“My wife got a degree in sociology and practically minored in women’s studies, and if there’s anything I’ve noticed about her coursework, it’s that feminists will take anything and bend and flex it until it acts in direct opposition to their world view. Not all feminists on every issue, mind you, but there will inevitably be someone who tries to make a name for herself (himself) as a way to rile up support for “the cause.” And it always riles up support because feminism is a movement that is literally founded on being unhappy about everything. As the equality gap is closed, there are more and more straws to grasp at if you want to stay pissed off.” —
“The Sixth Slave” (via Alexander Ryking)
Good, some men have finally come forward to put feminism into the proper perspective. We ought to be paying more attention to what Ryking, AZspot, and this guy, a truly insightful commenter, think. We really do go too far by demanding not to be raped, not to be told it’s our responsibility and our fault, not to be held up to shopped beauty ideals, to have proper access to birth control and abortion, and to be regarded as equals at work and at home.
LOL at beginning a statement with “My wife…practically minored in women’s studies” and then proceeding to dictate the thoughts and experiences of women. Sounds more like a few men grasping at straws to desperately hang on to the remnants of patriarchy.
(via azspot)
OH JUST PISS OFF
HOW ABOUT PEOPLE ASSUME FUCKYEAHEXISTENTIALISM IS MALE BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A WORLD THAT TEACHES US THAT WOMEN DON’T THINK
(AND THAT EVERYONE FITS INTO THE GENDER BINARY UGH)
Yeah.
Male being the default gender doesn’t help either. I assumed she was male before she posted anything about herself and I know I’m not the only one.
A good, serious blog like fuckyeahexistentialism should be genderless (and raceless, classless etc), and present the challenge to the reader that anyone could be writing it. It pleases me to find out the author is female.
Interesting. I’ve really only ever seen fuckyeahexistentialism post quotes from other authors, mainly male, with little or no additional content representing the thoughts of the blog’s author. New knowledge of a female blogger seems meaningless.
(Source: trousertheft, via peaceiseverystep)
OOOOOOOH check yo’ privilege.
hahaaaaa
oh silly anarchists :\
because there is privilege evident in the way the message was stated doesn’t nullify their point. privilege doesn’t override everything.
There are many things destroying the planet, people buying things is not one of them.
And dumpster-diving/squatting (as rad as it may be) is not an option for very many people.
The ‘privilege’ is in ignoring that and victim-blaming the most vulnerable who are just trying to survive in a shitty system that hurts them as much as it hurts ‘our planet’
There are better points to be made
If ‘people buying things’ is not one of the causes of environmental destruction, even if not the primary cause, then what is? Consumerism is an economic policy of increasing consumption. This doesn’t refer to the ‘most vulnerable’ keeping their needs met; it refers to ever expanding and excessive consumption. The knick-knacks, the holiday indulgences, the disposable everything, the individual kitchen tools to cut every unique type of vegetable or fruit. The average number of TVs per household in 2010 was 2.93, while the average number of people in those households was 2.54. This pattern is absolutely destroying the planet, and consumerism is the primary force behind climate change, pollution, energy shortages, water shortages, sprawl, habitat loss, species loss, etc.
Society’s most vulnerable are also most vulnerable to these environmental changes. The privileged over-consumers are the ones who can buy bottled water or move to higher ground or toward the windward side of town. Then again, reducing consumption without any replacement desires could also put many people out of work and increase the incidence of poverty. There really is no such thing as ‘sustainable growth’.
On an unrelated note: oh silly anarchists.
(Source: earth-muffin, via krthing)
Anonymous asked: You are hands down the most interesting blogger I follow. Yet, you regularly go many days or weeks without so much of the merest sprinkling of your devestating mind. Do you not know the thirst you cause? Have you no compassion for your followers, that you give them but small morsels of you that are far too quickly devoured? The lack only makes me more ravenous. Sure, there are other tumblrs that I get by with, but they allow me only enough sustenance to crawl when you make me fly. I would give them all up if it meant more from the inner workings of the amazing maze of your mind. Your intellect is the axis on which I revolve; without it I'm likely to lose all purpose and direction. So please, post more. There's no topic or thought that you could write on that wouldn't be worth reading and rereading.
Extravagantly put, ahungerartist. Have you found some food you like?
There’s a limit to my compassion. See, in those days and weeks away from tumblr, most of my time is spent evaluating the worth of any effort I expend, and I usually reach the same conclusion: tumblr is a pointless endeavor. Why research and fact check each post, or relentlessly proofread for logic flaws, when any statement in bold or caps is the most valid one? Why attempt to write a comprehensive essay countering previous points made, when any type of disagreement is derailing and dismissive? And why develop any original content, when pulling from other blogs and opinion pieces elsewhere on the web is preferable? There are plenty of other tumblrs you can find already achieving success with that strategy.
