No title available
h
NASA
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
ojovivo

roma★
No title available

Product Placement

Love Begins

gracie abrams
RMH
No title available
The Bowery Presents
Sweet Seals For You, Always
almost home
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
taylor price
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
Sade Olutola

Origami Around

seen from Germany
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from Italy
seen from Malaysia
seen from Trinidad & Tobago

seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@mister-merica
Nick Shirley and a story of weaponizing the law
Democrat discovers the damage they have rot. Pearls clutched.
Modern research shows the public work together selflessly in an emergency, motivated by a strong impulse to help
“The notion that people panic and run screaming for the exits is a Hollywood fiction,” said Prof Stephen Reicher, an expert in group behaviour at the University of St Andrews.
“Characteristically, people stay and help each other,” he said. “We found this during the 7/7 attacks on the underground and the 1999 attack on the Admiral Duncan pub in London, where people looked after each other even though they feared other bombs.
“In our own research on the Leytonstone tube attack in 2015, there was an amazing level of spontaneous coordination by bystanders: some directed others away from danger. Some distracted the attacker. Some confronted the attacker. Each was able to act because of the others. Heroism was a feature of the group, not just the individual,” he added.
Prof Clifford Stott, a specialist in the psychology of crowds and group identity at Keele University, agreed. Modern research, he said, showed “bystander apathy” was a myth. Instead, strangers often work together in emergency situations with highly sophisticated unity.”
Bystander apathy is a myth invented by the New York Times to cover up that the police were called by several residents of the building, but the cops refused to act. The cops then told the Times that 38 people just watched her die (a seemingly arbitrary number and a physical impossibility based on where the attacks occurred), and the Times ran with it. In fact, Kitty was alive when the cops got there, and was being held and comforted by one of her friends who lived in the building because one of the people who saw her get attacked from across the street called her friend to go get her. Because people care.
You have just been attacked. How likely is it that someone will come to your help? If you remember the infamous case of Kitty Genovese in 19
I will always re-blog this. The story of Kitty Genovese’s murder has gone down in history as a story about everyone watching it happen and doing nothing and none of the story is true.
I always knew there was something fishy about the whole Kitty Genovese story. It's so starkly opposite to normal human attitudes to...anything else.
Just look at every disaster, every crisis. There are hundreds of people, usually complete strangers, coordinating with each other to help those in the worst straits. We humans are social creatures with a natural empathy towards other humans, whether they're related or important to us or not.
Disagree. Good people will definitely rise to a higher occasion if/when called to do so or face an unimaginable situation. Especially in the presence of good leadership, trusted friends etc etc. The military being the perfect example. So many unknown heros.
Others…not so much. The people sitting around Iryna and on video did nothing for her. Walked away while blood pulled around her. Perhaps even intentionally “didn’t look” because they didn’t want to get involved.
Still others, later on the scene, did indeed try to save her.
It’s the perfect example of both spectrums.
Welcome to Tweakerville
John Brennan, Obama, and passports…
Elijah Cummings - Wikipedia
i think one of the best parts about being a teenager in the early to mid 2010s was that cigarettes were definitely not cool anymore and vapes hadn’t popularized yet so my lungs made it out of my peak impressionable years relatively unscathed
The issue with vaping is that the tech isn’t regulated and shitty devices were making it into the market because the FCC and the Democrats didn’t want to do anything about it. This is likely because the bulk majority of devices were flowing out of China for cheap.
Vape juice isn’t supposed to stink. If it does, you’re buying shitty disposable vape stuff or doing weed. The “smoke” from vaping isn’t smoke, it’s mist. The fog is just moisture because it’s similar to fog machine mist and it’s nontoxic. The particulates that get inhaled from the vape are deposited in the lungs and the mist contains very little to none. However, shitty vape stuff will not heat properly and will leave more particulate in the mist.
But guess what?
Vaping has been around since the 60s. It was used in the pot scene. There were devices as big as a cigarette carton that had to be plugged in that vaporized weed. That’s why it’s called… ready for this?
Vaping.
Buy good vape stuff, not shitty vape stuff, and your lungs will be fine.
Part 2 of 2
Part 1 of 2
Damn crackers going on a crime spree it seems.