together as one massive coalition is what has brought us, incredibly quickly and imperfectly, to the place we now stand where in five years we watched national sentiments on same sex relationships invert itself to majority positive, and in the three years following that are watching an international conversation about gender and the rights and dignity of trans folks. That speed is the result of MANY groups working together and acknowledging, unlike hegemonic society, that difference is not to be feared or shoved aside, it is to be celebrated.

I fully support the no one is a villain points apart for one point. 

Consider The Thenardiers.

Yes they are also the way they are bc of society. obviously. But Javert comes to understanding. Montparnasse is shown to be protective over Eponine and Gavroche (not to mention the blatant Enjolras mirror that he is) but the Thenardiers?

They throw their male children to the streets because they cannot exploit them in the way they can the girls. 

They exploit people beyond what they need. 

Thenadier is very abusive to his daughters. Physically.

And When Eponine is dead. Does he realise his mistakes? nah. He just exploits Azelma instead. In fact, he makes Azelma take on the role of Mme Thenardier. definitely worse.

Can we agree that they are villains? They are definitely also victims of society but Hugo makes a point of introducing multiple characters that prove that being seen as the scum of society does not define your heart. Then why does he give the Thenardiers no redeeming features? Because they are unequivocally villains. 

TL;DR - Society is the main villain of Les Mis but i think we can agree The Thenardiers are definitely minor villains. 

You know what? As a society we need to come up with a well developed definition of maturity and until then stop pushing your idea of maturity onto other people.
There are only two times it’s acceptable, that I can think of at this moment: 1) when you’re saying children are CHILDREN and adults are ADULTS 2) when you’re saying maturity increases over age at different rates for different people but just because you’re mature in some ways that make you seem like your age is higher, does not mean you’re not susceptible to abuse by someone actually older than you.
The point of this post is this: Some of you will use your close-minded, harmful personal views to define things, then apply it to other people and judge them for it. Some people are not going to fit your definition of maturity because they’re mentally ill - that doesn’t make them less of an adult? That makes them a sick adult.
Also! You might handle certain situations one way, and for you that’s the mature thing to do, but someone else has a completely different way of doing things. Adults have differences! Your way is not the only “adult” way. Stop treating people like crap because they’re different from you!

anonymous asked:

Im sorry, but The Major's cyborg body being Asian would work against the meaning of Ghost in the Shell, the idea of having your identity ripped away from you is lessened when your fake body looks like your real body. I can understand being angry at a movie like Death Note when an entire cast of obvious Japanese characters are turned American, but The Major's body is manufactured to the will of someone else, she had no freedom of choice.

Because a Japanese woman is representative of all Asians right?

Let’s look at some source material:

  • In the philosophy section, it says, “What exactly is the definition of human in a society where a mind can be copied and the body replaced with a fully synthetic body? What, exactly, is the ‘ghost’ – the essence – in the cybernetic ‘shell’? Where is the boundary between human and machine when the differences between the two become more philosophical than physical?”

Nowhere does it state in its philosophy that it’s about “the idea of having your identity ripped away from you is lessened when your fake body looks like your real body.” BUT if we decide to go by your argument, we actually don’t know what Motoko’s “real” body looks like therefore, ANY Japanese woman can play as her and it would not lesson the theme of having one’s mind being copied and/or body replaced. As long as the body itself is fully synthetic that’s all that matters, which does NOT rule out the idea that any Japanese woman can play as her.

  • In the humanity section, it says, “Throughout the story the cyborg characters, being more or less a human brain with a manufactured body, contemplate individually and together what being human really is, and how a soul or ghost is truly defined.”

As you can see, it’s not about how one’s manufactured body looks like, it’s about finding out what being human is and how their ghost (consciousness) is defined, during a time where minds and bodies can be copied and replaced. So for the second time, Motoko can be played by a Japanese woman and it would not take away from these themes.


Now, let’s go into some background setting to see if Motoko should be white:

  • In the setting section, it says, “The series focuses on Japan, but several other nations figure prominently in some stories. The world of Ghost in the Shell features significant advances in technology. …  Japan is a major world power, having gained equal footing with the descendant countries of the former United States. This status is very much the result of its scientific and technological prowess…”

So we can confirm the entire story takes place in future Japan and is based on its scientific and technological advances. NOT in America, NOT in any country in Europe, and NOT in any other predominately white country.

  • It later says, “The demographics of Japan have been shaken by the post-war influx of Asian refugees…and leads to ethnic tensions. Their presence and status constitute a major national political issue.”

So not only is the Americanized movie wrong with all those white people, but it should be full of mostly Asian people, especially of other ethnic groups in addition to Japanese.

  • The setting also says that, “The American Empire is the only successor state to play a major role in world politics. Its government seems driven by a desire to restore its diminished power and prestige, towards which end it adopts a policy of militarist aggression and open imperialism, directed primarily against Latin America. …  Due to war damage inflicted on its economy and its weakened political position, the American Empire enters into a security pact with Japan.”

From this, we can conclude that America is somewhat “weaker” than Japan in terms of political and economical power (and technology) and is directing its military aggression and imperialism primarily on Latin America.

