★
oozey mess
tumblr dot com
Game Changer & Make Some Noise
Love Begins
No title available
Product Placement
titsay
The Bowery Presents
No title available
Noah Kahan
One Nice Bug Per Day
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Jar Jar Binks Fan Club
Aqua Utopia｜海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
Fai_Ryy
Phantogram Three
Origami Around
noise dept.
Today's Document
seen from Brazil
seen from Colombia
seen from Singapore
seen from Indonesia
seen from Brazil
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Russia
seen from Canada
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Singapore
seen from Switzerland
seen from Sweden
seen from Singapore
seen from Indonesia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Chile
@looking-for-anti-sjws
hating your own country is a disease, btw. one of the cures is watching foreigners visit and express their love for aspects of your culture you've been taking for granted.
I'll go further. Hating your own country (which is not the same as disapproving of your government officials or policies) is a moral failing. On several levels.
I heard you were inlove with me?
Tis I!! The United States! Come to display my love for you through Emoji!!!
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🎆🎆🎆🎆🎆🎆🎆🎆🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🤠🤠🤠🤠🤠🤠🤠🤠🤠🤠🤠🤠🤠🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Something seems sus about this but I can’t put my finger on it. 🤨
I got it, it's the football.
The American pastime is baseball! Anon out here with the wrong damn balls!
Indiewire Reviewer: I don't like Andy Serkis' Animal Farm!
Me: Huh.
Reviewer: Because he doesn't understand that it's about fascism!
More fundamentally, as a matter of genre, the “fable” is not something that can mean anything to anyone — but rather, a story that communicates so clearly it is understood everywhere.
Me: It's about the Russian Revolution and USSR.
This is entry-level stuff here.
At a moment when media literacy feels increasingly fragile worldwide,
Socialism and fascism are just two spots where the horseshoe meet up, so they're just telling on themselves with this article.
We really need to differentiate between "the author wrote a message in here they probably didn't intend" from "the author blatantly told you their intention and now you're just ignoring it" as critical techniques.
JKR wrote a surprisingly poignant anti-gun control message into OOTP that probably wasn't supposed to be there. In this example, there are people in the world who directly want to hurt the main character, and he has personally witnessed them expressing their desire to directly hurt him (and by extension everyone he has ever met), but rather than take the effort to actually sustain the society they live in, the government directly tells the main character that no one in the world could possibly want to hurt him and so therefore he has no reason to want to learn how to defend himself (especially interesting when one year [actually on reflection there were two years that did this, both Lockhart and Lupin focused primarily on monsters rather than dark wizards like Moody and Snape] the class didn't even focus on *other humans* who want to hurt the main character, but random monsters the type what populate a fantasy world and learning to maneuver around them is just as valid a reason to learn magical self defense as any).
But Orwell flat out told us what he based this book on. He deliberately said his intention was to mirror the Russian revolution, saying the author deliberately did something that he deliberately said "no I fucking didn't" about just makes you look like a retard. It's the same deal with people telling Ray Bradbury to his face that he was wrong about his own intentions for Fahrenheit 451.
Yeah, because the Harris campaign disenfranchized its entire base and left votes on the table by listening to fucking consultants, buying **TV ADS** IN 2024, and saying she wouldn't be any different from biden at the peak of his unpopularity.
She tanked us by running and doing it bad, he tanked us by robbing us of a primary. The democrats hate you, you should hate them back-- better yet, go Be them. Be the next mamdani
i really ought to just scroll away but i cant help myself, essentially the choices you were presented with were "pie", "swarm of poison bees" and "roll a dice on the other two options"
how on EARTH does anyone, even someone who dislikes that flavour of pie, think chancing being served the bees is a good idea? and now the whole resturants getting stung because of your decisions maybe at least have the decency to pretend to regret it, geez
What a fantastic analogy
Mamdani isn't eligible for POTUS, so you can disregard anything else this idiot is saying, but like...
