To be, or not...

Vivian. 20. Taking a year off from Warren Wilson College to do AmeriCorps FEMA. Cold rooms; warm blankets. The pause before a thunderstorm. Recovering with the occasional backslide. Quiet peculiar things. Cis. She/her pronouns. Perpetually single. Sapiosexual. Extraversion, intuition, thinking, perceiving.

  • assbutt-in-the-garrison:

    transcosette:

    i liked the post up until u tried to turn it into a shitty supernatural reference: a story by me

    (via may-contain-humour)

    • 1497
  • See a hot guy

    • Me: I wonder what music he listens to
    • 116553
  • yungneako:

    sp0iledbabe:

    blowmarisol:

    highfromsanfrancisco:

    Always reblog

    10/10 THIS

    I actually adore her because I’ve NEVER seen a black person get to be so fucking frank and honest about racial injustice on tv.

    She’s real, she’s smart, she’s witty, she’s informed and she’s fucking unapologetic. I’m obsessed.

    yes

    (Source: vangoghmygod, via ravenclawincamelot)

    • 181458
    • 181458
  • Oh, hey. I’m not a teenager anymore. That’s kinda neat.

    • 3
  • charlienight:

    commanderbishoujo:

    bogleech:

    prokopetz:

    johnlockinthetardiswithdestiel:

    truthandglory:

    assbanditkirk:

    whoa canada

    someone needs to turn down that sass level

    Two things to know about Canada!

    1. We are smart enough to know hot things should be hot.
    2. We are sorry if you don’t

    fun story about the reason they do that (at least in America)

    once this lady spilled her McDonald’s coffee on herself and ended up getting like 3rd degree burns and since there was no warning on the cup she was able to claim she didn’t know it would be hot (or at least that hot) and won a lawsuit against McDonald’s for $1 million

    That’s what the media smear campaign against her would have you believe, anyway. The truth of the matter is that the McDonald’s in question had previously been cited - on at least two separate occasions - for keeping their coffee so hot that it violated local occupational health and safety regulations. The lady didn’t win her lawsuit because American courts are stupid; she won it because the McDonald’s she bought that coffee from was actively and knowingly breaking the law with respect to the temperature of its coffee at the time of the incident.

    (I mean, do you have any idea what a third-degree burn actually is? Third-degree burns involve “full thickness” tissue damage; we’re talking bone-deep, with possible destruction of tissue. Can you even imagine how hot that cup of coffee would have to have been to inflict that kind of damage in the few seconds it was in contact with her skin?)

    Yeah I’m tired of people joking about either the “stupid” woman who didn’t know coffee was hot or the “greedy” woman making up bullshit to get money.

    She was hideously injured by hideous irresponsibility, it was an absolutely legitimate lawsuit and the warning on the cups basically allows McDonalds to claim no responsibility even if it happens again. Every other company followed suit to cover their asses.

    So they can still legally serve you something that could sear off the end of your tongue or permanently demolish the front of your gums and just give you a big fat middle finger in court. “The label SAID it would be HOT, STUPID.”

    obligatory reblog for the great debunking of the usual ignorance spouted about this case

    obligatory mention that the media smear campaign to twist teh facts on this case and get public opinion against the victim was deliberate and fueled by the right wing tort reform movement

    it was seized upon to limit the rights of consumers to hold giant corporations accountable for wrongdoing

    watch the documentary Hot Coffee, it lays out all of the facts and examines the response to this case and explains why everything you think you know about this case is bullshit, and explains why tort reform is bullshit in an entertaining and informative manner

    The woman injured in Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants was 79 years old at the time of her injuries, and suffered third-degree burns to the pelvic region (including her thighs, buttocks, and groin), which in combination with lesser burns in the surrounding regions caused damage to an area totaling a whopping 22% of her body’s surface. These injuries that required two years of intensive medical care, including multiple skin grafts; during her hospitalization, Stella Liebeck lost around 20% of her starting body weight.

    She was uninsured and sued McDonald’s Restaurants for the cost of her past and projected future medical care, an estimated $20,000. The corporation offered a settlement of $800, a number so obviously ridiculous that I’m not even going to dignify it with any further explanation.

