Take your fav villager and make there name ghetto




Fauna : Fauntisha

Merengue: Merrywang

chester: cheszissle 

what the fuck, you assholes, this isn’t funny

When we commit to examining our language and ideas and deconstructing the ableism we find in them, we must make a full, not partial or half-hearted, commitment. When we stop using autistic, crippled, and retarded as insults, when we realize the urgent need to stop scapegoating violence on “mental illness” and “emotional instability or disturbance,” when we learn to stop referring to our political opponents as blind, deaf, or crippled in their ideologies, we must also critically re-examine our use of the psychopathy label.

Why the Term ‘Psychopath’ is Racist and Ableist, by Lydia Brown

this, this, this!

(via disabilityhistory)

ThinkGeek's form email reply to the white-washed Star Trek decals




I was really, really excited when I saw the announcement that ThinkGeek now has a set of Star Trek family car decals. I was going to demand that my partner whip out his wallet RIGHT NOW so we could order some for Christmas…

That is, until I saw Uhura.



I wrote to ThinkGeek to express my concerns, and got a form email in reply. I know it’s a form, because on FB someone posted the exact same text.

"Thank you for contacting ThinkGeek. ThinkGeek along with CBS, made the design decision to focus more on the unique and distinct TOS uniforms, and so that’s why we kept the body shapes and heads of the humans all the same, in the usual family car decal style. We definitely meant no offense; however, we understand your concern and appreciate your feedback, so we will pass this along to the Overlords, so that they’re aware! Thank you for reaching out to us.”

Just to be clear:

1) There is no "usual" family car decal style.

2) These are specific characters, not generic ones.

3) The body shapes and heads of the humans are NOT “all the same” on the decals. (Posture, boobs, hair, and accessories)

4) It’s still white-washing.

wow this is bullshit fuck those racist assholes

ummmm stephonee




i couldn’t find a quick link to a First Nations person talking about how ‘spirit animal’ by settlers or people not First Nation’s is racist and appropriative


Google fails because it is clogged with whiny white pagans or whatever

A list of things to say INSTEAD OF SPIRIT ANIMAL:

  • Token
  • Emblem
  • Secret identity
  • Patronus
  • Mascot
  • Patron saint
  • Coat of arms/blazon
  • Guardian angel
  • Champion
  • Master/captain/mentor
  • Shoulder angel
  • Superhero
  • Overlord
  • Imaginary friend
  • Role model

 A TON  of people use “patronus” regularly and casually. it’s fine. It makes sense. It’s totally evocative of the CONCEPT YOU’RE TRYING TO CONVEY WITHOUT TAKING A SHIT ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLE.

For a more detailed explanation, here is Moniquill’s excellent “The Following Is a Post About Woo”

And of course, some posts specifically about “Spirit Animals” and the connection to “Woo” and fake fucking “Indian Magical Nature Elf Speertchualitee”



White woman Dita von Teese wears a sari and South Asian jewelry despite the fact that she has no connection to South Asian culture at all.

White woman Dita von Teese decided to wear a bra rather than an actual blouse because who the fuck cares if she’s hypersexualizing brown women. 

White woman Dita von Teese has a history of using other people’s cultural dress in her burlesque shows because racism, cultural appropriation, and hypersexualization of WoC are completely made-up concepts.

Basically, how long before this bitch incorporates a sari into one of her damned burlesque routines and then proceeds to take it off for men with too much power and money? 


Let’s not forget the shadeism that this will contribute too, desi women have been suffering shitloads for not having skin fair enough and then these white women parade around in our clothing and people encourage it because “it looks more beautiful on their bodies/skin color.”

How long before I stop hearing, “don’t go out in the sun, if you tan then no one will marry you”?

on benedict’s rumored casting as khan



  • I love Star Trek. Like, seriously, deeply, irrationally love it. I watched all of season three of Enterprise, for fuck’s sake — I think I can pull rank here and say I’ve seen it at its best and at its worst and I love it all the same. But that doesn’t mean I have to be so grateful for the fact that this movie even exists as part of the Trek canon that I’m going to shy away from calling it out on its bullshit.
  • And the fact of the matter is that Benedict Cumberbatch, a white guy, being cast as Khan Noonien Singh, a character of Indian descent, is bullshit. It is whitewashing. It is less progressive than a movie from 1982. And it is racist as fuck.
  • I’ve seen Sherlock. I’ve seen Third Star. Benedict Cumberbatch is an excellent actor and I have no doubts he’ll do justice to the role. This is not a complaint lobbied toward him, his acting abilities, or his fans. This is not about Ricardo Montalban’s ~legacy~ and the possibility of Benedict ~tarnishing~ it. It’s about the producers and casting department of the movie and their casting of a white guy in a role written (in the sixties, people) specifically for a person of color.
  • Because I know someone’s going to bring it up — no, this is not the first time Star Trek has failed on the race front. They’ve done it a lot. I’m not ignoring that or excusing it or trying to gloss over it, but the fact of the matter is that The Powers That Be had a clear, explicit (mandated, I would argue) opportunity to hire a person of color for this role, and they chose the white guy. They looked at a character of Indian descent — one of the most iconic science fiction villains of all time! — that had been played by one of the most prominent Hispanic actors of his time (which is a whole different issue of problematic casting, yes, but the point remains — not white), and picked the white guy.
  • If you have problems with me being angry about this, unfollow me now, because I’m not going to apologize for being upset about racist casting.