Biden was unpopular after doing a bunch of shit his Warrenite staffers suggested in an era of slight inflation due to COVID recovery, and Trump urging republicans to kill the bipartisan border bill. That's what flipped a bunch of "Did not Vote" people over to GOP out of fear on a 1.5% margin. to go "WAAAH WE DIDNT HAVE A PWIMAWY 100 Days out after Biden was effectively made to drip by the likes of Clooney/Pelosi after the press freaked out about Debategate after freaking out over groceries then. (Hi vibecession I miss you) is to be be a credulous moron who doesn't know a primary already happened. (or can't admit one did) Biden was unpopular with the press and the median voters because he did what lefties SAID they wanted, like actually withdraw from Afghanistan after trump set him up in the worst possible position for it. Or do student loan forgiveness for "Dumb liberals with basketweaving degrees and not people who paid off their loans or people who worked a non college job" Like. Incredibly good for the people whose loans were paid etc but it cost him. He got zero credit for it from the left or mainstream media. Again. Harris primarily lost because of anti-incumbent sentiment focused around perceptions of inflation and fears around immigration because thats what the median voters care about. It looks like we're having a week where Lefties wanna take credit for ALSO tanking Harris for No Primary And Gaza Biden Bad so shit. You can have it too. Any leftie who didn't vote Harris because "Muh Gaza" is as politically astute and morally unimpeachable as this fucking idiot and deserves nothing but mockery for the rest of their lives, for the USAID cancellation deaths ALONE.
Seriously. Fuck you all.
It's hard to disaggregate 'Kamala Harris was a shit campaigner' from 'Kamala Harris took losing issues'.
If you want to blame someone left of center for the current administration, it should still be Joe Biden.
So here's a hot take
If you "don't understand" how people could have voted for Trump then you don't get to have an opinion about the election. You have shown that you do not possess the skills necessary to analyze the situation.
Also if you blame the media for Biden losing you don't get to have an opinion on anything. Biden was visibly sundowning on stage. It happened where everyone saw it. He was not forced out by the mean ol' Trump-loving media. The media, which was overwhelmingly anti-Trump and anyone who does not see this is delusional, said he had to drop out because he was clearly senile, clearly going to lose the election if he was the candidate, and the media was anti-Trump and did not want Trump to win.
Biden's actions in material reality had consequences in material reality. There was not a primary in 2024 because we could see what happened and there wasn't a primary. The party aligned behind the incumbent while, and this is important, insulting and lying about anyone concerned with Biden's mental competency. They staked credibility, which they did not have much of, on Biden being competent. Then he was very visibly senile on stage where everyone could see it. Then Harris had to be the candidate, despite being a very bad candidate and literally and not figuratively a diversity hire, because we did not do the primary where we attempt to pick a good candidate. She only had 100 days to campaign due to decisions the Democratic Party made and that nobody else forced them into, decisions like "instead of doing the part where we pick a good candidate, run an extremely unpopular incumbent who is clearly going senile and insult and lie about anyone who notices."
Yup. The Biden/Harris loss was entirely an unforced error on the part of the Democrats. Nobody made them choose to run Biden again. (Well, nobody outside of the Democrat party--I'm sure lots of Democrats who were making bank off of and enjoying being the power behind the throne were determined to have him stay in office....) But once it was inescapably obvious that Biden was, in fact, as senile and incompetent as the Republicans had said he was, and that the party and the media (but I repeat myself) could no longer hide that fact...they didn't hesitate to throw him under the bus and nominate Harris a panic because she had DEI credentials: she was female, black, and an easily-controlled dimwit who'd earned her position on her knees (she was only ever going to be a figurehead anyhow, so the fact that she was just another incompetent fool was irrelevant).
It's the same pattern we see in the Graham Platner debacle. They decided to run a blatantly unsuitable candidate--a girlfriend-beating, possibly rapist, unrepentant nazi-tattoo wearing socialist because they thought they could drag him across the finish line and take the seat.