Instead, for me, perhaps the most impact I could have would be to go out there and do something. Which is what I’m really doing when away from tumblr—something—and not, say, watching six episodes of “Six Feet Under” in a row.
(via isthatevenlegal, cryingtotheocean)
Yeah, sounds good—until you disagree with the way others choose to express those rights.
you know, your argument would be really interesting and intelligent if it weren’t so obvious that you are incapable of basic reading comprehension. or maybe you’re just a jerk who is choosing to argue outside of what i really said.
1) i never suggested eating less vegetables. i think probably most people actually do need more vegetables in their diets and that vegetables are very important. nor did i in any way say i “don’t want to” pay for vegetables: i specifically said that some people CAN’T pay for them, and that there are access issues and barriers to being able to eat only vegetables or to getting quality vegetables.
2) i did not “blame” vegans for anything except those who are two-faced arrogant judgmental assholes who try to force people to live that lifestyle that is not possible for everyone for a number of reasons, one of which being that it is currently not financially feasible for a lot of people, and the vegans i was responding to were actually going so far as to lie and say that it is cheaper to be vegan and everyone should be able to do it.
3) and yes, i do call out the privilege of certain vegans who willfully ignore, and often directly contribute to and actively excuse, abuse of migrant workers. which is really basically what i see you doing here as well. it seems like you are saying it’s a means to an end to abuse migrant workers, they have to accept that abuse for the good of the rest of us, and somewhere down the line we’ll maybe create some kind of change that shifts subsidies etc so that we can “free” them of that abuse. i call major bullshit. on several levels.
- first and foremost being that justice cannot be built on the backs of others. to put it into perspective, say that we were talking slavery (which honestly is what we are talking about in many cases anyway), i mean “Old South” slavery. how would you feel if what was said was “hey, this is the system we have and the government doesn’t help these farms enough so they have to use slaves and instead of boycotting those farms or boycotting cotton & tobacco, you should use MORE cotton & tobacco so that the demand for them will encourage the government to help the farmers out”. really? your solution is: contribute to the abuse in hopes that it will cause change in the long run. this strategy makes no sense at all. but more than that, it is ethically wrong.
- the real reason that people abuse their workers isn’t because the government doesn’t help them enough. it isn’t because there isn’t enough demand for their product. it’s because they can. more demand will only increase the system of abuse by most farms because their goal is production and personal gain.
- there are plenty of ways that we can address policy change and system change that don’t rely on “eat more vegetables” as a single miraculous solution. i didn’t in any way suggest that the government policies aren’t partly responsible and that pressure needs to be brought on that side. but what bothers me is while you are claiming that i “blame” vegans and don’t address the policy/system side (which is not even a true assessment of my critique), you are doing the exact opposite and putting all blame one place and alleviating individuals/movements - and frankly, greedy assed and often racist farmers, of whom i know several - of any responsibility.
my critique is not that veggies are bad, nor that farming is bad, nor that there are not solutions and methods that exist and are already being used to address the issues. my critique was of a very particular set of so-called social justice-minded folks who choose to be both privilege-denying and hypocritical. i am saying, look at the whole picture, look at the whole system. the inherent privilege apparent in so many of the responses to my critique is well portrayed in your response. heaven forbid that we actually talk about human rights abuses. perhaps you think we can just sweep that under the rug. and that, in my book, puts you squarely on the side of the oppressor.
“…vegan demands for the rights of animals STILL overlook the rights of farm workers…the demand for more vegan options will place further burden on those farm workers.” My basic comprehension skills read: vegans care about animals more than people…more vegan options (i.e. more vegetables and less meat)=increased abuse of farm workers. If you want a book written about how a greater demand for vegan lifestyles will further burden humans, how does that not imply that eating more vegetables is undesirable?
I specifically addressed the problems with access and affordability of vegetables the first time I reblogged you, which you’ve conveniently avoided. I agreed that it is an important issue. And true, we must look at the big picture: I also pointed out that meat production is far more expensive to society than veganism, and those additional external costs fall on the poor. Denial of that is also an outright lie. I took issue with those who can afford to but choose not to, because their consumption patterns largely determine what is available to others. And they are the ones who don’t want to pay more for vegetables. Those who CAN.
I realize that your original argument was in reference to those who can’t, but I also take issue with such arguments that deliberately ignore the relevant points, such as the underlying systematic reasons that they can’t. Maybe you’ve discussed these reasons in detail along with these posts, but I looked a few pages back and only saw more stuff trashing vegans. It doesn’t matter if vegans are privileged; they are not the ones making vegetables more expensive or unavailable. In fact, they are the ones trying to change the system. They are the ones trying to make fair food choices more widely available. Arguments that only attack them, while failing to acknowledge the very valid reasons behind their actions, only serve to help maintain the status quo. And even if you were only attacking some small subsect of vegans, who cares about them? Their statements are irrelevant, because they are powerless. Vegans as a group are not in a position to be oppressive, and to suggest otherwise is dishonest. Bitterly attacking such straw men does nothing but distract from the justifications for the movement, and that is a type of derailment.