Oh my goodness, they really did that. Dammit, ST used to actually be progressive and inclusive. Not perfect, mind, but now they can’t even follow up their own canon because of whitewashing.

Fail, Star Trek. Major fail :-(

(Source: lesliecrusher)

I’ll spell it out for all the white folks out there:


  • When POC say we’re proud of our race/skin color/ethnicity, it is a response to the dehumanization and self-hatred that imperialist peoples (read: white folks) have been using as a key tool in our oppression since, well, forever. It is a rallying cry to say, “No, we’re not going to hate ourselves. We’re more than what you make of us. We’re beautiful, talented, and fully fleshed out human beings whether you want to accept that or not.” It is a celebration of all we’ve accomplished in spite of our oppression.
  • When white people say they’re proud to be white, they’re ignoring the massive amount of marginalization that has taken place to get white people where they are today. You can’t separate your existence as a white person from the terrible things that have been done by your ancestors, because you still reap the benefits of slavery, of imperialism, of genocide. The very land on which you’re privileged to live was stolen from the hands of Native Americans, built on the backs of slaves, and is maintained by the military industrial complex which kills brown people all around the world. White pride is a celebration of all whites have accomplished because of the oppression of others.

This is why, again, if you’re proud to be white, you’re a racist.

(Source: dion-thesocialist)




not wanting to emphasize race, wanting to be color blind, not wanting to focus on racism in movements (like OWS and feminism for example), saying we all bleed red, or nobody’s life is perfect and we’re all oppressed, and etc.

is racism. It is trying to circumvent dealing with racism. It is trying to deny that racism impacts people’s lives in real ways. It is racist.

When racism is not cared about & when it is tossed to the side, PoC’s needs are not addressed. Only white people’s needs are addressed since literally everybody faces racism except white people.

If you tell me not to emphasize my race I’ll remind you that my race is emphasized everyday. So if you want to pretend that isn’t happening, you’re racist.

Maybe not intentionally, because maybe you hadn’t thought about it in depth. Many white people are racist just because they were brought up not to consider the needs of non-whites and not to consider that this is a white supremacist country, not because they hate non-whites necessarily.

But that is no matter to me. It’s still racism.

::slow clap::

In fact, the War on Drugs began at a time when illegal drug use was on the decline. During this same time period, however, a war was declared, causing arrests and convictions for drug offenses to skyrocket, especially among people of color.

The impact of the drug war has been astounding. In less than thirty years, the U.S. penal population exploded from around 300,000 to more than 2 million, with drug convictions accounting for the majority of the increase. The United States now has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, dwarfing the rates of nearly every developed country, even surpassing those in highly repressive regimes like Russia, China, and Iran. In Germany, 93 people are in prison for every 100,000 adults and children. In the United States, the rate is roughly eight times that, or 750 per 100,000.

The racial dimension of mass incarceration is its most striking feature. No other country in the world imprisons so many of its racial or ethnic minorities. The United States imprisons a larger percentage of its black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid. In Washington D.C., our nation’s capitol, it is estimated that three out of four young black men (and nearly all of those in the poorest neighborhoods) can expect to serve time in prison. Similar rates of incarceration can be found in black communities across America.

These stark racial disparities cannot be explained by rates of drug crime. Studies show that people of all colors use and sell illegal drugs at remarkably similar rates. If there are significant differences in the surveys to be found, they frequently suggest that whites, particularly white youth, are more likely to engage in drug crime than people of color. That is not what one would guess, however, when entering our nation’s prisons and jails, which are overflowing with black and brown drug offenders. In some states, black men have been admitted to prison on drug charges at rates twenty to fifty times greater than those of white men. And in major cities wracked by the drug war, as many as 80 percent of young African American men now have criminal records and are thus subject to legalized discrimination for the rest of their lives.

Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

Things that you probably already knew but are worth repeating.

(via thecurvature)

Another reason Gaga is off my Christmas list



Singer Lady Gaga says she feels like a gypsy at heart and doesn’t fear being homeless.

The singer, who is yet to buy her own home, admitted she is still “homeless” because she thinks it would be a “waste of money” to splash out on a property when she spends most of her time on tour, reports

I’m a gypsy, you know. I can’t plan my life out like that so much. Then I think well, gosh what a waste of money to buy a place and I’m on the road,” Gaga said on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show”.

