cloud nothings ur perfect never change

*also notice douchebag dad is a pbr drinker, like no fuckin way wut?

can u not spotify

7 Ways Mizzou Missed the Point of Michael Sam’s Coming Out

Hey, it’s ancient news now, but remember that whole Michael Sam thing? That was pretty badass, right? Everyone’s been waiting for someone to break the last major barrier in American sports; now, we know it’s happening (and actually, it already has happened!)

For this football-obsessed, Kinsey-six gay Mizzou student, there were lots of feels. Good feels! Happy feels! Proud feels! First, because after watching Sam for the last three years, I knew he’d do nothing but great things on and off the field, even with the added attention and pressure after his announcement. But second, and more surprisingly, nobody said anything stupid. Even Facebook was completely free of objectionable content. There was no “why is this news?,” no “love the sinner, hate the sin,” no “he’s just doing this for publicity.” Even the one friend I have who sometimes complains about reverse racism affirmed his support and happiness for Sam. I was shocked to the point of tears of joy. We were all handling this so well!

In the ensuing days, though, things got a bit uncomfortable. While the enthusiasm the university and the student body displayed in support of Sam was awesome to see, it came with certain problematic preconditions (that I’m going to try to debunk - Buzzfeed style! - below). Again: it’s not that our reaction to Michael Sam was in any way disappointing or embarrassing; I just think we need to remember these things.

1. This is about all LGBT people
Within an hour of Sam’s announcement hitting the press, everyone’s favorite group of Kansans, the Westboro Baptist Church, announced they’d be headed to Columbia the following Saturday to voice their displeasure with Mr. Sam and Mizzou in their typical polite fashion.

And within minutes after the WBC announcement, a group of students had formed their own counter-protest: “One Wall, One Mizzou,” where attendees would form a silent human barricade, backs facing the Baptists, blocking the protest site from the rest of campus. The Facebook event got 5,000 respondents, and several thousand people did show up and follow through with the plan. The description on the Facebook event was kinda weird, though. “The focus of this wall is unification behind Sam to represent this school as One.”

Cool! Except … what about all the other members of the LGBT community, on campus and around the nation? Do we want to unify in support of them as well? It’s fine if we don’t, but then we should change the hashtag from #OneMizzou to #OneMizzouFootballPlayer.

I don’t doubt that the organizers and attendees are down with the cause for the entire LGBT community - why would you go through the trouble of organizing everything and showing up if you didn’t? It’s just weird that they didn’t say so.

2. We can have “MU Pride” and LGBT Pride

Also included in the Facebook event description: a plea that those in attendance refrain from bringing signs, wearing apparel, or actively making verbal statements explicitly focused on LGBT rights. Wear black and gold, please; you divisive rainbow-clad queers needn’t head out.


This insinuation that LGBT pride/representation should take a back seat to demonstrate loyalty to Mizzou is kinda super insulting to gay people. It’s not like this is just another pep rally for the football team; the season’s over, for fuck’s sake. There are many valid reasons to counter-protest - to support Sam, the university and its embrace of LGBT people, LGBT rights in general. Why not let everyone express those reasons in whatever way they want?

3. It is political
Quoting, yet again, from that Facebook event description: “we don’t want to make this political or split the Mizzou community.”


Call me back when I can get married and not get thrown out of the store while trying to buy the wedding cake, kthx. 

4. We should probably be mad at other groups/people in addition to the Westboro Baptists
You know the batshit bills in Arizona and Kansas that would make it legal for businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples on the grounds that queers somehow violate their religious beliefs? Something very similar just got introduced in the Missouri legislature! So we can expect a crowd of thousands in front Sen. Wayne Wallingford’s office tomorrow, right?

Sure, the Westboro Baptists deserve to be cunt-punted into oblivion. Sen. Wallingford and his counterparts in Arizona and Kansas deserve no better. Nor do the various other religious sects that lack Westboro’s name brand but share the same spirit of hatred. Just because the WBC is an easy target of ire doesn’t mean we should stop there.

(Also, a thought: maybe the WBC is so universally hated not because of its homophobia, but because it protests institutions - military funerals, football, etc. - that society (i.e. straight people) values so highly? Plenty of groups openly campaign against gay rights and receive either little attention or a spike in chicken sandwich sales; take shots at soldiers, though, and you’ve gone too far.)