But once it became clear that they couldn't, that he was going to lose--and badly--they threw him to the wolves, forced him out of the race and are replacing him with...well, anyone with a pulse they think might possibly win.
"If you want to blame someone left of center for the current administration, it should still be Joe Biden."
No. Blame the "vote blue no matter who" crowd. Blame easily-manipulated leftists who do what they're told without a single question. Blame the Democratic Party for believing they're entitled to rule the country and for not giving a shit what the American people want.
And if you can't blame anyone on the left, blame the American voters for getting tired of Democrat Party bullshit.
Blame the Democratic Party for being so far up their own ass that we need a totally new word for defining just how up their own ass they are.
No election at any level of government anywhere in America should ever be run without a primary for any reason. Kamala, as much as I dislike and disagree with her, was handed a turd sandwich (without a plate) and now she's criticized for not turning it into foie gras.
The leadership of the Democratic Party think they know better than every single registered Democrat voter. And the people complaining about Trump winning have not given them a reason to doubt that belief.
That's the problem with these people. They literally see someone's hoarded wealth as part of their body.
Taxes are the dues you pay for living in a society. If you have an amount of wealth that would be impossible to obtain without a society, then you owe dues to that society. If you don't like taxes, then you should be free to live outside of society. But you don't get to rig the system to become wealthy then suddenly decide that the system is evil when it wants to tax you.
They literally see wealth as property. Everybody should. Honestly, it concerns me that someone many people feel justified taking the amount they think is 'too much' from someone else, putting it down to "we live in a society". Any amount of wealth there is, is due to society. Wealth doesn't exist in a bubble. It comes from wanting things that other people can provide instead of doing it ourselves.
Anyone who thinks it's better to steal back the money they gave someone, rather than just not buying their shiny trinkets in the first place, likely suffers from feelings of inadequacy and jealousy, brought on by their mediocrity and lack of enterprise.
The same people savagely demanding to take away what they judge as Elon's excess steadfastly refuse to give away even a single penny of their own.
No member of congress should ever be allowed, under any circumstances, to demand that any private citizen give anything away without first donating enough money that they have to declare bankruptcy.
[thinking for a while] i think this may actually cover everything i can think of that i've seen
Does not cover:
Furries
Breast expansion/hyper
Inflation
Lolicon
Pregnancy
Feet
Most TF
In fact it basically ONLY seems to apply to BDSM. Not every fetish is about humiliation and vulnerability. The majority have nothing to do with it. Not to mention that all four bullet points above only concern "I", whereas many fetishes have nothing whatsoever to do with the viewer, only the objet petit a. Y'all really need to broaden your horizons.
Yeah. The first thing I thought of was Ice play, which is a purely sensational thing I’ve had fun with without any sort of “feelings” , this bulleted list lines up with feedism kind of if you squint but not completely, notably “ I want to care for/nurture my partner” is a pretty big “ I” that is missing, but even then there is something left of pure attraction to your partner and sensations/visuals that this doesn’t cover.
I feel like a lot of the ways I don't vibe with the kinkblr house style of erotica/hornyposting might be related to kinkblr having a strong bias toward modelling non-normative eroticism as oriented toward eroticizing hierarchy in some way.
Example:
My observation is that when kinkblrinas write pregnancy kink stuff they almost always make it about somebody higher in a hierarchy getting somebody lower in a hierarchy pregnant as an affirmation of that hierarchical relationship and/or treat pregnancy as a kind of humiliation. My pregnancy kink is a "I got a lot of my earliest ideas about sex from watching PBS Nova 'The Miracle of Life' when I was a homeschooled probably autistic kid who read books about space and dinosaurs and watched PBS nature and science documentaries for fun and was too homeschooled by progressive parents and probably autistic to have much of an awareness of sexism or gender roles, and that probably explains a lot about my sexuality" thing and isn't fundamentally hierarchy-oriented.
