Love Begins
No title available
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
No title available
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Sweet Seals For You, Always
almost home
Sade Olutola
tumblr dot com
YOU ARE THE REASON
Misplaced Lens Cap
Monterey Bay Aquarium
blake kathryn
ojovivo
izzy's playlists!
RMH
tannertan36
oozey mess
ellievsbear
NASA
seen from Poland
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Belgium
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from India
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Israel
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Bulgaria
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Portugal
seen from United States
@pro-rubik
Ya’ll this is a real tweet. He actually tweeted this!
Holy shit who redpilled Talcum X?
Apparently this isn’t even the first of it.
Guys, as weird as this may sound… I think Shaun King may actually give a shit about black people.
I’m becoming a Shaun King fan. Keep bringing the truth, more people need to hear it and maybe they’ll listen to him if not Rand Paul
I’m not about to go that far but progress is progress
So, folks like lesbwian decided to Make A Point about Harley Quinn’s outfit in the DCEU.
There’s something ironic here. Harley has almost always been a performer, been broad and theatrical. Her basic character theme, visually, is “sexy harlequin”. But apparently these SJWs don’t like the idea of her being sexy and wearing edgy clothes, which makes me wonder if they were fans of her in the first place.
The “dog collar” is actually a human collar, custom-made for her. It’s what kinky people do IRL, sometimes. And ripped clothing has gone in and out of style since, what, the 80s?
Haven’t feminists spent decades arguing women can dress sexily for their own pleasure? I seem to recall SlutWalks a few years ago.
IIRC, the “camera” in the first one is cropped from promotional art to show off the Suicide Squad’s costumes. Which, necessarily, means they want to get as much of their bodies in the shot as they practically can. And the second one is a screenshot from a video meant as a character teaser.
But okay. Let’s say the first one is “centered on her boobs” and is a screenshot from the movie. She appears to be talking to someone, which means the frame had to include them as well. And, of course, the instant in the screenshot isn’t automatically representative of the overall movie, just like a promo video for Birds of Prey isn’t representative of the actual movie, profeminist
In fact, given how Robinson up there seems to think her subjective opinion is some kind of moral stance, I wouldn’t put it past her to deliberately choose images which emphasize her point.
Remember,: Harley Quinn is and always has been a popular cosplay, especially her Suicide Squad version. Shedloads of women go far, far out of their way to dress like the version on the left. It was a very, very popular Halloween costume.
https://comicbook.com/dc/2019/02/03/birds-of-prey-movie-2020-costume-designer-erin-benach/
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/suicide-squad-costume-designer-reveals-margot-robbie-almost-wore-the-classic-harley-quinn-jester-a7142306.html
Also, the costume designers for both Birds of Prey and Suicide Squad are women. Unless OP is talking about the directors of the respective movies. And even then you have to ignore Katana and Waller. Heck, Katana is arguably less sexy in the movie than most of her costumes in the comics.
She’s basically wearing normal clothes, instead of some shiny ninja catsuit.
And last time I checked, the DCEU Joker is 2Edgy, so it makes sense Harley would be too. And Harley has had pigtails in several different incarnations before, because they look like the thingies on her headgear.
Including her original BTAS version.
Oh, and “I know it when I see it” is widely mocked, because it was saying something is “defined” by an entirely subjective judgement. I’m pretty sure the real version it’s not “male gaze” to you is because she isn’t as obviously sexy.
Like I always say, “nobody is more sexist than feminists”.
It’s funny how feminists keep trying to turn Harley into some sort of empowered women icon when she’s literally the opposite. She’s an abused and manipulated woman. In some continuities, she’s found the strength to quit Joker, but not all of them.
Wow, Grey-Warden, that sure is a lot of stuff you’re assuming without any evidence. Also “Daddy’s little monster” is an edgelady shirt. She’s not calling herself crap. >It’s a punk rock reference<. You know what punks often have? Ripped, edgy clothing and overall looks which don’t confirm to cultural conventions! She has a studded belt and spiked bracelets, how did you miss that?
No. Put down the goalposts. Harley Quinn, as portrayed in the movie, is not remotely a normal woman. That’s literally the whole point of the Suicide Squad; black-ops budget Avengers; extraordinary people to fight the battles America never could…be officially connected with. Harley has always been sexy. If you have a problem with that, you didn’t really like Harley Quinn.
You really started the post off with a shoeonhead gif and expected people to take you seriously huh
That sure is…nothing resembling an actual counterargument.
No but you know what is a counterargument
Something you’re not making, as we’ve already established.
Me banging your mom is a counterargument lmao
Aren’t you up past your bedtime? Don’t you have school tomorrow?
@swingsetgay wtf you got against mama sh0e?
SYABM it’s not even a collar, it’s just a standard choker with words, which is extremely popular in alternative fashion. A collar would have an opening in case the person wants a leash. I don’t know when exactly they became popular, but I’ve been wearing them since the 90s and I have like 20 now, ranging from glam top Victorian, “girlie” (for lack of a better word) to goth. I do forget to put them on at times, but I like to wear them particularly during the cold months.