“Even though it might not seem like a big deal because I’m a pop singer or whatever, it still hurts to hand over that much. It’s a lot of money,” she added.

[Source: Times of India]

No, Gaga, you’re not a gypsy. What you are, is someone who relentlessly reinforces stereotypes. I get so tired of all these pop stars appropriating the word (Miley Cyrus, Shakira, Gaga to name but a few), a word that they clearly have no understanding of.

I also get tired when people tell me that anti-ziganism should never be compared to anti-semitism or other forms of racism.


 Isn’t that a form of racism in and of itself? Oh, we understand that anti-ziganism is a bad thing, but our racism is worse. No, all racism is bad.

But, I would actually go with an unpopular opinion here:

anti-ziganism is worse (if we’re using qualifiers) because people don’t believe it’s a thing. People don’t believe in ‘gypsies’. If they do, they believe any form of racism or discrimination is because of something that we did (as one person said to me—stereotypes exist for a reason. He went on to say that ‘gypsies’ should just get a job and stop stealing things …)

The racism against Rroma and other Walking People has been so institutionalized that it seems impossible to address. In some countries, such as Bulgaria or the Czech Republic, the racism is blatant, even at governmental levels. However, in many countries it is hidden. Rroma are denied visas, building permits, medical care, jobs, housing, education and more on a daily basis. 

You may not think so—but comments like Gaga’s do nothing to better our situation. As a real Rroma (gypsy) woman, Gaga has effectively wiped out my ethnicity and my lifestyle in two sentences. 

Once last week when I clarified that I was “gypsy” (they gave me a blank look when I said Rroma) my classmate said “OH! Like Shakira?!”

I simply walked away.

i can’t even. lady gaga needs to shut up forever

LOL @ anyone who attempts to defend something racist with, ‘It’s art.’


An incomplete list of why that argument is flawed: 

  1. Art can be racist. We wouldn’t have a western canon, or any art canon for that matter, if we hadn’t already acknowledged that years ago. Racism doesn’t negate something from being art and art doesn’t negate something from being racist. This is not a platform worth arguing on. 
  2. Art has the power and scope to affect society in a way that nothing else does. Nothing is ever ‘just a book’ or ‘just a music video’ or ‘just a song.’ If it’s not important enough to think about, then it wasn’t important enough to be made. 
  3. Art is a decent enough gauge of what some members of society were thinking at any given time. We study art to study culture and history. Visual art in particular is not simply a presentation of one’s inner-most feelings and beliefs but a reproduction of the culture the artist lived in and, often, a reproduction of that culture’s historical viewpoints; shorthand that the artist may not have even realize they internalized. 

Also, a bonus tip! This one’s on symbolism but tune in next week for the next dumb racist thing fandom does for the next installment: 

Having darkness represent evil is lazy and trite, but generally acceptable. Having a dark person represent evil is lazy and trite but also racist. Having a non-black person dress up in blackface to represent evil is not only lazy, trite, and racist but also a direct continuation of the same destructive shorthand that cost people their lives and livelihood. The time in-between has not allowed for it to be less offensive or more ironic.

In fact, let’s take this opportunity to segue into a preemptive offense of my least favorite literary device: Irony. In order for irony to work, there must be two layers involved: the implied, often traditional, meaning and the literal one. 

Society at the time of blackface was casually and institutionally racist. The white population had unparalleled privilege over everyone else and were the ones who found any entertainment value in blackface. Society at the time of Florence + the Machine’s video is casually and institutionally racist. The white population has unparalleled privilege over everyone else and she, as a member of that population, is the one who sees any entertainment value in blackface. The only thing that is ironic about this scenario is attempting to use irony in the first place.

As for edginess, using blackface, an old racist visual tradition, in a music video in 2011 is about as edgy as pulling out the clothes that were worn during blackface’s heyday and wearing them in a music video. 

You want to get into a discussion about how edgy or culturally appropriate something is? Try Annie Leibovitz’s 1998 photos of African American comedian Chris Rock in whiteface. Using the shorthand of blackface, which exploited blackness as a source of comedy for white people, and flipping it so a black comedian was put in whiteface as a commentary on modern day comedy actually is edgy and interesting. Or, if you prefer discussions and debates about symbolism, how about Annie Leibovitz’s 1984 shot of African American comedian Whoopi Goldberg simultaneously submerged and emerging from a tub of milk (which Leibovitz specifically stated was meant to symbolize her coming out from all the whiteness in comedy)? Here, the racial overtones of color are being used intentionally and smartly. In 1984! 

Annie Leibovitz is, for anyone who might not be aware, white. 

…But oh, wait, those examples actually give the visual power to the POCs! They legitimately challenge, or document the challenging of, the status quo! I guess something is only considered edgy if it’s someone doing, or defending their right to do, the exact same thing as their ancestors! 