@sequel2heaven breast expansion and inflation kinks are both related to pregnancy and lactation, and pregnancy kink is directly about pregnancy. They’re all slight modifications to normie reproductive sexuality.
Also like ... in what world does "I can explore taboo in a safe + controlled environment" *not* cover furries or lolicon?
Today’s feminists often prioritize cultural sensitivity over girls’ safety. Their activism helped steer Britain away from addressing a years
By: Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Published: Jun 20, 2026
British feminism, once a universalist moral insurgency, now stands indicted by its own silence in the face of industrial-scale sexual abuse of vulnerable girls. The Rape Gang Inquiry, published Tuesday by Rupert Lowe of the right-wing Restore Britain party, documents a scandal that should have summoned the full ferocity of the UK’s feminist tradition. Yet the dominant institutions of “gender equality” mostly responded with caution, euphemism, and procedural language where plain moral speech was required. I was interviewed as part of the inquiry, and I have studied firsthand many of the failures it documents.
The horrifying stories covered in the report have been discussed throughout Britain for more than a decade, and one government after another has passed around blame, unable to explain why the state failed to stop the ruination of thousands of young women and girls. Yet an unlikely intervention helped bring the scandal back to the surface. Elon Musk began to discuss the story on X in January 2025 and demanded a fuller accounting from British authorities. His request spurred a new round of debate and launched the inquiry that culminated this week.
The Rape Gang Inquiry describes “the systematic targeting of vulnerable girls, overwhelmingly White British, by predominantly Muslim Pakistani gangs across towns and cities throughout the United Kingdom,” and concludes that “this scandal constitutes one of the most horrendous failures in the history of the country.” It documents “organised networks of perpetrators” who transported victims between locations, supplied them with alcohol and drugs, recorded their abuse for distribution and blackmail, and “passed girls between multiple adult men.” These crimes “have been committed for decades, since the 1950s by Pakistanis in particular, and have affected every region of our nation.”
The scale is almost beyond comprehension. Drawing on parliamentary extrapolations and subsequent data, the report notes that “at the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma,” according to Lord Malcolm Pearson of Rannoch. “The true number is probably higher.” It finds that “the same unspeakable crimes occurred in at least 149 local authority districts, close to 40 percent of all such districts across the United Kingdom.” (The report later acknowledges that 250,000 is not a precise count of the number of victims, “because the British state has failed to record it.” But it asserts that the figure is a conservative estimate.)
The victims’ experiences, in the report’s words, strip away any possibility of abstraction. Girls “as young as 11 were initially befriended by a young Muslim man” and then plied with “alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes,” collected “from school gates, care homes, and streets in taxis,” taken to “houses, flats, restaurants, and hotels,” and “raped repeatedly by groups of men, tortured, filmed for blackmail,” and insulted as “white trash” and “kuffar” who deserved punishment. Many became pregnant; “some miscarried under trauma,” some “endured coerced abortions,” and “some gave birth to children who were later removed by the state.”
One survivor, “Chloe,” describes being raped at 12, drugged, groomed in taxis and hotels, and even admitted to Accident & Emergency after a whiskey bottle was forced into her vagina and shattered. Yet “no questions were asked about how she had sustained such an injury” and she “was examined, the glass was removed, and she was discharged” back to the same world of abuse. When she told police she had been having sex with adult men in cars, they “dismissed Chloe as a prostitute.” The police also determined that Chloe had consented to the sexual encounters, despite her claim not to know the definition of the word consent.
The report is explicit that “political failure lies at the heart of the scandal. Successive governments lacked the will to confront the ethnic and religious patterns,” with Labour “initially refus[ing] a public inquiry altogether,” watering down processes, suppressing ethnicity data, and casting legitimate concerns as “ ‘far-right’ agitation,” while Conservative governments, once in power, “continued with Labour’s approach and failed to impose mandatory ethnicity recording or launch a full statutory inquiry.” Across the political class, “political correctness, fear of accusations of racism, and fear of losing electoral support from certain demographics have taken precedence over the protection of British children.”