And I agree I don’t really see an issue with the outfit on tdee left, in fact I’m very much a straight woman (eh, more asexual these days, but I have attraction men) and I’m digging the outfit on the left. Wish I had the body to get away with that but then you’ve seen the type of stuff I wear and it’s really not that different, and I’m my own stylist. Besides, didn’t you have a picture of Debbie Harry that tree costume is based on?
The costume on the right isn’t really appealing to me, it looks incredibly childish imo, like a box of highlighters threw up on her. Length of hair really don’t see what that has to do with anything, but it’s not a meme that “no matter you’re going through leave your hair alone” for no reason and since joker just broke up with her, looks like she just cut it to get rid of the color.
Liked kinka-juice, the boobs comment weirds me out, too, and in a way makes me feel a bit violated, I don’t know how to describe it. But as someone who got a lot of unwanted attention due tti my naturally large bust, and a lot of attention I did want that turned out only to happen because of my large bust, I really don’t like people saying things like that. My cup size has no bearing on my personality. Likewise, I’ve had friends with A cups wear padded bras because they like to be more curvy and they don’t feel so childish. They also like the way their clothes fit better over a curved frame as opposed to over a flat one.
As one of the commenters said is this how feminism is done? Making judgements on how women choose to dress? So do I have internal misogyny for feeling the costume on the left is better put together than the one on the right? Is this how it works?
First of all, I got a lot against “Mama shoe” lol as if she’s your mom… She’s ignorant quite often and sometimes fails to see why her opinions are invalid, not to mention her laughable critique of the wage gap argument which she just shits the bed on everytime. Second of all, I also dig the outfit on the left, I would wear it, even though I’m not a woman, but the problem with it is that it was done for the male gaze. It was not done for women to feel empowered, and I’m not saying that that’s how everything should be done, but I am also not banging on the door of the suicide squad costume designer and demanding he change Harley’s costume. Nobody’s doing that. When feminists, myself included, critique costume designs of women in media they’re usually not saying that that is somehow the most evil thing ever and should change and most feminists believe in the autonomy of women to dress however they please, whether it be fishnets or a hijab. The problem comes when it is clear that the writer was a man and he dressed the one female character sexily not to underline how empowered she’s being but rather get off on that himself.
Third of all, have you actually watched BoP? Cause I have. Yes, you’re right, she does cut her hair off after she breaks up with joker, but I’m sorry, Harley Quinn’s costume is too childish? Umm, yeah? Harley Quinn is pure childhood naivety in a tube, that’s the point. Plus she’s got some sexy outfits in the movie besides this one and they’re eons better than her suicide squad outfits because they scream Harley, unlike the costume on the left.
You didn’t read anything on this entire thread, did you? Because nearly everything in this response has been tackled above.
I would like some examples and proof on Shoe’s invalid opinions.
On your second point:
The costume designer was a woman
Are women who dress sexily inherently dressing FOR the male gaze? What about women who feel empowered by a woman who is presented as sexy? What about other characters like Bayonetta and her FEMALE creator literally creating her to be as sexy as possible and to gush over it?
Harley Quinn in Suicide Squad is a fetishistic broad who dresses for the pleasure of her hubby. OF COURSE it’s gonna be as sexy and provocative as possible. SHE’S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE NORMAL WOMAN.
Are you somehow psychic? Is that how you know the intent of everyone working on her design 100 percent correctly?
Harley Quinn is not Childhood Naivety personified. If you honestly believe that, I wonder if you were ever even a fan if you missed the point of her character THIS MUCH. She’s a fucking psychologist. She’s a fucking mass murderer who gave children bombs disguised as video games.
Every single outfit she wore in the promotional material looks like dirty garbage stolen from the dump.
Ask yourself which version will be cosplay Ed more. The one on the left or the one on the right? Oh, who am I kidding? HER ORIGINAL RED AND BLACK SPANDEX WILL HAVE MORE COSPLAYERS.
You didn’t read my second response to this post, did you? Because I tackled all of that lol. And as for Shoe’s problematic opinions, well there are plenty of those, it’s like saying “give me an example of giraffes having long necks”, I don’t need to, it’s their thing. And of course her original red and black will have more cosplayers, it’s been around for more or less thirty years! The movie just came out, of course it doesn’t have the most cosplayers. Also you’re all just blindly ignoring the fact that I am making a FEMINIST rebuttal. Not an unbiased rebuttal of the movie where I think the only problem with it is that Harley wears fishnets. I am explicitly making a critique of how the movie holds up to feminist ideals that I hold, and you might not see a point in that, but that is nevertheless a valid form of media criticism. Smh.
You know, I could give less than a shit about this dumpster fire sequel to a dumpster fire movie that nobody asked for, but this thread has come across my dash three times now I’ve got to just point and laugh at this asshole
Right out of the gate, trying to dismiss the original argument out of hand because they used a gif of someone they don’t like?
Walking it back to a “yer mom” joke in the year of our lord 2020?
When asked why they’ve got such a bug up their ass about shoe, responding with “well I don’t have to explain, I’m just right”?