    The settlement number most often quoted is not the amount that the corporation actually paid; the jury in the first trial suggested a payment equal to a day or two of coffee revenues for McDonald’s, which at the time totaled more than $1 million per diem. The judge reduced the required payout to around $640,000 in both compensatory and punitive damages, and the case was later settled out of court for less than $600,000.

    Keep in mind that at the time, McDonald’s already had over 700 cases of complaints about coffee-related burns on file, but continued to sell coffee heated to nearly 200 degrees Fahrenheit (around 90 degrees Celsius) as a means of boosting sales (their selling point was that one could buy the coffee, drive to a second location such as work or home, and still have a piping hot beverage). This in spite of the fact that most restaurants serve coffee between 140 and 160 degrees Fahrenheit (60 to 71 degrees Celsius), and many coffee experts agree that such high temperatures are desirable only during the brewing process itself.

    The Liebeck case was absolutely not an example of litigation-happy Americans expecting corporations to cover their asses for their own stupidity, but we seem determined to remember it that way. It’s an issue of liability, and the allowable lengths of capitalism, and even of the way in which our society is incredibly dangerous for and punitive towards the uninsured, but it was not and is not a frivolous suit. Please check your assumptions and do your research before you turn a burn victim’s suffering into a throwaway punchline.

    (via attolians)

    • 210144
    • 210144
  • montparnah:

    today on unnessacarily gendered items

    • 14
    • 14
    • 10698
    • 10698
  • (Source: plantables, via atlantias)

    • 8355
    • 8355
  • Yesterday my brother and I had a brief conversation about U.S. involvement in Syria and the re-involvement in Iraq. The conversation was spurred by my reading a news headline from NY Times about the air strikes in Iraq on Friday. We talked about the pros and cons of troops on the ground versus drone strikes. 

    Now, it’s the next day and he is sitting in the living room playing a first person shooter game.  When I walked into the living room my brother was looking at the larger battleground on a map; I suppose to figure out his best plan of attack. The image was showing explosions that seemed to be going on in real time.

    My brother is seventeen. I only bring up his age because of its importance in the matter of influences. He’ll be graduating high school next year, and as of late he’s been talking of going into the air force. He’s has always had a fondness for machines in flight, and like most of our generation he’s grown up with a desensitization to violence, however, that’s precisely what piqued my interest. My brother is going to be of voting age next year. He’s also going to have to register for the draft. These two things come as a pair for boys when they turn 18 in the U.S. He has grown up surrounded by violence: on the media, in video games, and at school. Violence that doesn’t scare him. Violence that he is so used to that he spends his free time viewing exposing himself to it. As a female I’m lucky. There isn’t a larger societal pressure on me to take pleasure in violence, in fact, I am supposed to cover my eyes, and squeal at the slightest violent gesture on screen, but not my brother. He is expected to be tough, and in our capitol tough means to enjoy meaningless violence.

    Now, I fully support my brother’s decision to follow whatever path he so chooses when he graduates. I don’t buy into the cookie cutter ideal of high school, college, job, but my disconcertion is rooted in the alternative cookie cutter idea of high school, military, dead or lifelong PTSD. I don’t want him to make his decision because he has a false disconnected perception instilled by capitalistic intentions that violence is fun. People dying no matter where or how or by whose firearm is never fun, and it’s certainly not without consequences on any scale.

  • (Source: , via king-of-walnuts)

    • 53195
    • 53195
  • (Source: lesoleil17, via music-traveler)

    • 7963
    • 7963
  • hello-lesbians:

    I was straight once, turns out it was a phase

    (via montparnah)

    • 62588
  • katara:

    lokilockedcougar:

    queen-of-sunspear:

    This will blow your mind

    Holy crap….

    ……

    no

    (via cheetosjapalenos)

    • 39994
    • 39994
  • "'I will love you forever' swears the poet. I find this easy to swear too. 'I will love you at 4:15 pm next Tuesday' - Is that still as easy?."
    W.H. Auden (via observando)
    • 934