Quote
"We let Willow cut her hair. When you have a little girl, it’s like how can you teach her that you’re in control of her body? If I teach her that I’m in charge of whether or not she can touch her hair, she’s going to replace me with some other man when she goes out in the world. She can’t cut my hair but that’s her hair. She has got to have command of her body. So when she goes out into the world, she’s going out with a command that it is hers. She is used to making those decisions herself. We try to keep giving them those decisions until they can hold the full weight of their lives."

(On why he let Willow cut all of her hair off)

Read more: Will Smith On Allowing Willow To Cut Her Hair: ‘She Has Got To Have Command Of Her Body’ | Necole Bitchie.com

- He raises a really great point. What would it mean to believe very early that my body was mine. That it’s not for anyone or for any particular purpose other than to be mine until I decide otherwise.

(via larepublicadedet)

I was damned near 30 before I could believe my body belonged to me & me alone. Dear people who take an issue with this,

Let the Smiths do right by their babies & shut the fuck up about how you think they should parent.

(via karnythia)

They are doing it RIGHT. People don’t understand this, but that’s ok. Those kids will be some well-adjusted, powerful adults. 

(via notesonascandal)

(via redbeandreams)

Link

(Source: think-progress)

Photo
whereisthecoool:

Bombs Away Shot Glasses
In case you need an excuse to get a little crazy, check out these bomb-shaped shot glasses. Toss back a few to get the party started, just don’t get too caught up in the destruction.
(Via Surplus)

I need these.

whereisthecoool:

Bombs Away Shot Glasses

In case you need an excuse to get a little crazy, check out these bomb-shaped shot glasses. Toss back a few to get the party started, just don’t get too caught up in the destruction.

(Via Surplus)

I need these.

Photo
whereisthecoool:

Bombs Away Shot Glasses
In case you need an excuse to get a little crazy, check out these bomb-shaped shot glasses. Toss back a few to get the party started, just don’t get too caught up in the destruction.
(Via Surplus)

whereisthecoool:

Bombs Away Shot Glasses

In case you need an excuse to get a little crazy, check out these bomb-shaped shot glasses. Toss back a few to get the party started, just don’t get too caught up in the destruction.

(Via Surplus)

Text

A new report finds more than 2,000 people were wrongly convicted of crimes since 1989

theweekmagazine:

50: Percent who are black 

10.7: Average time, in years, from conviction to exoneration

10,000: Combined time, in years, the 891 exonerated prisoners spent behind bars

1,170: Convicted defendants cleared in 13 “group exonerations” since 1995, following large police-corruption scandals, usually involving planted drugs or guns

25 years of wrongful convictions, by the numbers

(via reuters)

Quote
"

There is no history of racism in this country that chalked ‘up only to race.’ You can’t really talk about stereotypes of, say, black laziness unless you understand stereotypes of the poor stretching back to 17th century Great Britain. You can’t really talk about the Southern slave society without grappling with the relationship between the demand for arable land and the demand for labor. You can’t understand the racial pogroms at the turn of the century without understanding the increasing mobility of American women.


And this works the other way too. If you’re trying to understand the nature of American patriotism without thinking about anti-black racism, you will miss a lot. If you’re trying to understand the New Deal, without thinking about Southern segregationist senators you will miss a lot. If you’re trying to understand the very nature of American democracy itself, and not grappling with black you, you will miss almost all of it.

"

Ta-Nehisi Coates on white resentment, Obama, and Appalachia. (via theatlantic)

(via theatlantic)

Photo

(Source: hannahitsrec, via ifc)

Photoset

issarae:

ABG Season 2 premiering in June on Pharrell’s @i_am_OTHER YouTube Channel.

[NOTE: Don’t worry, ALL characters will be coming back from the second season.]

(via signedfury)

Photo
theatlantic:

Radical Life Extension Is Already Here, But We’re Doing it Wrong

Not everyone is thrilled by the prospect of radical life extension. As funding for anti-aging research has exploded, bioethicists have expressed alarm, reasoning that extreme longevity could have disastrous social effects. Some argue that longer life spans will mean stiffer competition for resources, or a wider gap between rich and poor. Others insist that the aging process is important because it gives death a kind of time release effect, which eases us into accepting it. These concerns are well founded. Life spans of several hundred years are bound to be socially disruptive in one way or another; if we’re headed in that direction, it’s best to start teasing out the difficulties now.
But there is another, deeper argument against life extension—the argument from evolution. Its proponents suggest that we ought to avoid tinkering with any human trait borne of natural selection. Doing so, they argue, could have unforeseen consequences, especially given that natural selection has such a sterling engineering track record. If our bodies grow old and die, the thinking goes, then there must be a good reason, even if we don’t understand it yet. Nonsense, says Bennett Foddy, a philosopher (and flash game developer!) from Oxford, who has written extensively about the ethics of life extension. “We think about aging as being a natural human trait, and it is natural, but it’s not something that was selected for because it was beneficial to us.” Foddy told me. “There is this misconception that everything evolution provides is beneficial to individuals and that’s not correct.”
Foddy has thought long and hard about the various objections to life extension and, for the most part, has found them wanting. This is our conversation about those objections, and about the exciting new biology of aging.
Read more. [Image: Reuters]

theatlantic:

Radical Life Extension Is Already Here, But We’re Doing it Wrong

Not everyone is thrilled by the prospect of radical life extension. As funding for anti-aging research has exploded, bioethicists have expressed alarm, reasoning that extreme longevity could have disastrous social effects. Some argue that longer life spans will mean stiffer competition for resources, or a wider gap between rich and poor. Others insist that the aging process is important because it gives death a kind of time release effect, which eases us into accepting it. These concerns are well founded. Life spans of several hundred years are bound to be socially disruptive in one way or another; if we’re headed in that direction, it’s best to start teasing out the difficulties now.

But there is another, deeper argument against life extension—the argument from evolution. Its proponents suggest that we ought to avoid tinkering with any human trait borne of natural selection. Doing so, they argue, could have unforeseen consequences, especially given that natural selection has such a sterling engineering track record. If our bodies grow old and die, the thinking goes, then there must be a good reason, even if we don’t understand it yet. Nonsense, says Bennett Foddy, a philosopher (and flash game developer!) from Oxford, who has written extensively about the ethics of life extension. “We think about aging as being a natural human trait, and it is natural, but it’s not something that was selected for because it was beneficial to us.” Foddy told me. “There is this misconception that everything evolution provides is beneficial to individuals and that’s not correct.”

Foddy has thought long and hard about the various objections to life extension and, for the most part, has found them wanting. This is our conversation about those objections, and about the exciting new biology of aging.

Read more. [Image: Reuters]

Link

(Source: think-progress)