The WILD, WILD mischaracterization of HQ’s character, which could really only be formulated by someone who’s only knowledge of the character comes from “common knowledge” - often wrong - pop-culture references? Which wouldn’t be nearly as big of a deal if they also weren’t pretending to be an expert. That, or they’re just flat out lying about her character and hoping everyone who doesn’t have a working knowledge of her character just buys it; she’s not naive, she deludes herself. Huge difference.
>waaaaaaah I’m making a FEMINIST rebuttal!!
Nobody cares Gayle, and it definitely doesn’t suddenly validate everything you’re saying just because you really really want to be right.
Movie sucked, costumes looked like shit made by people trying too hard, and no amount of feminist bullshit praising it is going to make it a “good” movie. The original point from the tweet is still wrong, “male gaze” is a bad joke by feminists trying to gender something that isn’t gendered to begin with (humans are sexual, Gayle!). It’s endlessly bizarre to me that feminists have run out of shit to complain about so now they’re championing the rights of fictional women who don’t even exist.
Edit:
I see the issue - you dress like shit and think “feminist theory” is legitimate criticism because “women dress sexy in movies oh no!!”
Magic Mike called and said shut the fuck up, I bet you think Charlie’s Angels flopped because of “muh sexism!!!!” too.
Wow you people seriously have zero reading comprehension huh
“MuH ReAdInG ComPrUhEnshUnn!”
Ok Gayle, why don’t you go back to thirsting over Kristen Stewart’s ass you big hypocrite
"Doctor Who" just made history with its first ever black Doctor, who was revealed during Sunday night's episode "Fugitive of the Judoon."
Serious question, does anybody still watch this show?
I managed to get about halfway through Jodie’s first season as the doctor before I just couldn’t watch anymore. The bad writing was an issue even back during Matt Smith’s later seasons, but at least I can actually remember most of those episodes. I can remember a few decent episodes during Peter Capaldi’s time as the doctor, and maybe two of Jodie’s time as the doctor. I’m not even watching this latest season. It was starting to feel more like a kids show, as opposed to a family show that anyone could watch. Not much substance but maybe the kids will learn something!
I’m shocked at how many of you can’t handle the idea that we should offer paid maternity leave in the USA like any other civilized nation. Grow up. Have some fucking compassion.
Having a child is a choice for 99.9% of educated people (as there are legitimate adults who don’t know how babies are made). As with any other expensive and time consuming decision, you should prepare for it beforehand.
It is also unfair to demand your employer pay for your expensive decision. Employers pay you in exchange for work you put into their business, and you can accumulate days off based on hours worked. Paying you for...not contributing to their business is odd. It also gives a legitimate reason to hire men over women. As unless theyre trans, you dont really have to worry about about paying someone for...not working for you for several months. Men would thus be more valuable, as they provide more work for the same paycheck. There are plenty of other expensive and time consuming choices that you should have to pay for yourself.
Like free daycare or a company car, they are more than welcome to offer you free perks to make working for them more enticing than other places, but it shouldnt be mandatory. It isnt about compassion. Otherwise i could use that argument to demand my job pay for me to get a new puppy and to stay home with it. Or pay me to renovate my house. And they shouldnt be forced to pay for your personal decisions.
I mean I may lean left economically and im a self described socialist but you make an excellent point
I mean by that logic we just shouldn’t protect disabled people in the workplace either.
Every other developed nation in the world can recognize the need for having paid maternity leave. It’s ridiculous that Americans cannot get on board with helping people out in any capacity. I’m sure you also think healthcare should be a privilege for only the wealthy as well. After all, it only makes economic sense. And the entirely made up concept of the market of course has more value than a functioning healthy society.
not necessarily
people with disabilities and disorders don't get a choice in it. they cant just leave it behind
but you know what fair point.
The USA is the wealthiest nation on earth, yet we somehow still refuse to create better living standards for ourselves in spite of this. It’s insane.
It was signed in at the federal level a week or so ago, so federal employees get it 12 weeks for both mother and father.
so that put it’s on a level with india, china and some african countries?
That's just the Fed, other companies can offer what they want to offer as part of their employment package for the contract you sign and agree to when you accept employment with them. Cheshire makes a good point about all of that so I don't feel like I need to repeat it all.
Agreed, I think Cheshire said everything that needs saying
When people are like “ughhh male depression isn’t taken seriously”, were any of you alive during the era where literally every self harming teenage girl was labeled an attention seeker and ridiculed by EVERYONE? Are you alive nowadays where it’s still like that minus the emo subculture?
This was not exclusively a female issue and to claim it is, is literally just lying to serve your own agenda. I was alive. I was a teenage girl who self harmed. I hung out in emo subcultures. The stereotype of the era was that anyone who self harmed was an attention seeker. Men simply talked about it less, even though they were doing it too, because people don’t take mental health serious in men to begin with. At least we had a chance.
No mental illness is taken seriously in men unless/until it causes violence against others and that’s so fucking sad.
But god forbid something not be about women, holy shit.
FUCKING. THIS.
Also fake suicide attempts are actually a real thing. Eapecially in teenage girls. While men and boys are more likely to do it seriously, without telling anyone.