  • There is NO mention of Europe “except” for the Russo-American Alliance and the Ameri-Soviet Union, both of which were originally part of the US. There is NO mention of any other predominately white country either.

So overall, it’s difficult to logically comprehend and assume that Motoko should be white, both in the source material and in the Americanized movie. If we are going by a logical assumption, it would be safer to assume Motoko is Japanese. I mean come on, how many white “Motoko Kusanagis” do you know?


Now, let’s talk about the Americanized movie *SPOILERS*:

That is literally the textbook definition of whitewashing. I know you’re probably angry now but sorry. Welcome to my world by the way.

Angry Asian Guy

utopia // stiles stilinski

Summary: Stiles & Y/N escape their perfect city of Utopia only to face the dangers of the supernatural

Requested: no, but @sincerelystiles gave me the motivation to post this & @stilinski-jpeg was beyond supportive with this idea

Pairing: Stiles & Y/N

Warning: yes, mature language, themes & smut throughout

Masterlist

By definition, it was suppose to be a perfect society but it was far from it. The concrete walls acted as a prison and the citizens were it’s inmates. It was originally suppose to be a temporary solution to the growing outbreak of the supernatural. That was 5 years ago. It was a now permanent solution as two races competed for world domination.

Each citizen was stripped of their individuality, each given a similar set of clothes and a number to replace their name. Women had to wear their hair tied back in a bun while men had to keep their hair free of any unnatural product. They were all served the same meal everyday and no matter what job they did for the colony, they all received the same amount of pay. There was absolutely no way to strive in the Utopia, making it a perfect society in the sense that everyone was equal.

Keep reading

abled body people really think they’re the bees knees when they donate to disability charities. Meanwhile most of our platforms are on the basis of rejecting charity because it does not address our real issues or even help us. Fuck, we just get peanuts and shit with charity. 

And another thing I noticed is that abled people can’t comprehend that disabled people need physical help with things. Like that requires actually moving and doing something. My social worker just chastised me the other day for not figuring out a way to accommodate my chore to make it more accessible… And she keeps giving me suggestions and being like “what are you gonna do when you leave?” 

Wtf do you think? Why the fuck do you think I’m in a shelter???? This is our reality!!! Individualism in our society is quite literally killing us. 

(abled peeps can definitely reblog)

I’m just gonna’ fuckin say it, I completed all major requirements for a sociology degree right, and let me tell you I learned fucking nothing about people and society. Absolutely nothing. 

I learned more about how the world works having my transcripts frozen and being forced to confront the reality of it. 

Why have I suddenly radicalized and rebranded the blog? Because I’m no longer being fed liberal propaganda that was taught at my university lmao. 

I’m still literally shit, don’t get me wrong, but I’ve definitely got a better grasp of things than I did while in school “learning.” I’m still learning, as will always be the case, but I’m learning far better things than what was course material.

Face it, our university system is hardly about learning, and innovation and creativity, and exploration of knowledge, etc. … and more about paying for a better job. tbh..

Studying mathematics was actually more helpful to me in understanding capitalism and ableism as systems of oppression, than sociology tbh.

Like if you’re doing a sociology degree thats cool and all, but be really wary of what they teach you tbh. 

This is where learning mathematics was really influential to me … learning mathematics basically taught me not to take anyone at their word but instead find a way to prove everything to yourself. 

If it can’t be proven to yourself, and you can see no way for it to exist or be true, then … you can disregard it and work on a NEW THEORY in replacement, or figure out what in particular is wrong with the previous theory.

Not to gush about math, but it really is about everything being fake until you make it ~real~ lmao. Like you can just sit at your table and invent math if you really wanted to, you just make definitions, and prove those definitions in your invented universe. It’s pretty cool.

not to say you can just invent how society works, but you can definitely become more critical of other’s opinions of how things work within reason and within your own boundaries.

Maybe I was a bad sociology student? But I got all A’s in every sociology course I ever took so like, Idk yall, I’m just saying be wary. 

Paul Ryan either doesn’t understand insurance, or he’s lying about it.

As we struggle to understand the so-called Republican “health care” plan, which seems to have little to do either with health or care, it may be useful to review the underlying concept of that thing called “insurance,” which many in the GOP, particularly Paul Ryan, seem to have trouble understanding.

Among people with a basic high school education, it’s common knowledge that English civilization began expanding dramatically into the Americas in the mid-1600s. There are of course many explanations for this; among Christians, a favorite is the notion that colonists came to America to escape religious persecution. There’s some mild truth in that, if the only colonists you’re concerned about are the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock, but the greater truth is, most colonists and the companies that financed their colonies established themselves in America for one reason– to make money.

Trade was the reason for developing and expanding the American colonies; shipping was the method by which trade was made possible; and insurance was what made England’s shipping trade profitable, turning a small island into a great ship-building empire that within a hundred years had colonies and dominions across three quarters of the globe.

The key to all of this, the reason America exists, the reason there was a British Empire, was insurance. Specifically, the concept of shared risk, in which the costs of individual disaster could be spread among many, for the benefit of all.

Ever hear of Lloyd’s of London? It’s the world’s oldest insurance underwriter, and in a real sense, it’s the reason Britain ruled the waves.

