18/4/2014



12,827 notes

pussycat-scribbles:

This was so much fun to draw :D I love this screencap (from sailormoonscreencaps) and have been meaning to re-draw it for a while!

This post was reblogged from ghost of a girl.

16/4/2014



158 notes

utena-tfln:

[Photoset - First image is Anthy speaking to Saionji. Second image is Saionji’s horrified response.]

[Text - (561): It is a fiery spray of  napalm-covered beautiful words that leave a flaming “fuck you” on the ground after I destroy him.]

This post was reblogged from A Very Nerdy Nerd.

21:07



7,760 notes
hexgoddess:

aka14kgold:

arbitrary-mask:

thepeoplesrecord:
The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars - it hurts their ‘quality of life’April 16, 2014
Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor … by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.
This happened most recently in Palo Alto, in California’s Silicon Valley, where new billionaires are seemingly minted every month – and where 92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Dozens of cities have passed similar anti-homeless laws. The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial “homeless capital of America”, where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court. Laws against sleeping on sidewalks or in cars are called “quality of life” laws. But they certainly don’t protect the quality of life of the poor.
To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly – but still functioning – recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can. These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a “magnet” for homeless people from other cities. As a result, anti-homeless ordinances often spread to adjacent cities, leaving entire regions without public facilities of any kind.
Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere, despite the fact that the great majority of homeless people are trying to survive in the same communities in which they were last housed – and where they still maintain connections. Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.
Indeed, nearly all homelessness in the US begins with a loss of income and an eviction for nonpayment of rent – a rent set entirely by market forces. The waiting lists are years long for the tiny fraction of housing with government subsidies. And rents have risen dramatically in the past two years, in part because long-time tenants must now compete with the millions of former homeowners who lost their homes in the Great Recession.
The paths from eviction to homelessness follow familiar patterns. For the completely destitute without family or friends able to help, that path leads more or less directly to the streets. For those slightly better off, unemployment and the exhaustion of meager savings – along with the good graces of family and friends – eventually leaves people with only two alternatives: a shelter cot or their old automobile.
However, in places like Los Angeles, the shelters are pretty much always full. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of unsheltered homeless people increased by 67%. In Palo Alto last year, there were 12 shelter beds for 157 homeless individuals. Homeless people in these cities do have choices: they can choose to sleep in a doorway, on a sidewalk, in a park, under a bridge or overpass, or – if they are relatively lucky – in a car. But these cities have ordinances that make all of those choices a criminal offense. The car is the best of bad options, now common enough that local bureaucrats have devised a new, if oxymoronic, term – the “vehicularly housed”.
People sleeping in cars try to find legal, nighttime parking places, where they will be less apparent and arouse the least hostility. But cities like Palo Alto and Los Angeles often forbid parking between 2am and 5am in commercial areas, where police write expensive tickets and arrest and impound the vehicles of repeat offenders. That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.
One finds the “vehicularly housed” in virtually every neighborhood, including my own. But the animus that drives anti-homeless laws seems to be greatest in the wealthiest cities, like Palo Alto, which has probably spawned more per-capita fortunes than any city on Earth, and in the more recently gentrified areas like Los Angeles’ Venice. These places are ruled by majorities of “liberals” who decry, with increasing fervor, the rapid rise in economic inequality. Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.
It is easy to be opposed to inequality in the abstract. So why are Los Angeles and Palo Alto spending virtually none of their budgets on efforts to provide housing for the very poor and homeless? When the most obvious evidence of inequality parks on their street, it appears, even liberals would rather just call the police. The word from the car: if you’re not going to do anything to help, please don’t make things worse.
Source

“Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere…”
HOW? WITH WHAT FUNDS? FOR WHOSE BENEFIT? TO WHERE?
Our society’s approach to its most vulnerable members: I don’t want to see them suffer—so get them out of my sight!


For these sacks of shit, “elsewhere” means the land of the dead. They want homeless people dead. It’s as simple as that.

hexgoddess:

aka14kgold:

arbitrary-mask:

thepeoplesrecord:

The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars - it hurts their ‘quality of life’
April 16, 2014

Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor … by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.

This happened most recently in Palo Alto, in California’s Silicon Valley, where new billionaires are seemingly minted every month – and where 92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Dozens of cities have passed similar anti-homeless laws. The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial “homeless capital of America”, where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court. Laws against sleeping on sidewalks or in cars are called “quality of life” laws. But they certainly don’t protect the quality of life of the poor.

To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly – but still functioning – recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can. These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a “magnet” for homeless people from other cities. As a result, anti-homeless ordinances often spread to adjacent cities, leaving entire regions without public facilities of any kind.

Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere, despite the fact that the great majority of homeless people are trying to survive in the same communities in which they were last housed – and where they still maintain connections. Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.

Indeed, nearly all homelessness in the US begins with a loss of income and an eviction for nonpayment of rent – a rent set entirely by market forces. The waiting lists are years long for the tiny fraction of housing with government subsidies. And rents have risen dramatically in the past two years, in part because long-time tenants must now compete with the millions of former homeowners who lost their homes in the Great Recession.

The paths from eviction to homelessness follow familiar patterns. For the completely destitute without family or friends able to help, that path leads more or less directly to the streets. For those slightly better off, unemployment and the exhaustion of meager savings – along with the good graces of family and friends – eventually leaves people with only two alternatives: a shelter cot or their old automobile.

However, in places like Los Angeles, the shelters are pretty much always full. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of unsheltered homeless people increased by 67%. In Palo Alto last year, there were 12 shelter beds for 157 homeless individuals. Homeless people in these cities do have choices: they can choose to sleep in a doorway, on a sidewalk, in a park, under a bridge or overpass, or – if they are relatively lucky – in a car. But these cities have ordinances that make all of those choices a criminal offense. The car is the best of bad options, now common enough that local bureaucrats have devised a new, if oxymoronic, term – the “vehicularly housed”.