That isnt to say that actual suicides of women are less important. But the fact is that people are talking about male victims of suicide and mental health because men are leading by far in suicides. Now if some sexist came along and said something atupid like “women dont commit suicide” (similar to how people insist men cant be victims of rape) then yeah, call them out. Women can absolutely be victims and suicidal women dont need to hear that they dont matter.
But your issue is merely that people are talking about male victims more, not suppressing female ones. And to that, I tell you to get over it.
It was because in that era there were some teenage girls (and boys) being emo and pretending to self harm for attention.
Kinda fucked up but I remember part of me, as a teenager, actively wishing I was depressed and had self harmed just so I could fit in with my emo friends who had done the same (and I’m certain I remember other people at least exaggerating experiences to have something to talk about). I was into it for the aesthetic and the music and it seemed like I wasn’t really allowed to be part of it unless I was also depressed.
Anywhos, yeah, everyone with depression needs to be taken seriously, men included. It’s not a gendered topic and it’s not an affront to women to simply care about men too.
Sorry to break the news, but you did not report the person behind that blog. Instead, you reported me. And I am still suffering the consequences.
I did not run that blog. Yes, they used my image. All my pictures from Facebook and Instagram, my statuses, even the captions. And then interspersed them with animal abuse images, fantasies about beastiality, other fucking disgusting sentiments.
You people found my Facebook, where I listed my wildlife rescue group. You didn’t think, for a moment, that it was odd that none of these abuse fantasies appeared on Facebook. A girl who was apparently willing to put her face, her location, the names of her family her local fucking vet clinic on her zoophilic Tumblr page, strangely had none of these thoughts on a just-as-public Facebook page.
Not one single person thought, “This is a bit odd, maybe I should reach out to this person just to confirm that it’s them.”
You people, high on some fantastical idea of justice, called the authorities. And I did not even know about the existence of the blog until the RSPCA showed up on my doorstep one night.
THEY, thankfully, had the sense to believe me. As soon as they showed me the page and I broke down in tears, they got the idea. So they told me to go to the police. The police palmed me off to ACORN (a cybercrime body) who dismissed the case because “nobody in the images was under the age of 18.”
Meanwhile, Tumblr had taken the page down, only for it to resurface again last year.
I then pursued a civil case. Emailed lawyers in my local city. They advised me only to take it to Tumblr, who shut down the page a second time. No further action was taken.
I never received another call from wildlife rescue because I was unable to prove that I did not run this disgusting blog. Wildlife is my biggest passion in the world and I may never work in that industry until I can clear my name.
So I messaged this page - report-a-predator. They told me to prove it - fair enough. So I sent them EVERYTHING. The screenshots, my emails to ACORN and SAPOL and Tumblr and the lawyers. They did not respond. I emailed them again, begging them to clear my name. They did not respond.
I am furious. I am fucking enraged that this post even still exists on their page, because the actions of this so-called “justice group” has directly impacted the life of an innocent person and they will do nothing to acknowledge it. Not even respond to a simple email. Not even take down the incriminating post.
I know my blog is tiny, I know nobody follows it, I know this will probably never be seen. But I am not going to be silent.
If you’re ever caught up in a whirlwind of pseudo-justice, maybe check the facts first.
most people on this site will agree that “reverse racism” doesn’t exist, bc we all know that the oppressing class cannot be oppressed on the same basis that they are oppressing other classes, but some fools still believe in misandry. huh.
Racism AND sexism can effect absolutely anyone. People who think otherwise just don’t want an excuse to be hateful, and hypocrites, with no consequence.
The notes are dragging OP and it’s wonderful
Correct, op, reverse racism isn’t real. It’s just called racism.
Dumbass.
Ah yes, moral wokeness AKA racism with extra steps.
How am I not surprised, OP is a big ol radfem piece of shit
shocking!!!!! had no idea!!!
Yeah… Mind giving me that study?
Hm….Says here that they are actually about equal in threat to ‘jihadists (Not my words, their’s) And this was updated in 2018…but the articles WEREN’T. (As said here in the link NBC provides.)
Congrats on proving Trump right about ‘fake news’ though dumbasses, instead of checking your sources or, you know, NOT being racist.
White Americans, which account for 68% of the US population, are as threatening as less than 1% of the US population of muslims.
These sorts of studies always conveniently leave out gang related killings which claim hundreds of lives in cities like Chicago alone. Then you’ve got their suspicious definition of “far right wing” which includes things like anti-government motivations and white supremacy, which makes no goddamned sense. You can’t be committing acts of terrorism in the name of a political party and also fighting for the destruction of the government that party exists to support. Nor can you call racial supremacist ideology a part of the Conservative platform, because it just ain’t.
So that begs the question: What exactly is the purpose of articles and “studies” of this nature? I can safely guess that they are trying to vilify the Right and also white people in general by painting with excessively broad strokes to make them look as bad as the jihadis, mostly by fudging the numbers as hard as possible. Downplaying the worldwide threat of muslim extremists is just icing on the propaganda cake. Really classy bullshit.
A unit of Activision Blizzard Inc. has punished a player for expressing support for Hong Kong’s protest movement, the latest example of a U.
I forgave Blizzard for many things throughout the years and continued to support them. This is something I cannot forgive. With this, I cut my ties and say goodbye to Blizzard.
