Esoterica's avatar

Esoterica

Washington Post

This is what you do when McDonald’s gives you free burgers for a year

sirwhindleton:

washingtonpost:

Remember Charles Ramsey, the hero behind the Cleveland kidnapping rescue?

image

McDonald’s promised Ramsey free burgers for a year after he said on TV that he’d gone to McDonald’s before rescuing the captive women and went to their aid with a half-eaten Big Mac in hand.

Ramsey said McDonald’s gave him $2,000 in gift cards. “I handed them out to every homeless person and kid I could find,” he said.

He continues to impress me.

I’m thankful for people like him

(via blueklectic)

Netroots or Bust

So this is the tiniest of fundraisers because we fell just a little bit short. If you can help, please do. Thanks in advance for even considering it!

yourpersonalcheerleader

2damnfeisty:

2damnfeisty:

image

Stay strong sis.

White feminists have been real quiet. Where are the long dissertations about supporting Jada?

(via ktempest)

dynamicafrica

You Can’t ‘Steal’ a Culture: In Defense of Cultural Appropriation

dynamicafrica:

You know that when you read an article titled “in defense of cultural appropriation” it’s going to be a load of crock. Not only does he miss out on the fact that cultural appropriation is dehumanizing, relies heavily on stereotypes, and in no way benefits the (majority) of the oppressed, telling oppressed people how to feel or respond to something they find oppressive is *wait for it* OPPRESSIVE.

Then he goes on to describe what a black woman is (not being one himself, totally legit). Oh, but he also does something people with pseudo-progressive views do: sees history through rose-tinted glasses. What period? The lovely cultural-swapping utopia that was the ‘Harlem Renaissance’. Stop already, jeez.

Also there is nothing like “oppression solidarity” in the vein that he puts it (black women and gay men identify with each other as fellow suffers of oppression - that’s total bull), that is a myth and awful approach to address structural and systemic ills. I’ve also never seen black women being ‘imitated’ by white gay men and thought, “wow, I’m feeling so flattered by this, do carry on.”

Don’t talk about respect if you’re going to right something that is the total opposite.

(via dynastylnoire)

beggars-opera

medievalpoc:

beggars-opera:

I’ve seen a few fashion posts trying to expand the “Marie Antoinette is not Victorian” rant, but this stuff can get complicated, so here is a semi-comprehensive list so everyone knows exactly when all of these eras were.

Please note that this is very basic and that there are sometimes subcategories (especially in the 17th century, Jacobean, Restoration, etc)

And people wonder WHY I complain about History/Art History periodization. Note how much overlap there is to the above “eras”, and how many exceptions and extensions there are to these categories.

Oh, and by the way…

Tudor:

image

Elizabethan:

image

Stuart:

image

Georgian:

image

Regency:

image

Victorian:

image

Edwardian:

image

Because you wouldn’t want to be historically inaccurate.

(via karenhealey)

gimmeallyoresidualz

Like/reblog this if you think dark skin is just as beautiful as any other color

gimmeallyoresidualz:

I need some faith and confidence regained

(via masteradept)

medievalpoc

I've been through your 1500s tag and not found what I needed, so I'm hoping you can point me in the direction of something I've missed. Have you come across any contemporary images of WOC from the 16th cen in middling class -> aristocratic dress? England/France preferably, but I'll take anything you've got! This powerpoint of mine desperately needs some variety on the female side.

medievalpoc:

medievalpoc:

alaynyala:

medievalpoc:

Hmmm. I might not have exactly what you’re looking for, but i’ll do my best.

*rubs hands together*

Women of Color!!!! 1500s or as close as possible!!!! European!!! Fancy-Looking Ladies Only!!!! Aaaaand….GO!

1500s, Italy:

image

1500s, Netherlands:

image

1500s, Italy/England:

image

1600s, Netherlands:

image

1400s, France:

image

1600s, Netherlands (Rubens):

image

1600s, Holland:

image

1500s, Germany:

image

1600s, Scotland:

image

1500s (ish), France:

image

image

Italy, 1600s:

image

1600s, Netherlands/Belgium:

image

image

1600s, Germany:

image

1500s, Netherlands:

image

1400s, Netherlands:

image

1600s, Netherlands:

image

And:

image

1600s, Germany:

image

1600s, Netherlands/Belgium:

image

1500s, Holland:

image

1500s, Italy:

image

1500s, Italy:

image

1600s, Italy:

image

1600s, Netherlands/Belgium:

image

1500s, Germany:

image

1500s, Italy:

image

1500s, Italy:

image

More info at the links. I hope that helps?

I love this post so much…I’m actually crying a little bit. This is literally the very first time I am seeing women who look like me in art I *wish* I could have studied in art school. I am currently in debt from pursuing a degree that is largely indifferent to the history of my people, especially our women. Instead of memorizing and writing essays discussing the same images of the same white people over and over again why couldn’t we have learned about these beautiful renderings? I feel largely betrayed but inspired.