This is what the report calls Britain’s “institutional denial” and “paralysing fear of ‘racism’ accusations,” a fear so deep that “the state enabled” perpetrators “to operate with impunity.”
The initial reaction to these crimes exposes the moral fraud of so-called feminist solidarity. There has been, in recent decades, plenty of public language about women, an abundance of institutional “equality” talk, and a steady production of statements, panels, reports, and campaigns to crack open a phantom “glass ceiling.” Yet, when faced with “repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma” inflicted on hundreds of thousands of poor girls, feminism largely failed to treat this as the central feminist catastrophe of our time.
Instead, the same “cultural sensitivity” and “community relations” language that paralyzed the police and councils seeped into feminist institutions. Rape Crisis England & Wales, a feminist organization that advocates for abuse victims, acknowledges that police investigations for years were focused on victims rather than suspects, and would too often “deem 11-year-olds capable of consent,” as their CEO put it in a response to a previous rape gang inquiry last year. The report notes that ethnicity and religion were often left unrecorded “to protect ‘community cohesion’ ” and that national reviews found it “simply not possible to know the scale” because “ethnicity, group offending, and historical cases were routinely unrecorded or shelved.”
The abuses were no mere indiscretion on the part of the perpetrators. Rather, they stemmed directly from their culture. The gangs were “predominantly Muslim Pakistani,” operating under “an honour- and shame-based clan code that treated non-Muslim girls, especially white working class girls, as property available for sexual use,” and this pattern was “reinforced by eight theological and legal aspects of Islam,” including the doctrine of Muslim superiority, forms of loyalty and disavowal (al‑walā’ wa‑l‑barā’), “the superiority of men over women, … the absence of any fixed minimum age of consent,” and “a system of sex slavery authorizing sexual relations with non‑Muslim captives.” Filtered through “clannish immigrant sub-cultures,” these elements “provided religious justification that enabled the systematic rape and even slaughter of White British girls.”
British Islamic organizations dispute the notion that religion played a role in the abuses. “Sex with people they are not married to, all these things that they have done are prohibited in Islam,” said Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, then–assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said of the perpetrators in 2014. Yet, like the feminist groups, a principal concern of many Islamic organizations has been to accuse conservatives of overreacting to or exaggerating the abuses.
The feminist movement, which once refused to let male power define women’s lives, now routinely refuses to name the “new men” who operate within cultural and religious systems hostile to feminist demands. It is anxious about mentioning their culture, edgy about identifying their religion, panicky about pointing out the cruel and unusual abuse when that abuse did not fit the preferred script dictated by the intersectional logic of the day. The inquiry’s insistence that “misguided political correctness and cultural sensitivities” be banished from its proceedings was, explicitly, a rebuke to precisely this sensibility.
Multicultural etiquette, in other words, created an expanding category of unnameables. Where earlier British feminism could say, plainly, that husbands, fathers, employers, priests, or legislators had exploited women and must be opposed, the contemporary movement often refuses to say that certain patterns of male violence are concentrated within particular ethno-religious subcultures, and that these patterns matter for the safety of girls. Modern feminism shouts when the target is culturally safe and falls quiet when the perpetrators are wrapped in the prohibitions of diversity talk.
One of the report’s most unsettling implications for feminists is that the loudest voices forcing this scandal into the open were not the major women’s organizations or state-backed feminist commissions but insurgent figures: male, and outside the consensus classes.
Nothing in the report suggests that every feminist or every woman in public life is cowardly or complicit. Some individual women, such as social workers, activists, and survivors themselves, showed exemplary courage.
But the absence of a coordinated, unembarrassed, angered feminist response on the scale this scandal demands is impossible to ignore. The inquiry is explicit: “The country now knows the full truth. The country has been given the basis for justice. The country has the roadmap to ensure these crimes never happen again.” Yet the response of the major women’s movements has been silence.