Wow, fuck that!
Blizzard is a trash company and has been for a long time now.
To be fair they did have this known rule
And I'm at least 70% sure (or at least I'd like to believe) that they'd ban someone for saying they support the chinese government and Hong Kong's police.
Is it shitty this happened? Fuck yes it is. But I hate that we're framing it the way we are. Blizzard didn't ban him for supporting the protestors. They banned him for violating one of their rules.
Uh, no. I’m sorry but no, it’s “up to blizzards sole discretion”.
They’re choosing to punish him, in order to avoid rubbing china the wrong way, period. They’re not the only company doing this and pretending it’s just “da rulez” is honestly mind boggling to me, have the guts to call blizzard on its shit. It’s just a damn game company.
I never said what they did was right. I'm just saying the wording here is disingenuous. They didnt punish the player for what he said or because he "has the wrong opinion" or whatever else people are saying. They banned him because he broke a shitty rule.
They did, though - if he’d said he supports China there never would have been pressure to ban him in the first place.
He is by definition being punished for having the wrong opinion, just because Blizzard can rules lawyer an excuse to do it doesn’t change that dude.
idk if you guys are intentionally putting conservatives on my fucking dashboard now and i need to clean up the blogs i follow or youre just taking this tweet and this video in the exact opposite way they were intended to be taken but the reason that these speeches are “similar” (and they’re not. they’re just on the same topic) isnt because it’s DUH JOOS or DUH SOSHULISTS trying to push an agenda and destroy the fabric of america or something
its because nothings been fucking done about a problem thats existed for decades
like you can cut footage of a mildly scared teenager from 1992 with footage of a terrified teenager today and all that proves is that the problem has gotten worse, not better, and there cant be any improvements made as long as short term profits are deemed to be more important than permanent damage to the environment
I think you have that backwards, son. Did you even listen to what they were talking about?
Both speeches are similar in that they both are made by indoctrinated teenagers preaching alarmist drivel, but they are actually completely different topics. The 1992 speech was on the supposed oncoming apocalypse that the hole in the ozone was going to bring about on the earth, while the Thunberg speech was about the apocalypse about to overtake us all in 10-12-50-100-200 years as the global average temperature gradually increases +1°C over the span of a century. They just appear to be the same because to true-believers these children are preaching, from a false position as some kind of knowledgeable authority, the same apocalyptic gospel, just different verses.
Someone (@redbloodedamerica…) ignores as it seems that the threat of the hole of ozone for the life on the planet had been taken very seriously back in the 1990′s by the scientific community and by most governments and that the same goverments have devoted a voluntaristic and sustained coordinated effort in order to face this threat (includig -horresco referens - the unforgivable sin of the gradual ban by those communist-leaning governments of many products previously freely offered and freely bought in the free market !).
This coordinated intergovernmental effort against the threat of the hole of ozone had in general very good results (although the problem has not disappeared completely) and should be a model for dealing with the anthropogenic global warming and more generally with environmental issues. But the prospect of an intergovermental effort and coordination aiming at an ecological reform of the world economy in order to deal with the risks of global warming causes almost seizures to some fanatically pro-”free market” people…
Except that all of that is a bunch of hogwash, like most environmental alarmism:
Environmentalists have made numerous apocalyptic predictions over the past several decades, virtually none of which has come to pass. Yet each time, the greens and their political allies proclaim victory, arguing that their preventive prescriptions averted disaster.
Such is the case with the 1987 Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol). The lurid predictions of ozone depletion-induced skin cancer epidemics, ecosystem destruction and others haven’t come true, for which Montreal Protocol proponents congratulate themselves. But in retrospect, the evidence shows that ozone depletion was an exaggerated threat in the first place. As the treaty parties return to Montreal for their 20th anniversary meeting it should be cause for reflection, not celebration, especially for those who hope to repeat this “success story” in the context of global warming.
So what do we know now? As far as ozone depletion is concerned, the thinning of the ozone layer that occurred throughout the 1980s apparently stopped in the early 1990s, too soon to credit the Montreal Protocol. A 1998 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report said that, “since 1991, the linear [downward] trend observed during the 1980s has not continued, but rather total column ozone has been almost constant …” However, the same report noted that the stratospheric concentrations of the offending compounds were still increasing through 1998. This lends credence to the skeptical view, widely derided at the time of the Montreal Protocol, that natural variations better explain the fluctuations in the global ozone layer.
For someone who professes to not care for anything I say, you sure reblog and comment on a lot of my posts.
Anyone else think the way Greta said “I shouldn’t be up here” sounded like a theatre kid in a high school play, rather than a genuine statement? Like the entire speech is delivered in such a way as to sound overemotional and disingenuous, as though she is reading a script she just barely managed to memorize. Like this kid is clearly being used like a puppet, and that is fucked.
With parents in the showbiz industry, can we really say we’re surprised by how staged and melodramatic her speech turned out?
what the fuck. theres not even a fucking joke here. its just the fucking alphabet. i was expecting some kind of fucking meme like “gun” or “john cena” or something like that but no its just the fucking alphabet. here. on tumblr.com. 26 users just fucking banded together to write the alphabet. what the fuck, man.
