freedom of speech means that the government is not allowed to tell you to shut the fuck up. it doesn’t mean that i am not allowed to tell you to shut the fuck up.
Many US women can't afford to do what Angelina Jolie did -
Sadhbh Walshe: Angelina Jolie was brave to share details of her double mastectomy, but it’s hardly an option for all women
Angelina Jolie should be commended for her brave and difficult decision, not only to opt for a preventative double mastectomy to reduce her high risk of breast cancer, but to also speak publicly about it in the hopes of encouraging others to do the same.
But for many from low income brackets or with reason to be wary of the medical establishment, accessing such life saving treatment is far from easy.
Read about Ms Jolie’s decision in her own words here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/my-medical-choice.html
Further reading: http://www.xojane.com/issues/cant-afford-preventative-mastectomy-uninsured
Things fascism is: a political philosophy or system of government (and the exact definitional boundaries are contested) generally agreed to involve ultra-nationalism, militarism, a belief in a strong authoritative leader, ethnocentrism, the belief that the ‘stronger’ should physically displace the ‘weaker’ (often these groups are defined based on race/ethnicity/nationality), a hostility to socialism and communism, an authoritarian state, a commitment to imperialism and military force, etc.
Things facism is not: people blocking you on the internet/deleting your comments on their blog
Things that might seem outdated for popular feminism may actually be points of pride for women who have historically been denied access to a certain mode of femininity. If you are a member of a group of women that has been constantly caricatured as mammies and welfare queens, sexually pathologized, and whose inequity has been attributed to broken, abnormal, and matriarchal family structures, then bearing the title of Mrs. and taking your husband’s last name can actually be displays of resistance. If you have grown up seeing constant media reports on the fatherlessness of Black children and the unmarriageability of Black women, then having your father walk you down the aisle and flashing your ring can both be points of pride. — Jalondra A. Davis in an absolutely fantastic post on A Practical Wedding (via rachelwilkerson)
philosophy-of-praxis replied to your post: Dick thing? People disagree with you. You’re removing their videos for disagreeing with you and and pretending it’s because they’re using images you’ve uploaded yourselves. That’s a cunt thing to do.
“I’m not an MRA, but I evidently don’t like showing women respect when I disagree with them, so I’m going to use sexist slurs when they don’t agree with me and call them liars.” Better find Moses to part the sea of man-tears.
Anonymous asked: Dick thing? People disagree with you. You're removing their videos for disagreeing with you and and pretending it's because they're using images you've uploaded yourselves. That's a cunt thing to do.
Dick thing, cunt thing, entitled little brat thing, whatever you want to call it using footage of someone that you’ve nicked from their YouTube channel without permission is a shitty thing to do.
Believe whatever you want about our reasons for having the videos removed, but there are other videos disagreeing with us that don’t use our footage and so haven’t been flagged. Literally all they had to do was edit our footage out of their videos and this could have all been resolved. Even if we didn’t like what was left YouTube would have no reason to remove videos that are nothing more than an original work of criticism.
Instead, people have reacted by essentially screaming “YOU CAN’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO” like a bunch of spoilt children, and re-uploading the videos anyway.
Anonymous asked: You're wrong. The youtube removal process is automatic and they only review the video when contested. I will be mirroring a few of the flagged videos so that I can prove to you that they do not violate terms of service when I contest your flags.
I am amazed at the number of ignorant people coming to explain to us how YouTube handles privacy violations, when we’ve literally just been through this process.
No, the YouTube removal process is not automatic. It might be for copyright, but it certainly isn’t for other types of flagged content.
In the case of a privacy violation, i.e. the reason we asked for these videos to be removed, a notice is sent to the uploader giving them 48 hours to remove the video themselves or edit out the sections of the video that feature our image.
However if the uploader takes no action during those 48 hours then the video passes on to YouTube for review who decide whether they think the video constitutes a privacy violation.
If they agree that it does, as they apparently did in this instance, then the video is removed.
Apparently though a lot of people think they know better than YouTube and have, as you plan to do, re-uploaded the removed videos. There’s not a lot we can do about that but we will be flagging any mirrored copies as well as flagging the channels uploading them for harassment.
Anonymous asked: Actually they don't need you permission. Jon Stewart doesn't need permission, Rachel Madow doesn't need permission, the average Joe Citizen doesn't need permission. You're inventing this idea that permission is required. You're simply wrong.
Okay, I don’t know what Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow have to do with this, but I’m pretty sure they do actually.
I might be wrong, especially as I don’t know how the specifics of the law in the US, but in the UK producers are required to get your consent before broadcasting your image.
As for the “average Joe Citizen”, I suggest you read YouTube’s Terms of Service and Privacy Guidelines. You can’t just rip whatever content you like from another YouTube user, edit that footage, and then re-upload it to your own channel without their consent.
And even putting YouTube’s own rules to one side, doing so is just an incredibly entitled dick thing to do.