I may have reblogged this already, I can’t remember. oh well.


i wrote an article for Racialicious about Florence + The Machine’s latest music video “No Light, No Light” which happens to be blatantly racist. (via Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture)

Anyone who is saying Florence’s new video is ‘racist’ has completely missed the point of the whole thing and just doesn’t understand the concept.



I weep for humanity sometimes…
People just don’t understand art.


1. It’s black face. It is blatant black face I can’t believe we are having this conversation on why black face is bad

2. It appropriates and stereotypes voodoo to no end

3. Talk about the over kill of the Scary Black Man trope here

4. It’s just all around racism. Seriously, check your privilege before you dismiss the complaints the group of people these stereotypes attack before you say such heinous crap like this.

If there is one thing you ought to be weeping for humanity, it is the fact that racism is so quickly dismissed by privilege denying people like yourself.


sorry for the spam y’all but it’s just so frustrating that people think this stuff is okay.



Can we please stop using “symbolism” as a catch-all apology for offensive things as if because something is ‘symbolic’ that absolves it of all problematic subtext — as if it is not the very symbolism itself which is making it problematic? Like. Not only did Florence + the Machine’s “No Light, No Light” video contain a man in blackface (already appropriative, tokenistic, and offensive) but he was symbolic of evil and a threat to Florence; his ‘voodoo’ was explicitly contrasted with Christianity, Florence’s salvation. This is the symbolism you’re invoking to try to absolve “No Light, No Light” of racism and it is explicitly racist symbolism. There is no deeper level on which this video is not racist. People who see the racism are not being too stupid to see past the racism to its ~intellectual and totally not-racist core. They’re seeing its core. Its core is, like, literally made of racism.

(Source: formerlyspectroscopes)





The first comment?  

Really?  That comment is everything that is wrong about a conversation about racism.  THE ISSUE ISN’T ADDRESSED AT ALL and instead, the one addressing the problem becomes the bad guy.  

Fucking bullshit.  How are we ever supposed to have a real exchange about race when I (or we) turn into the bad guy?  Stop pointing fingers for a moment and let’s talk about the issue.

And I don’t even know what the fuck is going on with that last comment.  Like, I’m kind of sitting here, hoping s/he’s like 7 years old and knows nothing.

My comment was not meant to ignore the existence of racism. I’m very aware that it exists and I do not hold racist views. I may have not made my point as concisely as I had thought. My point is that if you see things like a man painted black and you automatically assume it’s racist, it’s interpretation and you are responsible for that. The symbolism behind the color black has always been negative. Dark or black things are portrayed as evil and the color white is often representative of heavenly or pure things. So my point was, if you examine everything in terms of race, you’re part of the problem and not the solution. You’re looking at the world through eyes that see skin color instead of color. And furthermore, to single me out and say that I’m part of the “problem” is hypocritical. Later in your post you say to stop finger pointing and that’s exactly what you’ve done.

Except this video doesn’t happen in a bubble and blackface exists and that is racist.  To say it’s all about interpretation is bullshit.  Genocide, when interpreted by the ones doing it, is actually good.  This doesn’t negate the fact that what’s happening is wrong.

You can say that you (or Florence or her director) see it as it being the old dichotomy that good=white and bad=black, but to say that what I see as racism — which I’m not pulling out of my ass, by the way — is only there because I’m looking for it, or because I examine everything in terms of race does not address the issue.  And that issue being that this video was done in poor taste.  I love FATM, but you can’t simply overlook the racial implications just because it could be looked at in a different way.

I’m not looking to change your opinion. The only reason I even responded was because you suggested that my interpretation was “everything” that was wrong with the dialogue on race. I felt both attacked and the need to defend myself. My words are not of ill intent. I really don’t see this as an argument, but a discussion.

If you want to look at the video that way, you don’t need anyone’s permission to do so. But I see it in a different way and I was merely weighing in on a video like so many others had done. My initial statement did not accurately portray my views.

My statement DOES refer to the “bubble” that is this video. I’m not saying that racist acts in any context are “subject to interpretation.” I AM saying that I don’t get the impression at all that Florence, her director, or band had racist intentions at all when creating the video.

Symbolism, art, words, and acts can have a multitude of connotations. It is for this reason that I choose to assess them on a case-by-case basis and look for possible intentions behind them. 

oh my god please see derailing for dummies:

it doesn’t matter that it’s art. that’s an excuse and a shitty one. her intentions do not matter. blackface is racist, no buts about it. 

also do you really not think there’s something wrong going on in the black=bad, white=good thing? seriously? you don’t think people connect that to race? thus the racism in this video? oh wait guess I’m seeing racism everywhere again woops so oversensitive

(Source: fuckyeahflorencewelch)