I think the update broke them, and almost everyone else.
16
26
28
35
37
38
61
65
69 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
70
72 …..why not….making the best out of this sad situation
73… I got so angry at this post I had to reblog it and continue
77
83
86
89 ;/
103
104
109
112
114
120
121
129
137
141
142 (the length of Lavender Brown’s cock in millimetres)
145 - you know this shit goes on forever right?
147 - a personal favorite
149
That’s it, everyone on here is possessed. This is madness.
151.
152 I feel morally obligated
154
156
157
158????????
160… I’m doing my part
161
….162…. Im sorry to put this on your dash.
163
If I must scroll this far, then so too must you.
164
Me +39 (Italia)
*visible confusion* 169
171
173
176
177
181. We’re all in this together
I will kill all of you.
185
186
187
190, my iq
191, my iq
192, the amount of gay I am
193
199
What the hell
202
203
204.
205
I’ve been seeing some bullshit gun control posts lately about how people don’t need guns.
My mom, who hates guns, is gonna have my brother or papa teach her how to shoot a gun. She’s never shot one in her life. You know why?
Cause we live in the middle of nowhere in rural Minnesota and we’ve had strange people come driving down our driveway on multiple occasions. Despite no trespassing signs. There have been hunters on our property. Private property. One time, the tires were stolen off our vehicle. We also don’t get great cell service so the only way to gaurentee slow as fuck emergency services is our landline in the kitchen.
People have a right to defend themselves. My mom should be able to feel safe in our home, especially when she is home alone often (my dad is gone at work most of the day) and she often caring for little kids (under 9).
People who advocate for gun control have probably never lived in these circumstances.
But gun control won't affect you? If you did what Australia did where hunting rifles are only legally allowed to be owned by people I'm rural areas (like you said) and Australia has not had a mass shooting since 1996. Guns were designed with one purpose in mind. To kill
Australia’s gun control affected mostly innocent people, by definition.
People need more than just ‘hunting rifles’ to protect themselves.
Oh, and they’ve had several mass shootings since 1996, including this June.
There are many, many guns designed to shoot nothing but paper targets and clay pigeons. There have also been many mass shootings with bolt-action ‘hunting rifles’, such as the University of Texas tower shooting, or handguns, like VTech.
And many people who are pro-control make it absolutely clear they want to take away as many guns as possible, including those owned by innocent, law-abiding people.
Don’t just blindly repeat anti-gun propaganda. Do some research. Don’t be fooled again.
*vaguely gesture at the rest of the world where gun control.works and no.mass shootings
France
New Zealand
Norway
Germany
Poland
Russia
China
All of Africa
Russia again
Canada
All of latin America
Are you willfully this ignorant?
Yes because all of the countries in the world are just these few also for the love of God please stop bringing this back up I couldnt give less than two shits about your pro gun rights. Answer me this honestly. Yes or no only. The only use for a gun is to cause harm or kill someone. Not including guns in the gun range and the Olympics. Tell me honestly you believe that you need a gun because you're trying to do good in the world. If not then please fuck off
WHEW, did anyone else catch that sleight of hand?
The claim begins with “gun control will not effect law abiding citizens”, a lie on its face. This is pointed out by @siryouarebeingmocked, which is summarily ignored by thegreenpea.
The goalposts are shifted to “the rest of the world has no mass shootings, ever, and they have gun control laws - implying America has none - so therefore causation is proven!”
Putting aside the fact that that’s not how this shit works, and anyone who makes this argument should immediately be regarded as a stupid parrot until they prove otherwise, the magic trick comes when people like thegreenpea try to reduce the gun control debate to be only about mass shootings, the rarest form of gun crime in the US.
Mass shootings are possibly the worst metric to measure by because for one, controlling for each individual country’s definitions is something none of these claims or comparisons ever do. Two, mass shootings represent a negligible percentage of all gun violence in the US, and three the claim that “no other countries have this problem” is a lie. But hey, then when someone points out that there are many countries that DO have mass shootings, thegreenpea balks because “those aren’t the only countries in the world :(“
No, you said NONE. You said NO countries.
It began as “no other developed country has this problem!”, with the actual claim pointing to only homogenious race, developed European countries to actually make the comparison, some of which are tiny and majority rural.
>I couldn’t give less than two shits about your pro gun rights
Then why should I even bother to listen to you? Why should I value your opinion when you’ve just outed yourself as a bigot who’s not interested in actually listening to the argument, but just wants to scream “YES OR NO ONLY!!!” to control the debate and pigeonhole your opponents into either agreeing with you or being EEEEBIL?
>yes or no, the only use for a gun is to do harm or kill someone
>oh oh oh oh except these guns that are used to not do that, you can’t include those
A gun is a tool for firing a projectile. Where that projectile goes is entirely up to the user.
>tell me you honestly want a gun because you want to do good in the world, or fuck off. I don’t care about you, but you’ve got to care about THE WHOLE WORLD, like me, or you’re evil!
You’re a dishonest piece of shit, peddling claims and arguments you haven’t vetted for yourself - you believe them because you are a dipshit wallowing in confirmation bias and pretending it makes you superior because you can regurgitate popular claims.
