you might remember me posting about a game idea a few months ago about a little piece of coal getting lost and trying to find their way home to their old witch mother. I’ve been thinking about it some more recently! I’d like it to be a puzzle game where you solve maps with the help of enchanted furniture that were sent out to find you but are p useless on their own and’ve got lost too. when you find them you can use their abilities!
hey. did i mention i love neil cicierega
Sorry/not sorry that you don’t understand the point of bodily autonomy and would rather make YOUR feminism all about policing women’s life choices, but that’s “physically” the opposite of feminism. LOL
But…but you can’t. As a stripper, you’re just adding to the state of mind that women are objects. Not living thinking human beings. So…..it kind of does contradict feminism. No matter how you put it. That’s great if you make a lot of money with it. You’re still promoting female objectification.
Oh yeah? Tell me, how long have you been a stripper? Oh, you’re not? Well then tell me how regularly you go into strip clubs? Oh, you don’t? Because anyone who speaks OVER sex workers when discussing our own experiences with the level of over-confidence that you display must have a large amount of anecdotal experience on this topic. So I’m curious as to where yours was obtained.
Women can do whatever they like with their bodies. It is the responsibility of the audience enjoying those bodies to not think “uhhhduhhhh because this woman is letting me enjoy her boobs for a bit within this safe controlled environment, all women are therefore objects for my enjoyment”. It’s a job. If you went to a post office staffed entirely by women you wouldn’t assume that all women exist for is for sorting mail so why do guys assume that girls exist to be sex objects when they go to a strip club or look at porn.
Ever notice how women who are sex workers are degraded for their profession and are lambasted for having no self respect, yet the men who go to see them (or even become sex workers themselves) don’t get any flak whatsoever
i am sorry samus
at some point in your life you have to make an important decision
Far fewer articles describe the other constitutional violations taking place on the streets of Missouri, and those violations are every bit as urgent as the infringements on speech and assembly. We’ve seen very little coverage of the use of tear gas and rubber bullets as constitutional violations. But the due process clause bans the police from using excessive force even when they are within their rights to control a crowd or arrest a suspect. And tear gas is in a category all its own. Not only is unleashing it into a crowd an unconstitutional exercise of excessive force, but its use is banned by international law. That’s one of the reasons Amnesty International sent a team of investigators to Ferguson. Similarly, the use of rubber bullets under the circumstances is also unconstitutional. Some kinds of rubber bullets are more unconstitutional than others, because certain types are more likely to injure and maim.
But excessive use of force is only the beginning. Pulling people out of the crowd and arresting them without probable cause (or for being 2 feet off the sidewalk) violates the Fourth and 14th Amendments, particularly when those arrests are disproportionately of black protesters. The general arrest statistics in Ferguson reveal what looks to be a stunning constitutional problem. According to an annual report last year from the Missouri attorney general’s office, Ferguson police were twice as likely to arrest blacks during traffic stops as they were whites. Emerging reports about racial disparities in Ferguson’s criminal justice system and the ways in which the town uses trivial violations by blacks to bankroll the city (and disenfranchise offenders) all represent constitutional questions. Why don’t we characterize them as such? These are not just violations of the law or bad policy. These are violations of our most basic and fundamental civil liberties.
Of course, probably the biggest potential constitutional violation of all—and eyewitness testimony suggests this as a real possibility—is the alleged use of excessive force by the police in shooting an unarmed 18-year-old at least six times. Under the law, each of those bullets must be separately justified, as necessary, even if one believes the officer’s story that Michael Brown rushed him. To be sure, the news media has covered this, but very few of us talk about the shooting as a potential violation of the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution is the foundational bargain between the people and their government, the framework on which our legal order rests. When we fail to talk about the arrests, searches, racial profiling, and government brutality in constitutional terms, we are failing to capture how profoundly the state has betrayed its promises.
|—||Ferguson’s constitutional crisis: First Amendment violations are only part of the story. (via dendroica)|