Taylor Swift vs. Avril Lavigne - We are Complicated
#Taylor’s widely acknowledged around town as the ‘good girl’ #Avril’s from the wrong side of the tracks #natural opposites that get paired as partners for a chemistry project #what starts out as schoolwork becomes something more as the girls slowly fall for each other #but there’s trouble in paradise when Avril realizes Taylor’s needy for attention and Taylor thinks Avril’s too edgy #a fight breaks out and the two break it off #Act 1 ends with them storming away from each other to opposite sides of the stage #Taylor sings of how through she is with Avril #and Avril is furious at Taylor for being so complicated
"Take off all your preppy clothes" omfg its so perfect leav e me to die
Let’s play the “how long ‘till I regret having drawn this” game
Also, there are a couple of writers advocacy places where you can check out the legitimacy of any publisher,a gent etc and ask advice. Absolute Write Water Cooler (a forum) has the Bewares and Background Check boar, and there’s Preditors and Editors and Writer Beware.
Oh, fuck yeah. DO NOT PAY TO BE PUBLISHED. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY TO BE PUBLISHED unless you are self-publishing or in a competition and that is a different matter. Don’t let people cheat you!
Not even reputable self-publishing costs you money these days. You’re thinking of vanity press which is a different beast entirely.
Yeah, sorry, my bad, you’re totally right!
It’s important that people understand the difference between modern self-publishing and yesterday’s vanity press (i.e. Eragon)! Self-pub has inherited the vanity press stigma so a lot of people perceive it as the last refuge of bad writers with more disposable income than sense, or out of touch rich people who can bankroll their kids into bestseller status.
It’s frustrating because modern self-publishing is literally no different than independent music and film, with the same quality spread and the same advantages and disadvantages, but people are really REALLY attached to the idea of gatekeepers and “quality control” when it comes to books for some reason that is beyond me.
Thanks for this! Vanity presses feel so recent still, and yet things have changed a lot, and it’s important to remember those changes help writers a great deal.
One of the most troubling things about the AIDS epidemic is that it could have been stopped so easily by rolling out life-saving antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) early on. Not only do ARVs prevent HIV from developing into AIDS, they also reduce transmission rates and increase people’s willingness to get tested.
But Western pharmaceutical corporations have colluded in pricing these essential drugs way out of reach of the poor. When they were first introduced, patented ARVs cost up to $15,000 per yearly regimen. Generic producers were able to manufacture the same drugs for a mere fraction of the price, but the WTO outlawed this through the 1995 TRIPS agreement to protect Big Pharma’s monopoly.
It was not until 2003 that the WTO bowed to activist pressure and allowed southern Africa to import generics, but by then it was too late – HIV prevalence had already reached devastating proportions. In other words, much of the region’s AIDS burden can be directly attributed to the WTO’s rules and the corporations that defended them. And they are set to strike again: the WTO will cut patent exemptions for poor countries after 2016.
This dearth of basic drugs has gone hand in hand with the general collapse of public health institutions. Structural adjustment and WTO trade policies have forced states to cut spending on hospitals and staff in order to repay odious debts to the West. Swaziland, ground-zero in the world of AIDS, has been hit hard by these cuts. When I last visited I found that many once-bustling clinics are now empty and dilapidated. Neoliberalism has systematically destroyed the first line of defence against AIDS.
The point I want to drive home is that the policies that deny poor people access to life-saving drugs and destroy public healthcare come from the same institutions and interests that helped create the conditions for HIV transmission in the first place.
An independent network of over 100 students occupied the headquarters of the University of London at Senate House, demanding that ”the University of London Union (ULU) remain in student hands – democratically run by students – and has its block grant returned, that all outsourced workers at the university are awarded a pension, that the ULU oppose the privatization of student loans, and that the financial statements of the University’s academic departments and non-academic services be published so that they can be scrutinized so that the University’s decisions can be properly held to account by the community.”
Here are two videos provided by The Guardian. One shows an officer punching a protester in the face during Wednesday’s demonstration. The other shows a cop trying to hit protesters (on the other side of a gate) with his baton.
As coverage for the protest decreases, the police brutality and suppression continues to increase. It’s up to the public to spread this info.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today said gay sex between consenting adults remains a criminal offence, in a major setback for the largely closeted homosexual community in India.
The top court today said that the Delhi High court’s 2009 order decriminalising homosexuality is constitutionally unsustainable.
The Delhi High Court had decriminalised homosexuality while reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and ruled that sex between two consenting adults in private would not be an offence.
The high court order had been challenged by anti-gay rights activists, social and religious organisations .
Senior BJP leader BP Singhal, who died last year, had challenged the verdict calling it illegal, immoral and against the ethos of Indian culture.
Religious organisations such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Utkal Christian Council and Apostolic Churches Alliance also filed appeals against that verdict.
Look I’m gay and this hurts even in the diaspora, so I am praying for all of the LGBTQ+ people in India right now. May they stay safe and regain their protection soon. I will post more information as it comes.
Sometimes folks say, “But why would you focus on that? There are so many bigger issues in the world!”
So I reply, “Indeed, that’s why I don’t eat, shower, sleep, or dress myself — because there are bigger issues in the world.” Protip: we can solve many problems in parallel.
Arguing that there are many bad things in the world and that geek feminists should be spending their time on those is a silencing tactic. Examples range from systemic food shortages to Microsoft’s activities in the software marketplace.
There is one particular case of this which is problematic: allegations of intersectionality failure. Feminism often merits criticism for perpetrating racism, homophobia, transphobia and other oppressions and such criticism is not silencing. However, the form of it that amounts to telling a feminist forum that “we’ve talked way too much about gender issues here, I think we should solve race issues instead” or “only when all this feminist talk stops, can we work on anti-racism” is. This is sometimes disingenuous, coming from critics who are not themselves active in any diversity or anti-oppression movements and don’t seem to have any motive other than ending the conversation.
If you believe time would be better spent working elsewhere, maybe you should work there.
This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.
THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you.
we’re doing this rn in theology class but im gonna be That Person and ask for a source because this sounds legit but if im gonna talk about this im gonna need to cite something
ok found a few sources for this actually so Yes this seems like a solid reading of the quote
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cbidwell/DCAS/third.htm (about a third of the way down)
I need someone to preach this. I’ll have to use it in some spoken word at church.
Jesus said slap that hoe back.
Yay, sources! I heard this a while ago but didn’t have any evidence to go on. I’m so glad. That passage isn’t about being nice to your oppressors, turning the other cheek isn’t an act of passivity. It’s about turning the tables and taking back dignity. It’s about shaming those who would oppress. People don’t seem to get that Jesus wasn’t a ‘bear your yoke quietly’ kind of guy. He was an agitator and a radical, and these kind of readings inspire me so much to fight, not just people on the street but people in the church who would have us accept their toxic teachings and ask for more.
Yeah, shit like this? Just proves how much those in power deliberately warp shit to their benefit. They twist any sort of resistance to the status quo to be utterly useless and then sneak it into everything as subtle propaganda. Like how “violence is never the answer” and “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” are the twisted versions that deprive folks of justice. No revolution was truly 100% bloodless, tho history can be rewritten to erase that fact, or skew it to serve as fear-mongering bullshit.