Before the mid-1600s, mounting a colonial expedition to the New World was so risky a proposition that only governments could afford to do it. Spain, of course, had a New World colonial empire a hundred years before England did– but despite the benefits in gold and precious metals, in many ways the colonial experience was a drain on the Spanish Empire, an extractive enterprise with all the diminishing returns of every extractive enterprise. (In the long run, extracting resources from a colony ends up costing more than the value received, which is one reason the South American colonies were eventually abandoned by the Spanish and Portuguese, or left to flounder under disengaged administration.) In the mid-1600s, in England (and more or less simultaneously in the Netherlands) that reality began to change.

Thanks to insurance.

In a coffee house in London, owned by a man named Lloyd, a group of wealthy merchants came together to pool their resources in a mutual insurance fund. The situation was simple: an almost-predictable number of colonial expeditions were certain to fail, and an almost-predictable number of ships were going to be lost at sea in any given period of time. The problem was, despite all of a merchant’s best efforts, there was no way to know which expedition and which ships would fail or be lost. Any merchant who financed a ship was as likely (or unlikely) to lose his investment as any other merchant. You couldn’t know in advance, which meant there was no way to mitigate the risk of your investment by yourself. Potentially your entire livelihood was in danger on a single roll of the dice. Only a madman would take such a risk (which is why most early colonial expeditions were led by madmen or religious cults).

However… if a group of merchants, each with his own expedition or his own ship, could be persuaded to pool their individual risk exposure, and to share the risk, what was potential financial suicide for an individual would become a reasonable loss spread across a group of individuals.

Shared risk made individual investment and national expansion possible.

Insurance empowered trade; trade created profits; profits created wealth; wealth created opportunity for individuals and the nation alike; individuals flourished and the nation became an Empire.

True, rational conservatives know this. Insurance– that is, shared risk across a group to protect the individual against predictable dangers– is a fundamental building block in business and finance. The Republican party, supposedly the party of responsible business, knows that insurance is a vital component in business, and, by extension, in life as a whole.

So why do they lie about it? Why would Paul Ryan, in his defense of the indefensible Trumpcare anti-insurance bill presently before Congress, describe the basic premise of insurance as “the fatal conceit of Obamacare”?

This is what Paul Ryan said:

“The fatal conceit of Obamacare is that we’re just going to make everybody buy our health insurance at the federal level, young and healthy people are going to go into the market and pay for older, sicker people. So the young healthy person’s going to be made to buy health care, and they’re going to pay for the person, you know, who gets breast cancer in her 40s, or who gets heart disease in his 50s … The people who are healthy pay for the people who are sick. It’s not working, and that’s why it’s in a death spiral.”

Paul Ryan, the supposed policy expert who supposedly understands economics and business, is describing the basic premise of insurance– insurance, which made possible the world we currently live in– as a “fatal conceit.”

Either Paul Ryan is an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, doesn’t understand Business 101, doesn’t know even high school economic theory– or he’s a mendacious liar playing to the ignorance, greed, and prejudice of the Republican base.

My bet’s on the later.

Shared risk is the basis of business investment; it’s at the root of every modern economy; it is the DEFINITION of society.

Universal health insurance isn’t an imposition on individual freedom: it’s a guarantee of individual freedom, a recognition that what might destroy us as individuals can be borne easily by all of us as a group. It empowers the individual to take risks he or she would otherwise never consider. It strengths the group by sharing a common burden.

It makes nations into Empires.

We have a problem as a society. Our goal is efficiency, but the result of efficiency by definition is that it takes less work to get things done. And less work to get things done means there is less work to do. If there is less work, there are less jobs. Progress destroys jobs.


Another result of efficiency is an explosion in population. The easier things get, the less of us die. More and more of us, less and less jobs.


(…)


Humanity’s drive toward betterment has resulted in two things: more people and less jobs. None of our choices were wrong, exactly. Each was made with good intentions, hell maybe every choice was correct. The problem wasn’t the choices but the values. Survival is no longer a value, because survival has become easy. It used to be old people were revered, because they had outrun death longer than anyone else. Now old people are just the ones who waited around too long. Anyone can become an old person with a little luck. It’s not a collapse of morals that has diminished our respect for the elderly. It’s an inevitable response to the changing meaning of age.  


(…)


Since we no longer value survival and age, we need some other way to rank people. Because we need that, we need some people to be worth more than others. We have many ways to do that, but here’s one: we value wealth. The ones who own more are better. Not for any reason, just because. And since theoretically but rarely actually in practice, the way toward owning more is work, work has become a measure of someone’s value, second only to money. A lazy rich person is better than a poor person with a good job, but a poor person with a job is better than a poor person without a job. Ranked first by wealth, then by worth. And so, that is the situation: There are more of us, there are less jobs, and we value people by whether they have a job or not.


What happens when you have a world where it is impossible for people to create value for themselves in the eyes of society? What happens when we judge people for the inevitable outcome of our collective actions?


I don’t know. But together we’re finding out.

—  Alice Isn’t Dead, Part 2 Episode 2: Mouth of the Water