The older British feminism that began with figures like Mary Wollstonecraft treated women’s subordination as a civilizational wrong, not a boutique grievance. Wollstonecraft insisted that women were rational, and entitled both to education and legal equality; the Langham Place circle translated those claims into public agitation; the suffrage movement turned them into a mass political demand. That tradition understood that women had been treated as property, as children, as moral auxiliaries to men, and as bodies for male use—and refused to accept any compromise in naming and resisting such treatment.
It was precisely this refusal to trim moral principle to fashionable alliances that gave British feminism its stature. The vote, access to education, and legal recognition of women as adults equal to men were framed as a civilizational correction, not a narrow lobby interest, and they inspired women across the West to make similar claims and secure similar rights.
If one asks, “what happened to feminism?” in Britain, and in the wider West, the report and the surrounding silence together suggest a brutal answer. A movement that began as a universalist moral revolt, insisting that women’s vulnerability was not “a cultural preference to be balanced against competing sensitivities, but a public wrong that had to be named plainly and confronted without apology”, has, in its dominant institutional forms, drifted into managed difference and coalition etiquette. It has become a movement that worries first about “community cohesion,” about not “inflaming ‘community tensions,’ ” about not disturbing the moral arrangements of the professional class, and only second—if at all—about the girls at the school gate.
The Rape Gang Inquiry could be the beginning of a movement for true accountability. It declares that “the country now knows the full truth” and calls for “considerable changes to our criminal justice system,” “legislation aimed at targeting specifically gang-based [child sexual exploitation],” “institutional accountability measures,” and “enhanced safeguarding through greater family involvement.” It promises, after publication, to “release the full witness testimonies, gather additional survivor accounts, identify those responsible in Parliament, and begin civil and private legal actions to ensure maximal accountability.”
In the older feminist tradition, such a report would have been treated as a manifesto for action, the factual backbone of a new, uncompromising campaign.
But when a movement born to protect women cannot bring itself to cry out on behalf of children because the perpetrators are too politically inconvenient, it is difficult to avoid the verdict that it is dead.
I don't blame them in the least.
Medical practitioners make a professional vow, and we should be able to expect them to be true to it.
Any doctor who ever says "I would let a patient die" in any context without following it immediately with "if I knew there was nothing I could do that would save them" should be immediately stripped of all professional licenses and legally barred from ever holding a job position more important than Starbucks barista for the rest of their lives.
I... I don't even have words for the nonsense I've just witnessed, really. Recently, Israel was added a UN sexual violence in war zones blacklist. And just, look at this. Listen to this video.
.... WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T NEED TO DO ANY VERIFICATION???? EXCUSE ME???
If you publish any kind of report while denying your responsibility to verify the things you are reporting, you should be immediately burned at the stake.
Just some of the "mildyl offensive" things they say.
Also because the stereotypical right is made up of racists and sexists and bigots galore so of course they're gonna say slurs and awful things. The left on the other hand touts itself as progressive, as accepting, against bigotry. So yeah when you start saying shit against your stated purpose people are going to call you out.
When you hold yourself up as the only party of inherently good people and proceed to act like retarded subhuman filth, people do in fact reserve the right to express the opinion that your words don't match your actions.
And that is a fact
This implies the world lives by Lord of the Rings rules where flat earthers are the elves who were cursed with a flat earth for them specifically, but everyone else enjoys a nice round celestial body.
I enjoy a nice round celestial body because my wife is both an angel and fat.
When a leftist artist says, for example, "Sonic supports Palestine!" and draws a picture of Sonic with his fist in the air and waving a palestinian flag, here is how you troll them. Generate an AI art image of their favorite character wearing a MAGA hat and watch them become a raging incomprehensible mess. Too funny.