I am so excited to research these works independently and share what I learn with other POCs of all ages. Especially the young ones. I may start teaching again because of this post. This very well may have been just the spark I need to start some bitchin’ fires.

DO THE THING

I’M NOT CRYING

NOPE NOT CRYING AT ALL

image

I just wanted to remind everyone that if you have a specific project that you’re working on, need help finding what you’re looking for, or want to explore your particular historical interests, make sure to check the FAQ and Advanced Navigation Page.

If yo don’t find what you’re looking for that way, you can always send me a message like the one up there, and I’ll do my best to find the artworks that fit the criteria you need!

thinksquad

happyharbor:

karnythia:

happyharbor:

karnythia:

happyharbor:

karnythia:

hollystewart:

karnythia:

hollystewart:

karnythia:

moniquill:

fuckyeahsexeducation:

thinksquad:

A contraceptive computer chip that can be controlled by remote control has been developed in Massachusetts.

The chip is implanted under a woman’s skin, releasing a small dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone.

This will happen every day for 16 years, but can be stopped at any time by using a wireless remote control.

The project has been backed by Bill Gates, and will be submitted for pre-clinical testing in the US next year - and possibly go on sale by 2018.

The device measures 20mm x 20mm x 7mm and will be “competitively priced”, its creators said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28193720#FBM386927

This is amazing, but I’m pretty sure the chip would have to be metal which means I and other people with metal allergies couldn’t use it. It’s really amazing though.

…this might work for some people but does anyone see the major red flag of this being -very easy- to undermine without the birth control user’s knowledge?

Who would have access to the remotes? And the source code? Microsoft can’t keep their tech right now. And that’s before we get into ways of hacking the chips to release extra hormones. Enough to make users sick, increase their susceptibility to infertility, or to a stroke.

um by 2018 ppl.
They are probably working all the kinks out.

Like they worked the kinks out when they were studying syphilis at Tuskegee? Or those Mississippi Appendectomies?

You just pointed out 2 studies that were conducted before the IRB was established but okay.

IRB didn’t prevent prisoners from being illegally sterilized in California, or toxic waste being used to line playgrounds. It didn’t keep the government from using foster kids as lab subjects either.  I mean we can hit any time period in the US & find reasons not to trust these kinds of projects. That’s before we get into the various recalls of FDA approved contraceptives because of harmful side effects.

Never use any medications, guys! These examples of the failures of drug development mean that development and regulation never work and are always harmful!

Yes that’s the take away. Not interrogating flaws in this model of delivering medication. And certainly not wanting better quality options that aren’t so easy to abuse!

Literally not my argument. When someone voices concerns about how a new medication/therapy/device is to be developed and marketed, it only makes sense to follow that up with “And here’s a list of egregious violations of human rights committed by the medical community so therefore I can’t possibly trust that this new medication/therapy/device will be safe” if you don’t use any medicine/therapy/device because everything that’s marketed in the US as medicine/therapy/device has undergone thorough safety trials just like this new chip will. So if it won’t work for this new device then why should it work for any? 

You realize I expressed concerns & talked about prior & current violations that foster those kinds of concerns right? That even if the tech is safe it still carries a higher than average risk of misuse? Try reading my argument & the concerns of others in this thread for content & context.

Here’s the thread:

OP: Interesting new device to soon enter clinical trials!
Commenter 1: Sounds cool but sadly it’s unlikely to work for everyone.
Commenter 2: Concerns about privacy and proper use.
Commenter 3: More concerns about privacy, proper use, and patient safety.
Commenter 4: Aren’t these the things to be addressed during development?
Commenter 3: Here are a couple of examples of people dying from unauthorized or immoral medical research.
Commenter 4: Old stuff, not relevant now with current safeguards.
Commenter 3: More recent examples where the safeguards failed or were ignored altogether, therefore this new product must be untrustworthy.
My argument: If you’re going to derive your decision about this device from cherry picked data, then the logical conclusion is to apply this standard to all FDA-approved therapies and not trust any of them.

Like, it’s one thing to be wary about the setup of clinical trials for new medical products and the potential safety risks/concerns, but you’re going way off the deep end by saying “Tuskegee syphilis experiment, therefore no one can possibly trust this new research briefly described in a BBC article.”

tl;dr I strongly disagree with the argument that because bad stuff sometimes finds its way onto the market (and is discovered to be bad in the first place because it’s a highly regulated market that self-corrects), that nothing at all can be trusted.