People sleeping in cars try to find legal, nighttime parking places, where they will be less apparent and arouse the least hostility. But cities like Palo Alto and Los Angeles often forbid parking between 2am and 5am in commercial areas, where police write expensive tickets and arrest and impound the vehicles of repeat offenders. That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.

One finds the “vehicularly housed” in virtually every neighborhood, including my own. But the animus that drives anti-homeless laws seems to be greatest in the wealthiest cities, like Palo Alto, which has probably spawned more per-capita fortunes than any city on Earth, and in the more recently gentrified areas like Los Angeles’ Venice. These places are ruled by majorities of “liberals” who decry, with increasing fervor, the rapid rise in economic inequality. Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.

It is easy to be opposed to inequality in the abstract. So why are Los Angeles and Palo Alto spending virtually none of their budgets on efforts to provide housing for the very poor and homeless? When the most obvious evidence of inequality parks on their street, it appears, even liberals would rather just call the police. The word from the car: if you’re not going to do anything to help, please don’t make things worse.

Source

Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere…”

HOW? WITH WHAT FUNDS? FOR WHOSE BENEFIT? TO WHERE?

Our society’s approach to its most vulnerable members: I don’t want to see them suffer—so get them out of my sight!

For these sacks of shit, “elsewhere” means the land of the dead. They want homeless people dead. It’s as simple as that.

This post was reblogged from Stalkers Please Die.

17:17



3,491 notes

This post was reblogged from Stalkers Please Die.

16:19



69,164 notes

magnacarterholygrail:

my personal style is called “i don’t have the money for my preferred aesthetic”

This post was reblogged from The Tousled Lioness.

15:22



69,164 notes

magnacarterholygrail:

my personal style is called “i don’t have the money for my preferred aesthetic”

This post was reblogged from The Tousled Lioness.

14:24



23,845 notes
dragondicks:

crackervolley:

cuteosphere:

unicorns are notorious for their hatred of posturing bro culture
(I’m debating making this girl available as a sticker and a shirt.)

That should make it easier to identify what kind of people to avoid like the plague, thanks! :^)

it’s funny because the kind of people who identify with bro culture are the exact people I’d want to avoid me like the plague so this works

dragondicks:

crackervolley:

cuteosphere:

unicorns are notorious for their hatred of posturing bro culture

(I’m debating making this girl available as a sticker and a shirt.)

That should make it easier to identify what kind of people to avoid like the plague, thanks! :^)

it’s funny because the kind of people who identify with bro culture are the exact people I’d want to avoid me like the plague so this works

This post was reblogged from Stalkers Please Die.

13:26



15,317 notes

aobatoppingnoiz:

Im all for girls drawing and writing self indulgent bullshit, especially considering about 97% of the media around today is just men writing and drawing self indulgent bullshit

This post was reblogged from Stalkers Please Die.

12:29



63,376 notes
brienneofthrace:

tastefullyoffensive:

One donut to rule them all. [mirachravaia]

Want

brienneofthrace:

tastefullyoffensive:

One donut to rule them all. [mirachravaia]

Want

This post was reblogged from A Very Nerdy Nerd.

11:45



108 notes

rambleonamazon:

jramonap:

This whole Andrea James/Calpernia Addams affair has got me thinking about a lot of things… Right now I’d like to talk about one of them: How us “olds” need to check ourselves when it comes to criticizing younger trans folks.

To me, James’ and Addams’ attacks upon Parker Malloy aren’t just disgusting because they attempt to invalidate the identities of queer trans women (like me), they’re also repugnant because they reek of an older generation who can’t be bothered to try to understand younger people.

More than anything, Addams/James screeds come off as them screaming “Get Off My Lawn!” to any trans women who didn’t transition or identify exactly as they do. I’m 39. I’m getting older. I HATE the idea of turning into what Addams and James have become.

I’ll give you an example: I have a hard time wrapping my head around non-binary/agender/genderqueer identities. My visceral reaction is “Huh. Why would someone want to do THAT?” But here’s the thing: Instead of taking that gut reaction and concluding that those identities are invalid (bc they are different from my own), I tap the brakes and ask myself: “Do I just feel this way because it’s something that’s new and unfamiliar to me?” And the answer is… Yup. Older folks should ask themselves that question EVERY DAMN TIME they are tempted to whinge about “these kids today.”

So even when I don’t entirely “get it,” I try to stay open minded and receptive to new information and arguments. People like Calpernia Addams and Andrea James should go forth and do likewise…

This! Exactly this!

I transitioned in the mid/late 90s, just a few years after Calpernia did. I’m 33 now, and very aware that I’m not entirely part of the cool, hip new Millenial trans population. Hell, back when I transitioned you had to stoke the boiler to get your computer on the internet, and hormones arrived by passenger pigeon.

So before I re-entered the community after years of being stealth, I took a few weeks to fucking read, and learn about the experiences of people transitioning now. And yes, there were things I didn’t understand at first, I gave these people the benefit of the doubt that they understood their own lives as well as I understood mine.

Rants like Calpernia’s and especially Andrea’s reflect the kind of attitude I transitioned amongst, and why I had so much self-loathing and difficulty coming to terms with being a lesbian in addition to being trans. Both of these women have done great things for the community (I wouldn’t have even understood where to start with transition without Andrea’s TS Roadmap website), but the philosophies they’re pushing the last few weeks—of deferral to the gay male community and of queer trans people being less real—are poisonous. It’s not that hard to listen to others within your own community, even if you don’t understand them at first.

This post was reblogged from Stalkers Please Die.

Page 1 of 589