Too much effort. I just post this
and call it a day
The whole “Aang supports Palestine” thing is what kills me the most
Aang took a chonk of the Earth Kingdom to make Republic City, a safe haven for people affected by the war and a hub for kingdoms/Tribes altogether. When I first saw that I was like “oh, so it’s like Israel.” I mean hell, the last villain even made a big stink about that land belonging to the earth kingdom.
He and his son tried to refound the Air Nomads, a nation and culture that was driven out of their homeland(s) and persecuted into almost complete extinction.
As I've said before, the first and most visceral reaction Aang had to finding out that a land, whose indigenous population had been removed from that land by violence, was being resettled and that the new residents were replacing sacred sites and relics thousands of years old with their own trivialities, was throwing their shit off a mountain.
And for those listening at home, in this analogy the people currently living in the Northern Air Temple are the *Palestinians*, while the Air Nomads who built the Temple are the *Israelis*.
At least as far as any imperfect analogy to media can go.
Breaking news, there are deadly communicable diseases at the queer dance parties and I hear someone filmed a documentary about it
"Conveniently, all the complacent idiots happen to be on the political side opposite from me. What are the odds?"
I swear like 7 years ago the archetypal anti vaxxer was a crystal hippie crunchy left winger
It was only with Covid that antivaxx became a hard-core right wing thing. Before that it was absolutely the Goop crowd. Then everyone seamlessly switched positions and forgot it was ever different.
Specifically it was if you had any hesitation over the rapildly developed Covid vaccine or any of the goverment's covid policies, you were treated as an anti-vaxxer, which resulted in people going 'well, if they're being this casual with the term they can't be THAT bad!'
Deservedly so, fuck these covidit retards.
Last time I heard stats, black people were most likely to not get the shot.
Also, why was the COVID vaccine exempt from the normal testing process and time? Either that stuff isn't actually necessary, or shortcuts were taken.
When someone brings up what looks like a reasonable point about safety, going " I hope you die" does not make your side look rational.
Last time I heard stats, black people were most likely to not get the shot.
No idea if that's even true, but I see no reason to give a fuck about this Yank hysteria or another, either.
exempt from the normal testing process and time
Because there was a pandemic going on, no-one had to take it easy.
When someone brings up what looks like a reasonable point about safety, going " I hope you die" does not make your side look rational.
There were no "reasonable points about safety", just anti-vaxxer bullshit, which deserves to be mocked relentlessly.
You admit the covid vaccines weren't subject to the normal testing process, then insist there were no reasonable objections to the lack of testing?
If you can say "The covid vaccine was rushed out the door because of the necessity of the pandemic" in the same breath that you say "There were no safety precautions that other vaccines go through that the covid vaccine did not go through" you are officially too retarded to be allowed to weigh in on serious discussions about why people didn't take the covid vaccine.
For the record, if @tumblr ever tries to implement this age verification bullshit in the US, that'll probably be the last day I bother to spend on this website. If you think I'm giving @staff my government id, you clearly haven't seen the sheer volume of threats and harassment I get in my inbox and notes that staff doesn't do jack or shit about.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe Hellsite can or should be trusted with your information.
There is not a single person on earth who can or should be trusted with your information besides your spouse, your lawyer, and your doctor (maybe your priest, if that's your thing).
"We gave money to Nazi informants, so if you think about it, the U.S was actually funding the Nazis" That's how retarded you people sound.
Literally they were indicted for paying for them to organize the same rallies you retards used as evidence that the KKK, and Neo-Nazis were still relevant, and on the rise.
But, again, this wasn't surprising to me, Democrats are the ones who created the KKK, so of course they'd use donor money to fund them through an NGO.
In this analogy, yes we paid Nazi informants. But we didn't pay Hitler. At least according to the indictment, the SPLC is accused of directly paying Hitler.
And we now have a third Trump assassination attempt.
Leftists keep saying that we are dangerous and evil but they are the only ones trying to kill people.
We should get the man a punch card or something.
Two more and he gets to revoke the citizenship of one leftist of his choosing.
Seven more and he can legally annex all of South America.