5. Keeping Sam’s sexuality a secret wasn’t a noble feat, just a matter of basic human decency
The Columbia Missourian, the Mizzou j-school funded newspaper that calls itself “Mid-Missouri’s Finest News Source,” ran a, uh, thing from sports editor Greg Bowers (who, fun fact, doesn’t even like sports) discussing how the paper had known about Sam’s sexuality since August, but refrained from publishing the news without Sam’s OK. “Look at us! We knew *AND* we didn’t tell!”

Well happy fucking congratulations. You’re not assholes! I mean, your paper is full of typos, your sports section renounces actual sports news in favor of puff pieces about fake mustaches, and you used the word “chortled” in an article in the year 2014, but you kept this big, bad secret! Just wait here, Greg, while I bake you a batch of cookies and finish embroidering “ALLY” on your sash.

6. This is about Mizzou’s people, not the school itself
Considering that we are in the middle of Missouri, it’s amazing how supportive Columbia and the Mizzou community is of LGBT people. The University has added sexual orientation to its anti-discrimination policy, provides full benefits to same-sex partners of its employees, funds a ballin’ LGBTQ Resource Center, promotes inclusivity for trans* students, and has a ton of respected student leaders who identify as members of the LGBT community.

But those things didn’t just happen. All of these forms of progress were the result of years of advocacy of a few concerned and determined students and staff members. The administration and the student body deserve credit for accepting and implementing these mechanisms of support for LGBT students; but its those activists who campaigned on behalf of those policies from the start, and not “the system” as a whole, who should get the credit.

In the same way, Michael Sam made himself. His on-field success and off-field bravery are solely the products of his own journey. That the most notable part of that journey occurred at Mizzou is merely a happy accident of fate.

7. It’s…really fucking complicated
Back in August, I was headed out to dinner with some friends - an average night like any other -when “Same Love” came on the radio, and things got, uh, weirder. I felt the eyes sheepishly darting toward me, in imagined hopes of a certain reaction; I felt the thoughts of “this song is about *you*” and “you *must* love this song, it has to be so relatable.” And sure, this memory stems more from my underlying insecurities than anything else, but in that moment, I was reduced to being the gay one, as if that’s the only thing that defines or matters about me. While I wasn’t ostracized or taken advantage of in any way, the whole thing did make me feel uncomfortably, visibly different, in a context where I just wanted to blend in.

Of course, it’s important to recognize the gay community (and its allies) as a “we,” because in numbers we gain power and in power we gain recognition and rights. But all that’s just a small start, because our voices are even more compelling on their own. I’m sure Macklemore’s just a well-meaning dude trying to appeal to the universality of emotion, but a) he sucks, and b) in his lecturing, all he does is erase the real, highly individualized lives of queer people. Pride parades and celebrity comings-out and equal-sign profile pictures are important in their own way (because visibility is power, etc). But the tiny moments in the most banal environments - two guys holding hands walking down the street, or a lesbian couple sharing a goodbye kiss at the front door every morning when one of them leaves for work - are the ones that I think really help everyone understand, relate to, love (or learn to love) everyone else. 

This part’s a completely convoluted mess, and doesn’t relate at all to any of the other points, but I needed to try and express it. Militant crusading for equality is great and all, but in my day to day life, indifferent acceptance - the “who cares?” that my friends gave me when I came out to them - is so much more desirable. Queer people are not political symbols who look or deserve to be thrust into the societal spotlight, just normal human beings that have the same hopes and occupations and faults and fears and interests that create wholly unique stories for each one of us, the same as everyone else. We run the risk of losing that individuality when we all get so wrapped up in “the cause.” And we forget that the gender of the human being on the other side of your mouth doesn’t really fucking matter, and how ludicrous it is that anyone ever thought it did.


fuckbitchesgetmoneyhugkittens asked:

Are you Azerbaijani?


hahaha sadly no, I’m from the USA. the blog title is just a bad inside joke. azerbaijan seems pretty badass though, I could go for a visit to a place called “the land of fire”

The Republican Anti-Poverty Platform (Intentionally) Fucking Sucks

The fact that some of America’s Foremost Conservatives have begun blubbering about poverty is a sign of progress, but not the kind you might think.

