Concealed Weapon

Neurotypical Privilege is more people knowing a statistic about how many people are autistic than knowing what it actually means to be autistic.

chescaleigh:

blackpowerisforblackmen:


Shanesha Taylor was arrested on March 20th by the Scottsdale Police for leaving her children ages 2 and 6 months in her car while she interviewed for a job. Ms. Taylor was homeless and could not access any child care. Her desperation to provide for herself and her children and her lack of options led her to take drastic measures in search of employment. Ms. Taylor needs support & help rather than incarceration and a criminal record that will surely decrease her chances to provide for her children in the future. We ask that Maricopa County use common-sense and provide support for Ms. Taylor and her children rather than punishment.
Shanesha Taylor is still in jail pending a $9,000 bond.

Help drop the child abuse charges against Shanesha Taylor by signing this petition at change.org. Here’s the link: http://www.change.org/petitions/bill-montgomery-drop-the-child-abuse-charges-against-shanesha-taylor?recruiter=13739587&utm_campaign=twitter_link_action_box&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition

Don’t just reblog, make sure to sign!

chescaleigh:

blackpowerisforblackmen:

Shanesha Taylor was arrested on March 20th by the Scottsdale Police for leaving her children ages 2 and 6 months in her car while she interviewed for a job. Ms. Taylor was homeless and could not access any child care. Her desperation to provide for herself and her children and her lack of options led her to take drastic measures in search of employment. Ms. Taylor needs support & help rather than incarceration and a criminal record that will surely decrease her chances to provide for her children in the future. We ask that Maricopa County use common-sense and provide support for Ms. Taylor and her children rather than punishment.

Shanesha Taylor is still in jail pending a $9,000 bond.

Help drop the child abuse charges against Shanesha Taylor by signing this petition at change.org. Here’s the link: http://www.change.org/petitions/bill-montgomery-drop-the-child-abuse-charges-against-shanesha-taylor?recruiter=13739587&utm_campaign=twitter_link_action_box&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition

Don’t just reblog, make sure to sign!

Anyone who is against accommodations for disabilities should be prohibited from using anything that some people don’t need.

This includes calculators, because some people can do math in their head.

This includes alarm clocks, because some people can wake up at a set time without them.

This includes clocks, because some people can tell time by the position of the sun.

This includes instruction manuals, because some people already know how to use it.

This includes stairs, because some people can climb a rope to the next floor.

If you’re against accommodations, you shouldn’t use any accommodations either, even if your accommodations are commonly used and are for something that it’s socially acceptable to be unable to do.

Allistic person: I know about autistic people because I have a five-year-old cousin with autism.
Autistic person: I know about allistics because I'm surrounded by allistic people who control and influence almost every aspect of my life, from my education to my employment to my healthcare, friendship, and relationships. Often they make life very difficult for me, and that upsets me.
Allistic person: HEY! DON'T GENERALIZE US ALLISTIC PEOPLE! WE'RE NOT ALL THE SAME, YOU KNOW!

lipstick-autistic:

I hate how if an allistic person is upset, it’s a totally valid display of emotions 

but if I’m upset, even about the exact same thing, I’m ‘causing drama’ and ‘behaving irrationally’.

Your emotions are important and they are valid. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

rulegibber:

kelsthestampede:

Disgusting. Fucking repulsive. Exposing your body doesn’t give anyone the right to it. Ever.

No but it increases the risk of it happening. Assuming that everyone else is rational and moral, and that its society’s fault if a minority of people end up committing crimes is stupid.
That is the point people are making. They are not justifying rape.

How can you possibly know exactly who a rapist would choose to rape, unless you’re a rapist? 

rulegibber:

kelsthestampede:

Disgusting. Fucking repulsive. Exposing your body doesn’t give anyone the right to it. Ever.

No but it increases the risk of it happening. Assuming that everyone else is rational and moral, and that its society’s fault if a minority of people end up committing crimes is stupid.

That is the point people are making. They are not justifying rape.

How can you possibly know exactly who a rapist would choose to rape, unless you’re a rapist? 

kelsthestampede:

Disgusting. Fucking repulsive. Exposing your body doesn’t give anyone the right to it. Ever.

People drive expensive cars and wear expensive suits all the time, and if someone robbed them, no one would say that they’re asking for it by having an expensive car or suit, because rich people’s right to their money and property is actually valued in our society, while women’s right to their bodies is not.
"I hate n*gg*rs" is an attitude that has caused many black people to be killed. "Still not asking for it" is an attitude that has caused many men to see an attractive woman but not get laid. White male privilege is thinking they’re equivalent.

kelsthestampede:

Disgusting. Fucking repulsive. Exposing your body doesn’t give anyone the right to it. Ever.

People drive expensive cars and wear expensive suits all the time, and if someone robbed them, no one would say that they’re asking for it by having an expensive car or suit, because rich people’s right to their money and property is actually valued in our society, while women’s right to their bodies is not.

"I hate n*gg*rs" is an attitude that has caused many black people to be killed. "Still not asking for it" is an attitude that has caused many men to see an attractive woman but not get laid. White male privilege is thinking they’re equivalent.

I found a stamp on deviantart that says "I heart misandry", your thoughts on that?
Anonymous

dumblr-feminist:

There’s a ton of shit like that, not just on deviant art. The whole “I <3 Misandry” Movement is so stupid. I swear if it was popular to get a shirt that said “HELL YEAH MISOGYNY” People would be getting shot. I mean have you even HEARD of such a thing? No. Why haven’t you heard of this? Because the patriarchy doesn’t exist. If they did, no one would be allowed to LOVE misandry and misogyny wouldn’t exist because it would just be “normal” to treat women that way. The fact that there are females out there who think it’s cute to hate and want to kill all men and some how are getting away with it, when the opposite would probably end up getting someone murdered, boggles my mind.

You’ve seriously never seen a shirt with something that’s sexist against women? They’re everywhere.

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

"The 1% wants &#8230;"
Why are laws always based on this? 

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

"The 1% wants …"

Why are laws always based on this? 


MISOGYNY FREE
DATING GUIDE

AVAILABLE NOW

$17.99 $13.99

13 COPIES SOLD