I’m unclear how you concluded that what I’m “doing here” is aiming to “willfully ignore, and often directly contribute to and actively excuse, abuse of migrant workers.” Or that “it’s a means to an end to abuse migrant workers, they have to accept that abuse for the good of the rest of us…” Perhaps I should pass the reading comprehension test on to you. ”heaven forbid that we actually talk about human rights abuses. perhaps you think we can just sweep that under the rug.” I’m confused, because I thought we were talking about human rights. My entire post, and the one preceding it, was about human rights abuses. I said nothing about animals. I fully agree that the abuse of migrant workers is a serious issue and not one that can easily be fixed by a few people eating more veggies. But because I did not roll out a comprehensive, 50-step plan to ensure that migrant farm workers would be treated justly, it was somehow fair to ignore everything I did bring up (such as considering the potential benefits to such workers in a world that relies less on subsidized agriculture)? You’ve offered zero suggestions for solutions while aiming a misguided offensive on the few minor suggestions in existence. Did you even follow the links that supersoygrrrl posted before attacking her personally? If you continually refuse to acknowledge the livestock industry’s explicit role in human rights abuses, or the intersection between subsidized meat consumption and the plight of fruit/vegetable farm workers, then you are the one remaining willfully ignorant. And by resorting to name-calling, you are the one effectively shutting down the conversation.
(via atapestryofdisasters-deactivate)
and i could have sworn that we just had this convo on Tumblr recently too, but somebody missed that memo…
Is this meant to be serious? You posted a video highlighting the plight of migrant farm workers, and your solution is for people to eat less vegetables?
I hope your book would’ve detailed the subsidy structure that promoted a commodity crop surplus, stressed more yield per acre, increased the use of pesticides and fertilizer, and lead to the growth of multinational agribusiness corporations. We now sell corn for less than it costs to grow it, and family farms are no longer viable. Subsidies support feedlots and value-added corn products, such as Fritos and Pepsi, not farmers or consumers. An agricultural system that once depended on diverse, labor intensive farms now depends on some guys in the Midwest driving back and forth in tractors or combines for a few weeks per year.
In contrast, vegetable farms are not subsidized nor heavily mechanized, yet producers must compete with artificially cheapened processed foods. Thus the heavy labor requirements must be cheap (i.e. dependent on immigrants). It’s amusingly disappointing that the same people who don’t want to pay more for vegetables also argue that farm workers should make more. You don’t think that a greater increase in vegetable consumption would maybe shift policy and maybe even create more jobs through a return to diverse, labor-centered farms? It’s really laughable that you blame vegans for an increased burden on farm workers, and not the government policies that drove consumption and devalued human labor.
Yeah, better that someone else write that book.
(via atapestryofdisasters-deactivate)
first of all, folks can be educated and still disagree with you.
second, saying that “most vegan meals are just vegetables” as proof that they are cheaper than meat alternatives tells us
- you live in a privileged world that is clueless of the cost of vegetables
- you do not know what it is like to not have access to fresh vegetables, or to much variety of vegetables.
- you clearly don’t have to factor in the cost (both financial and otherwise) that goes into procurring vegetables, keeping them fresh & edible, etc.
i’m not saying anything against veganism nor suggesting that there aren’t less expensive ways to eat vegan at times. but overall, yes, it is more expensive. we shouldn’t lie and say it’s not. we shouldn’t shame people for having to make very difficult choices with their money. and i really don’t have an ounce of respect for someone who will rail “i hate it when people say eating vegan is expensive, they must not really know what vegan means”. your reality is not everyone else’s, and your inability to hear what people are really saying when they say they cannot afford, or struggle to afford, to be vegan is called privilege.
Even if such vegans have personal chefs to serve their mushroom pâté on silver platters, the facts surrounding the consequences of meat consumption do not change. So, those clueless vegans care more about piglets than poor people. It’s easier to poke fun at them rather than actively address the actual problems with food choices. Frequent arguments like this one attract more attention, while they conveniently leave out any of the important reasons that change is needed. Pointing out that food costs money, and some people have it while others don’t, doesn’t really require much thought.
The class argument is more complex than it is made out to be here. While access is a very valid concern for too many people, it is not for many who use it. And some people making the expense argument also ignore that a widespread omnivorous diet contributes greatly to pollution, climate change, world hunger, and the declining value of farm labor. Meat production is very expensive, far more expensive than veganism, and much of the cost related to these issues falls on the poor. Why is more time spent arguing back and forth about the out-of-pocket cost of different diets rather than advocating for more accessible and affordable vegan choices (e.g. by buying them when available)?