This is not an indication that Paul Ryan possesses any semblance of a conscience, or that Marco Rubio feels the pain of folks with limited means, because of course it isn’t, use your brain. The Republican Party exists primarily to prevent any changes to the skewed status quo of income distribution. No, the right has taken on this issue for two more cynical, if practical, reasons. First: economic inequality is so rampant, and so obviously a problem, that it can no longer be ignored. Second, and more disturbingly: Republicans think they can exploit the issue for political points.

The right’s plan to address the economic underclass, up to this point, doesn’t include any actual legislative proposals. (This would require socialism). It’s just all the same shit you’ve heard before, delivered with a knowing wink. Republicans don’t actually plan to enact any of these proposals; even if they were put in place, nothing much would change. The Republican Anti-Poverty Platform is, like most things in politics, chiefly a PR masquerade, meant to show that conservatives are Thinking Hard about the issue. 

And holy shit are those thoughts crazy, but we’ll try to unpack them anyway.

We’ll start with former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, who offers up one popular line of reasoning:

If President Obama wants to reduce income inequality, he should focus less on redistributing income and more on fighting a major cause of modern poverty: the breakdown of the family.

Yeah, but families aren’t poor because they break up; families break up because they’re poor. They break up because money is the leading cause of divorce. They break up because 60-80 hour work weeks aren’t conducive to healthy romantic relationships. If people were allowed time off to spend with their loved ones (and without worrying about getting fired, or about how one illness or injury could cost them their homes), maybe the State of the American Family would be healthier. But nah, because capitalism.

Maybe National Review’s Quin Hilyer has better ideas:

Kotlikoff, working with colleagues from the nonpartisan Tax Analysis Center, has devised “a large-scale computer simulation model of the United States economy as it interacts over time with other nations’ economies.” In this model, when the U.S. corporate income tax is eliminated, “real wages of unskilled workers end up 12 percent higher, and those of skilled workers end up 13 percent higher.”


First of all: you know how the Republican plan to fix everything is “lower taxes”? The bottom 40% of the population has an effective negative income tax rate (that is, tax credits offset liabilities to where these households receive a net payment from the government). Except Republicans are simultaneously complaining that the poor don’t pay taxes. So yeah, good luck explaining how y’all hold both of those positions! Either way, you’re screwing the poor over.

Second: this argument that, when you give corporations more money, they just have to hire more employees and raise wages/benefits, is really fucking rich. 

"If we lower corporate taxes, corporations will make more money, which will end up going to workers!"

"But why would corporations pay more in wages when there’s an excess supply of unemployed workers, and when they’re making more in profits without raising wages or hiring more workers, and when it’s been shown that corporations only care about profit?"

"Because. Because!"

Somehow Reagan sold this shit, but anyone with a modicum of understanding knows what’s up; the beauty of trickle-down economics, for its proponents, is that the money never has to trickle down.

Lastly: the myth that people can/should just “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” is about to give me an aneurysm.  It’s a tough concept for anyone to sell convincingly, but as usual, George W. Bush said it worst:

It’s a uniquely American brand of sociopathy, indeed, that leads people to believe that any human being should have to simultaneously work three jobs, or that kids from low-income families should mop up the cafeteria while their peers play at recess in exchange for lunch money. And it’s only getting worse: the bootstrappers keep raising the bar on which life choices are sufficient enough to keep a person from deserving poverty.

Poor Person: “I’m broke and struggling and don’t know what to do.”

Republican: “Get a job, loser!”

PP: “I have one. It doesn’t pay enough for me to get by.”

R: “Get a better job then, fuckwad!”

PP: “I tried, but I can’t find one.”

R: “Shoulda gone to college, dipshit!”

PP: “I did. I graduated with a bachelor’s degree, $40,000 in student loans, and almost no job prospects in my field.”

R: “Shoulda majored in a STEM subject then, oxygen thief! Get your ass up to community college and learn to code!”

PP: “I did major in a STEM subject, but the company I hoped to work for outsourced all its jobs to India last year.”

R: “Then learn to speak Indian!” 

The burgeoning Republican Anti-Poverty Platform doesn’t exist because it’s proponents actually care about poor people. Rather, it’s a sign that there are now so many poor people that those Republicans think its possible/necessary to convince some of them that conservative ideas can cure their problems. The progress is in the public relations and not the policy, unless you think a heavier dose of corporate tax cuts and tsk-tsking moral lectures will end poverty once and for all. Even Republicans know that shit wouldn’t work - which is exactly why they’re advocating for it.

of course it doesn’t