“Well I don’t care about your rights”, ok. You’re cordially invited to suck a sundae out of my ass, my rights are my rights regardless of whether you care about them or not, you nobody.
So in addition to not knowing how Amendments work, thegreenpea manages to disprove their entire argument and doesn’t realize it
@thegreenpea yes or no, since you’re a fan of these questions:
Did the 13th amendment GIVE slaves the right to be free, or were they already entitled to that right from birth?
Because the 2nd amendment does not GRANT the right to bear arms, it expressly prohibits the federal government from limiting it. You should actually inform yourself about the laws and history of my country before you try to spout bullshit about how our constitution works.
The right to bear arms does not expressly or inherently infringe on the right to live; it more often than not protects the right to live, in point of fact.
Whens the last time a responsible gun owner stopped a mass shooting just wondering
Iirc there was one like a month ago.
It’s actually fairly common. And defensive gun usage is much more common than guns being used to commit crimes.
It’s reported as a deadly shooting incident anyway, so you probably will only hear about it as “Another Shooting”
Kinda like all the “shootings” that were some idiot firing off a gun at nothing.
Kinda hard to collect statistics on stopping things that only become when they occur…
If you prevent a mass shooting, then it isn’t a mass shooting.
Might be easier to do that research if Congress didn’t pass an NRA supported Bill to block the release of gun statistics to researchers.
Or if they allowed the CDC to study gun violence.
Why should the Centers for Disease Control study gun violence? Or the National Institute of Health? Do we have no researchers which specialize in criminology?
Are you honestly asking why governmental agencies should study forms of violence?
No they’re asking we we don’t have an agency specifically for criminology, they said it right there
Considering that mental illness is as much a common factor as the weapon, it’s easy to see why it should be studied from a public health angle. Why do most people with mental health struggles pose no threat (more likely to self harm) while a handful with the same conditions go out and cause mayhem?
Mass shootings are a very literal danger to public health. Why wouldn’t the CDC study them?
On a similar note, until this time last year, when it was overturned by a Federal court, doctors in Florida were forbidden by State law to even ask if patients had guns in the house.
What business is it of a doctor of they’re patient owns a firearm?
And the CDC was denied funding for a study when it was found that they were biased.
OK, let me stop you right there. The business of doctors is the health and wellbeing of their patients; having guns in the house is correlated with increased likelihood of accidental violent death. Guns are a risk factor for patients, so doctors have every reason to ask about them. That’s just a plain Jane risk factor, by the way, for ordinary people; for people with mental health issues, or people with children, or children themselves, guns are even more of a risk.
As to CDC funding being denied for bias, you’ve got to be fucking kidding. The pro-gun lobby overlaps with the anti-government lobby so well that the Venn diagram looks like a circle. The CDC gets denied funding for it because it meshes well with their agenda. There is bias here, but it’s nothing to do with the CDC.
I’m going to save us all some time here by doing the rest of the conversation.
Your next argument is But muh gun rights!, to which I reply that the individualist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a recent invention out of whole cloth which only persists because it was upheld by right-wing activist judges pushing an agenda, despite all historical material to the contrary regarding its intended purpose and meaning.
Then you incorrectly call me a big gubmint liberal, communist, Nazi, or some kind of incoherent combination of all three, and then block me.
Correlation does not equal causation, look at the UK or Australia’s suicide rate pre and post ban. Just because something is a preferred method doesn’t mean taking it away would affect the rate.
Multiple democrats supported the denial and they aren’t exactly the most small government or gun friendly. And when the study was performed the results were basically swept under the rug after showing a falling firearm crime rate and large amount of defensive use.
I mean being condescending and sarcastic is definately the way to have a civil discussion.
Did you ever learn sentence diagramming in school or are you too young?
Regardless of the 2nd amendment, people have the innate right to self defence. Guns are just the most efficient tool, what else would level the fight between an octogenarian and some young thug?
I’m going to go with nanny stater, since you seem to be expecting some sort jab. Also, blocking people isn’t very conductive of a discussion which, is what I’m trying to do.
Suicide rates are irrelevant to the issue of gun control in the UK and Australia; burn your strawmen on your own time.
Gun control in the UK and Australia worked as intended - it reduced gun violence.
You’re going to be snippy about sentence diagramming when you left out half the amendment?
Let me refresh your memory:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Oops. You want a towel to wipe that egg off your face?
Ah, the hypothetical granny with a gun. Gotta love that strawman appeal to emotion in place of a real argument.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Individuals have to right to keep and bear arms. This is not up for debate.
Inasmuch as they are members of the militia. Again, the individual right to weaponry independent of militia membership is something which was invented out of whole cloth.
It is two separated statements. The right to have a state militia and the right to bear arms are different, but connected. The founding fathers very clearly supported the right of individuals to have guns regardless of whether or not they were part of the militia.
No, they’re not. The second part is a dependent clause, and the history of discussion and debate, and the common law precedent, makes it clear that it’s a right to own firearms as part of the militia.
>the second part is a dependent clause!