I’m commenter 4, 6, & 7. Try to keep up. And what you’re taking away vs what was said is still wrong. You’re assuming that I (or anyone else) said nothing can be trusted. No one said that. We said this is a bad model for reasons. Someone said “oh that’ll be fixed in 4 years” & my response was “Don’t count on that because history” & then “Well that’s history so doesn’t apply now” & I said “Here’s current events showing problems still exist” & then you came out of left field asserting that slippery slopes are the only option. Meanwhile, reproductive health in America carries a particular fucked up weight that is heavier on some than other because of factors like race & class. Try nuance instead of leaping to conclusions.

thinksquad

happyharbor:

karnythia:

happyharbor:

karnythia:

hollystewart:

karnythia:

hollystewart:

karnythia:

moniquill:

fuckyeahsexeducation:

thinksquad:

A contraceptive computer chip that can be controlled by remote control has been developed in Massachusetts.

The chip is implanted under a woman’s skin, releasing a small dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone.

This will happen every day for 16 years, but can be stopped at any time by using a wireless remote control.

The project has been backed by Bill Gates, and will be submitted for pre-clinical testing in the US next year - and possibly go on sale by 2018.

The device measures 20mm x 20mm x 7mm and will be “competitively priced”, its creators said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28193720#FBM386927

This is amazing, but I’m pretty sure the chip would have to be metal which means I and other people with metal allergies couldn’t use it. It’s really amazing though.

…this might work for some people but does anyone see the major red flag of this being -very easy- to undermine without the birth control user’s knowledge?

Who would have access to the remotes? And the source code? Microsoft can’t keep their tech right now. And that’s before we get into ways of hacking the chips to release extra hormones. Enough to make users sick, increase their susceptibility to infertility, or to a stroke.

um by 2018 ppl.
They are probably working all the kinks out.

Like they worked the kinks out when they were studying syphilis at Tuskegee? Or those Mississippi Appendectomies?

You just pointed out 2 studies that were conducted before the IRB was established but okay.

IRB didn’t prevent prisoners from being illegally sterilized in California, or toxic waste being used to line playgrounds. It didn’t keep the government from using foster kids as lab subjects either.  I mean we can hit any time period in the US & find reasons not to trust these kinds of projects. That’s before we get into the various recalls of FDA approved contraceptives because of harmful side effects.

Never use any medications, guys! These examples of the failures of drug development mean that development and regulation never work and are always harmful!

Yes that’s the take away. Not interrogating flaws in this model of delivering medication. And certainly not wanting better quality options that aren’t so easy to abuse!

Literally not my argument. When someone voices concerns about how a new medication/therapy/device is to be developed and marketed, it only makes sense to follow that up with “And here’s a list of egregious violations of human rights committed by the medical community so therefore I can’t possibly trust that this new medication/therapy/device will be safe” if you don’t use any medicine/therapy/device because everything that’s marketed in the US as medicine/therapy/device has undergone thorough safety trials just like this new chip will. So if it won’t work for this new device then why should it work for any? 

You realize I expressed concerns & talked about prior & current violations that foster those kinds of concerns right? That even if the tech is safe it still carries a higher than average risk of misuse? Try reading my argument & the concerns of others in this thread for content & context.

thinksquad

happyharbor:

karnythia:

hollystewart:

karnythia:

hollystewart:

karnythia:

moniquill:

fuckyeahsexeducation:

thinksquad:

A contraceptive computer chip that can be controlled by remote control has been developed in Massachusetts.

The chip is implanted under a woman’s skin, releasing a small dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone.

This will happen every day for 16 years, but can be stopped at any time by using a wireless remote control.

The project has been backed by Bill Gates, and will be submitted for pre-clinical testing in the US next year - and possibly go on sale by 2018.

The device measures 20mm x 20mm x 7mm and will be “competitively priced”, its creators said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28193720#FBM386927

This is amazing, but I’m pretty sure the chip would have to be metal which means I and other people with metal allergies couldn’t use it. It’s really amazing though.

…this might work for some people but does anyone see the major red flag of this being -very easy- to undermine without the birth control user’s knowledge?

Who would have access to the remotes? And the source code? Microsoft can’t keep their tech right now. And that’s before we get into ways of hacking the chips to release extra hormones. Enough to make users sick, increase their susceptibility to infertility, or to a stroke.

um by 2018 ppl.
They are probably working all the kinks out.

Like they worked the kinks out when they were studying syphilis at Tuskegee? Or those Mississippi Appendectomies?

You just pointed out 2 studies that were conducted before the IRB was established but okay.

IRB didn’t prevent prisoners from being illegally sterilized in California, or toxic waste being used to line playgrounds. It didn’t keep the government from using foster kids as lab subjects either.  I mean we can hit any time period in the US & find reasons not to trust these kinds of projects. That’s before we get into the various recalls of FDA approved contraceptives because of harmful side effects.

Never use any medications, guys! These examples of the failures of drug development mean that development and regulation never work and are always harmful!

Yes that’s the take away. Not interrogating flaws in this model of delivering medication. And certainly not wanting better quality options that aren’t so easy to abuse!