Here’s the thing about being pro choice that people don’t get…
You don’t have to morally agree with abortion to be pro choice. That’s why it’s not called pro abortion. It’s an understanding that you can’t make that choice for someone else and they have full control over that not you. It’s pro I’m not the boss of everyone else.
This is important.
(Source: , via heavensong)
I don’t really understand how “social justice” became an insulting term.
"Oh my GOD, you’re attempting to address the inequalities you experience personally and are shedding light on the struggles of others?! WOW FUCK YOU."
you do tho. you know its a silencing tactic used to keep oppressive hierarchies in place. taboos and discomfort surrounding social critiques are not individual, they are enforced strategies of supremacy.
"Of course there aren’t any gay characters in animated movies! THEY’RE FOR KIDS!"
Yeah! Kids’ movies are supposed to be innoc-
Because telling kids that they can love whoever they want is TOO TERRIFYING AND CONFUSING. But showing them murder, execution, death, frightening images, war, and bullying is just fine.
Not to mention 101 Dalmatians where a crazy woman wanted to SKIN 99 PUPPIES
Honestly.. When PoC get to an age where they are able to deeply realize and internalize how intensely and directly racism affects them, as well as able to recognize the little racial microaggressions against them, it truly IS a traumatic experience. Its draining and depressing and painful and scarring. It can very easily make you lose the will to do anything or dream anything. And that is something that whites will never experience, thus never understand how deep this goes.
One of the most durable paradoxes of white supremacy - the idea that those who are closest to an experience of oppression are its least credible witnesses.
Walter Johnson, Soul by soul: life inside the antebellum slave market
This is the type of violence, from microaggressions to epistemic violence to emotional/physical violence to enslavement/genocide, that gets justified by asserting that the oppressor is “objective” and “logical” and thereby “credible.” As if there is objectivity in choosing to oppress. As if the emotions of entitlement, indifference, greed or hatred aren’t involved.