- 6:07 pm
- 123,565 notes
Charlo “F—-k it, I quit” Greene Lights A Joint Live On Air
After announcing she was leaving her job at the KTVA station in Anchorage, Alaska, by telling viewers, “F—k it, I quit,” she joined HuffPost Live on Thursday and smoked a joint live on the air.
"I’ll spark up right now. It is what it is. I’m in the privacy of my own home."
So yes, that happened.
Can I pls marry her.
This is crazy and important.
^why is it “crazy” and how is it “important”?
Should’ve edited out some of these captions. It’s not crazy, but it is important, because if more of us were willing to make public displays like this, the change many want to see in the world would be faster coming, and longer staying. The first step, though, is knowing when to say “fuck it, I quit”.
you think she did that because she has a big civil disobedience streak? LOL. she did that because SHE’S AN ENTREPRENEUR WHO’S BUSINESS BASICALLY JUST OPENED. use your head for a second.
I think I don’t care why she did it, and am just glad she did a stunt for something like this that went viral. If she makes money as a result, more power to her. Maybe she can afford, then, to keep doing stuff like this.
- 5:20 pm
- 24 notes
Constance Cooper sez, “My 8-year-old daughter spotted some incredibly sexist kids’ books in a bookstore, and got them removed by the management. Warning: looking at the section headings of the books may raise your blood pressure.”
Read the rest…
"DON’T BAN BOOKS!"
"What about books we don’t like?"
"OKAY YOU CAN BAN BOOKS BUT JUST THE STUFF I DON’T AGREE WITH!"
Wait, but this isn’t about bans. From the site:
In addition to many supportive and heartwarming responses to this post, I’ve received some from people who are concerned about censorship. I’d like to reassure and remind folks that no one asked the clerk to remove the books. She looked at them, and decided they were not something the store wanted to promote. This is something bookstores do as part of their business. It’s important to keep straight the distinction between censorship—the government or other powerful entities restricting speech—and an individual voicing their opinion.
What I’d like kids (and adults) to take away from the incident is that it’s good to recognize harmful stereotypes, it’s OK to speak out against them, and that even at age eight, you can have some influence.
I’m glad my blog post has caused these books—and, in general, the phenomenon of paired “for girls” and “for boys” books—to be more widely discussed.
So this is literally just a bookstore deciding not to sell them. No coercion happened, as far as anyone knows, just a business decision to shelve the store with less incendiary goods. What’s wrong with that?
Okay, so say a school library decides not to shelve the “incendiary” titles like Huckeberry Finn or Catcher in the Rye. By your logic that’s nothing to worry about. In the sixties and seventies books were banned “FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN” and anyone who wanted to ban a book obviously considered the book “incendiary.” Origin of the Species is considered by many to be “incendiary.” Will the bookstore remove that from their shelves? Does the proprietor of the store agree with the idea that these books are undesirable, or are they just worried about appearing politically incorrect and losing business? Changing the wording or your argument does not change its premise.
I’ve not publicly endorsed the decision yet, just to get that out there.
On the school thing, if it’s a public school it is certainly censorship, and not something I’d ever side with, but private schools should be able to teach what they want, in the spirit of market competition. I don’t know what the owner thinks, or what they’ll pull next, but that doesn’t mean that not selling something is somehow unethical. The writers already made the money they’d make, and the owner is ethically able to eat the loss if they want, and sell what they want, even if that means replacing every copy of Origin with a copy of the Book of Mormon. It’s still not censorship, it’s just tacky.