No, it’s not - this is verifiably not how the English language works, for one. Two, the second amendment establishes no right to bear arms - it only limits the federal government’s power over that right.
It doesn’t say “because the militia is needed, the citizens are granted the right to bear arms”.
It aknowledges first that the state’s sovereignty is dependent on its citizens ability to defend it, first, and then states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
In every other instance where the term “regulate” is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being “regulated.” However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term “well regulated” to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.It is also important to note that the Framers’ chose to use the indefinite article “a” to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article “the.”
This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished. This comparison of the Framers’ use of the term “well regulated” in the Second Amendment, and the words “regulate” and “regulation” elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term “militia” had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, “the people,” had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, “well regulate” themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb “regulate” the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers’ use of the indefinite article “a” in the phrase
“A well regulated Militia.”This concept of the people’s self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress “for calling forth” the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to “provide for” the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The “well regula[tion]” of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, “well regula[tion]” referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.It is quite clear that the Founders used the phrase “well-regulated” to denote that militia forces should be skilled with arms of contemporary military utility and relevant military tactics, so that they can serve in the defense of Republic against both foreign invaders and the threat of domestic tyrants commanding a national army against the liberty of the citizenry.
“The common law precident” says you’re wrong. The “history of debate” shows you’re wrong. The words of the founding fathers themselves proves you wrong. There was never any sort of mandatory militia service requirement in order for citizens to have the right to bear arms.
You can keep screaming “NUH UH!!!” all you want but the simple fact is that you factually don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
>muh Australia gun laws reduced gun crime
LMAO SURE, that’s why the gun crime rate fell at the exact same rate it was falling before the buyback and ban. Total success! That’s why they had MORE mass shootings after the ban than before! Amazing!
>Having a gun makes it more likely you’ll accidentally die from one
And people with pools are “more likely” to drown, love when these idiots make AHA! claims that don’t really mean anything.
I’m still confused as to why the CDC would be involved in a gun violence study.
The CDC is the center for DISEASE control.
Gun violence is not a disease.
That’d be like a law office doing a study on a surgical procedure.
Grabbers push for the CDC specifically because the CDC initially stated that their goal for doing any gun violence research was to “build a case” for banning guns.
Which is why they got barred from doing TAX FUNDED gun violence research, there’s literally nothing stopping them from doing privately funded research themselves - they’re barred form using tax money to do it because they demonstrated that they are not objectively looking to determine anything, they’re looking to push activism under the guise of objectivity.
I saw a similar thing in a screenshot on Reddit the other day.
As someone who’s firmly pro-life I absolutely support killing your rapist.
0% of rapists who are shot and killed by their intended victims go on to commit other rapes.
That said, I do not support the death penalty for women who get abortions.
That is CRIMINAL to send him back! That judge must be republican
“That judge must be Republican” lmao implying it’s not pretty much exclusively Democrats fighting against the rights of fathers to get custody of their children.
Yeah, those evil rethuglicans that go about fighting for the rights of fathers and parents are clearly to blame for a judge who carries out the preferred feminist judgment of the land- handing the child to an unfit mother because vagina.
What kind of crack is that bitch on?
9Want to know the best part?
The Judge is actually a Democrat and this is her.
Lee Ann Hill. Now retired.
The icing on the cake?
She sentenced the father to 6 months in jail for contempt of court.
Shes a radfems dream.
There will never be justice in this country until you can swing a judge from a tree.
I forget who said that it’s just as accurate now as then.
Did anyone expect the judge would be anything else? I mean ffs, we KNOW that feminists worked to rig the system against men, at the cost of children too.
Check the notes. Theres a lot of assumptions that the judge is an evil rich out of touch Republican christian cishet white male with this being an example “Patriarchy backfiring”
Yuuuup. What it actually is, is feminism working as intended, to advantage the worst of women at the cost of innocents.
Funny how women get hurt, and they’re victims, but when men get hurt, it’s just “Patriarchy backfiring”.
Almost as if many mainstream feminists didn’t have any room for men as direct victims, if at all, and they didn’t realize how much they support traditional gender roles.
And given some of the other SJW crap OP’s posted, I’m not surprised they didn’t do the research.
I live in the UK and in the entire time I was a school I only had one lock down drill when I was 13, in which we all knew we weren't in any real danger and were informed that the worst thing anyone would likely come at us with was a knife, so we would be safe if we sinply locked the door.
The idea that children half that age and younger are taught that they might be shot and murdered or watch their friends bleed out in what is supposed to be a safe space is so horrifying, it barely even registers as a reality.
Your from the UK. American issues are none of your business. Besides, you already blew your chance at freedom and security when you implemented gun control. Now your crime and murder has gone up sharply and y’all are being arrested for expressing the wrong opinions. No thanks. I’ll keep my guns, my freedom and my security.
“...in which we all knew we weren’t in any real danger and were informed that the worst thing anyone would likely come at us with was a knife, so we would be safe if we sinply locked the door.”
Honey. Sweetie. Baby girl. Whoever told you this was telling a colossal lie. Just because someone may have a knife as opposed to a gun, doesn’t mean that they have suddenly lost the ability to break down a door.
I see why OP deleted now XD
