Armpit Mould

undercoveranarchist:

undercoveranarchist:

undercoveranarchist:

Nicole did some maths earlier while we were chatting on skype and came up with this.

“If every vegan turned another person vegan each year then technically it would only take 7 years until 76.8% of the uk population would be vegan”.

Ok people just to be clear, this is not scientific calculations by any means, just some basic maths while having a conversation about veganism.

Veganism is a nice alternative to eating factory farmed meat/dairy/eggs, but I don’t think it’s an over all solution to the issue of diet — and I have been a vegan for five years (with the exception of eating eggs from my chickens for the last year, and the handful of chickens I have killed to eat.)

I’m personally reconsidering certain aspects of veganism because I am finding so many vegan recipes containing really awful foods.  Shortenings with TBHQ replacing butter, high concentrations of soy, lots of heavy oils, etc.  Now of course, once could be vegan and also not eat any processed foods, sticking to organic beans, lentils, vegetables and fruit, etc.

I think sustainability and relationship are key.  I’d rather eat pork from my friend’s farm, where I know the pigs are raised really well out in pastures than eat GMO Monsanto corn — or even just anything that was mono-cropped in fields that used to be forests or prairies using heavy amounts of pesticides, herbicides, and petroleum powered machinery to produce.

I completely agree that vegans need to address & challenge industrial agriculture - hence why organisations such as the Vegan Organic Network or the Veganic Agriculture Network as well as a host of plant based permaculture systems are so important. I hope this is a sign of a growing awareness of challenging all forms of oppression & developing regenerative ways of feeding ourselves.

However in response to ‘sustainability and relationship’ - I really don’t feel you can have a relationship with something by domesticating it, farming it & killing it (sounds like domination to me!).

You are no longer a vegan if you eat meat. FACT. Seriously, I’ve heard this argument soo many times. It’s boring. Lets face it, lots of vegans are aware of the environmental impacts and many are changing what they eat because of it.

The key is in the sentance “Now of course, once could be vegan and also not eat any processed foods, sticking to organic beans, lentils, vegetables and fruit, etc.” Here you clearly show that you are eating meat because you choose to and not because you can’t be vegan in a sustainable way. You would rather eat your friends pigs because you want to, you probably like the taste so don’t come in here criticising veganism when you’re calling yourself vegan and eating meat. Go away.

undercoveranarchist:

Why?

To protect non-native birds who were only introduced for rich people to kill on the weekends.

Conservationists have condemned a plan that would allow buzzard nests to be destroyed and enable the birds to be captured to protect pheasant shoots.

The UK Department for the…

fuckyeahgenderstudies:

thescarletwoman:

horrified and saddened by the church’s position on this matter. As more and more of these cases come to light, I wonder ever more whose rights the church is really interested in protecting. If the 9 year old girl who was raped was a 6 week old fetus, she would be receiving more compassion from the church than she has during this ordeal, and that is horrifying. This girl was sexually abused by her father for years and got pregnant at age 9 through rape. Obviously this constitutes a medical emergency, since pregnancy and birth would have been absolutely life threatening. As always, the church decides that life must always be protected - at the expense of those who need the protection of the church the most. I ask what about the life of the 9 year old girl whose life has been ruined through this ordeal, who has escaped excommunication only because the church views her as still a child, making their position even more egregious? What about her life? Here are some quotes from the article, including the ones that detail the fact that the church will NOT be excommunicating the father:

Cardinal Giovanni Batista Re, who heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, told reporters that although the girl fell pregnant after apparently being abused by her stepfather, her twins had, “the right to live, and could not be eliminated”. In an interview with the Italian newspaper, La Stampa, the cardinal added: “It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons. Life must always be protected.”

The controversy represents a PR nightmare for the Vatican. The unnamed girl’s mother and doctors were excommunicated for agreeing to Wednesday’s emergency abortion yet the Church has not taken formal steps against the stepfather, who is in custody. Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the conservative regional archbishop for Pernambuco where the girl was rushed to hospital, has said that the man would not be thrown out of the Church, because although he had allegedly committed “a heinous crime”, the Church took the view that “the abortion, the elimination of an innocent life, was more serious”.

Even the President, Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva, has waded into the row. “As a Christian and a Catholic, I deeply regret that a bishop of the Catholic Church has such a conservative attitude,” he said “The doctors did what had to be done: save the life of a girl of nine years old. In this case, the medical profession was more right than the Church.”

Fuck off, world.

snuffboxisdead:

they/them/their

they/them/their

they/them/their

it’s okay to get it wrong and go “whoops”
it’s ok to ask for info resources/links

it’s ok to not want to have a big conversation about it and just be fuckin cool about shit & do your best to get it right (I’ll notice &…

TW: Slurs

repede:

fuckyeahgenderstudies:

illtakeyourbodyinthenight:

gcvsa:

iamgrey:

fuckyeahgenderstudies:

Transphobic, pig-ignorant, involved in some no doubt highly inaccurate, anti-ziganist miniseries…

Interview about her new project with the Huffington Post. Interviewer is bold, CS is plain text.

So I was reading about your new show,…

I don’t really understand why she’s getting so much hate for this…? She said that she felt really bad after using the T word, and that she didn’t know it was wrong. It seems like after she was told it was wrong, she stopped saying it and apologized. As for her playing a trans* character….that’s why it’s called acting. I feel like, if a trans* woman actress had been cast in this role, people would have been angry and said “OBVIOUSLY they would cast a trans*woman in this role, do they think she’s not good enough to play cis characters, they’re typecasting her, etc.” Now, maybe there were a bunch of trans*women actresses who also auditioned for the part, and were denied. In that case, I could see why people are angry about Chloe getting the part instead of them. But I don’t know if that’s the case. 

Acting is acting. If directors only cast actors who were exactly like their characters, then it wouldn’t be acting.

She didn’t know it was wrong? Bullshit. She says that but nobody could play a trans woman TWICE and not know that word is a slur. 

And she says she feels bad but then she whines about how “ree-donkulous” it is that “you can’t say anything anymore!”. What’s ree-donkulous is that this woman is being given a platform AGAIN to present an image of trans women to the public that is neither representative nor sensitive nor trans.

I feel like acting would be just acting if trans* people were actually cast in major tv shows and movies, not ignored for cis actors and actresses to play cis and trans* characters.

Urgh.