A large part of the accessibility/affordability problem is that those who can become vegetarian or vegan don’t. Maybe comfort food is comforting for a reason, and people find change uncomfortable. We advocate change all the time when when we feel that individual choices result in the subjugation of some group. Meat production does just that, not only for animals, yet we routinely deny it. We purposely ignore the facts. Maybe those who are able to give up meat sometimes don’t because it does require a sacrifice. Many of us grew up within a culture that is tied to animal consumption, and some feel it is not on them to deny that culture for the sake of these other issues. When you first acknowledge the facts and still admit that the cause is not worthwhile, then there’s nothing more to add.
(via atapestryofdisasters-deactivate)
40% Of Americans, Majority Of Republicans, Reject Evolution
This is rather… disheartening to say the least.
My neighbor brought up evolution once, said that if evolution was real he could “fuck a monkey and make a human”. Perhaps no one believes it because no one understands it? Yet at the same time that doesn’t seem likely either, I was in seventh grade when I discovered you can’t fuck monkeys and make humans, if not earlier than that. I vote school kids should read Michael Crichton novels.
Michael Crichton might not be a better source of science education, given his climate change denialism.
I’ve read State of Fear and it didn’t change my opinion on climate change. Of course I can’t expect that for everyone else, but I was thinking more along the lines of books like Next.
Many middle schoolers and even high schoolers aren’t as fortunate to receive proper science education. Many do not accept evolution because they do not understand it; they may get more information from their churches and the popular media than they do from their science teachers. Thus we end up with persisting misconceptions about evolution, genetics, and climate change as people become more entrenched in their beliefs when exposed to new information. The poll itself repeatedly and incorrectly refers to creationism as an equivalent theory, rather than as an untested hypothesis. This is a failure of the scientific community; we even end up with relatively educated people who believe it’s possible to clone dinosaurs from fossilized DNA.
(via corruptpolitics-deactivated2011)
So this is my attempt to describe a highly simplified carbon cycle, which seems in need of review after some general observations and conversation (though I think pyrrhosrepublic might have had an overly optimistic estimate of interest). Unfortunately, general science education is frequently blown off, maybe because people take these vital life processes for granted. There are more important or interesting things to worry about than processes that will continue to work without our knowledge. Yet nearly everything is directly dependent on these processes, not just our bodily functions, but also our jobs, our resources, and even the warm glowing warming glow of the internet. As we rapidly approach energy and climate concerns, these processes can no longer be taken for granted.
The picture above illustrates the major biological processes that cycle carbon from atmospheric to organic forms. It becomes easy to see that by digging up and burning fossil fuels, we are disrupting the cycle. Up through the present, nearly all of our energy, which our technological innovations and economy are completely dependent upon, came from sunlight energy that has been concentrated over hundreds of millions of years. And it all started with photosynthesis, which is probably my all-time favorite sequence of chemical reactions…
justjasper asked: What is the perfect ice-cream flavour?
On another note, I’d go for the prohibitively expensive Jeni’s cherry lambic sorbet. Can’t add much about the other intriguing grass-fed dairy flavors, though Alton Brown says they’re the best in the US.
nesbittslimesoda asked: I like the takedowns today. That is all.
Ha, thanks (a couple days behind). It would be the theme of this tumblr, if it weren’t so annoying and/or depressing.
We don’t convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. Through cellular respiration, similar to combustion, organic molecules are oxidized (release electrons) to form carbon dioxide. Those electrons lose energy that is stored in ATP, the molecule our bodies can then use to function. Oxygen accepts the de-energized electron and is thus reduced (gains electrons) to form water and complete the coupled redox reaction.
Thus, oxygen is converted to water, and the organic molecules we eat (carbohydrates, fats, proteins) are converted to carbon dioxide and usable energy.
One way to feel productive might be to learn the most basic biological processes critical to our lives. The carbon cycle is also extremely relevant due to increasing energy and climate concerns.
Whatever. 15,000+ notes.
[video]
Caramel Baloney: catbus: hotblondecocktail: “If you choose to be a vegan- you choose…
“If you choose to be a vegan- you choose what you do and do not eat- you are doing so because you are a rich bitch with enough free mental space to worry about the general wellbeing of fucking cows, probably because mother and father send you money to your…
This was a joke, you damn idiot.
Sincerely,
Rich Bitch
LOL. Was this, too?
If you are choosing to be a vegan- you are choosing what you do or do not eat- that very fact alone means you come from a place of privilege, which is FINE, but then I also expect you to understand what the negative ramifications of widespread veganism would be.
It would would have way more of an impact than turning the steak factory into the tofu factory.
Please, enlighten us idiots. We’d like to know all the positive effects of ignoring those issues.