Prepare yourself.

I am a skinny, cis, hetero, white male shitlord with privilege of the highest kind.

[swahtz]

1984 and Political Correctness

So, I have recently finished reading George Orwell’s 1984 and I must say that it is a wonderful work of literature. Dark and depressing, but wonderful nonetheless.  After reading it, I see how political correctness and newspeak can be considered one in the same. Let’s look at the two.

Newspeak is essentially a deconstructed version of Oldspeak (oldspeak being standard English). Newspeak saw many words, or their meanings completely removed from the English language. Take for example the word “free.” While it still existed, it could only be used in statements such as “The dog was free from lice.” It could not be used in its old sense of “politically free” or intellectually free.” Newspeak was designed to limit the range of thought by cutting the amount of words down to a minimum. Here is a quote from the book to get a better feel of newspeak.

“It’s a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well – better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words – in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,” he added as an afterthought.

Now on to political correctness. It is defined in Merriam-Webster as,   “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.” As we know, anything can be offensive (and is quite subjective anyways) these days and that is used to silence others who hold dissenting opinions or used to limit free speech. When used, political correctness is essentially controlling what others say, which can come down to outright censorship. Don’t call Anita Sarkeesian an idiot for that means you’re sexist. Don’t fly an American flag because you might offend Muslims. Being fat is unhealthy?! FAT SHAMING! 

It is clear that both these forms of language are used to eliminate anything that could go against a greater power. In the case of Newspeak: the Party. In the case of political correctness: SJWs, feminists, even government officials. In both of these, if you go against the said greater powers respectively, you are guilty of “thoughtcrime” - an occurrence or instance of controversial or socially unacceptable thoughts. Something that might very possibly land you in jail. It’s as if feminists, SJWs, etc don’t want you to think, especially when they spew their bullshit. The more people they have that don’t think, the better it is for their agenda. The exact same for newspeak and the Party.

You see feminists, SJWs, and others? This is why people will compare you to Nazis or call some of the shit you pull Orwellian. This trend of political correctness is disturbing to me because of how authoritarian it can get and I only hope it won’t get worse.

Hopefully I put everything down in a clear manner. I’m sure there are things that could be added and stuff, but I’m pretty tired and the post seems to be long enough anyways.

[encourage-janes-suicide-deactiv]

The fucking reach is insane. You’re comparing treating other people kindly to the destruction of free thought and ideas?

[swahtz]

Treating people kindly? You’re a fool if you think political correctness is all about treating people kindly. It’s nothing more than a mechanism to control speech. You can’t criticize Islam because that’s Islamaphobic. You can’t say feminism sucks because that’s misogyny. You can’t say Black Lives Matter is a terrible movement because that’s racist. See what I’m getting at? So to answer your question, no. I am not comparing “treating people kindly” to the destruction of free thought and ideas because  political correctness is not that. 

[encourage-janes-suicide-deactiv]

Wah wah wah

[swahtz]

Alright, I'll admit. You completely rekt me with that counter argument. "Wah wah wah." Jeez, I got fucking rekt. XD

[swahtz]

1984 and Political Correctness

So, I have recently finished reading George Orwell’s 1984 and I must say that it is a wonderful work of literature. Dark and depressing, but wonderful nonetheless.  After reading it, I see how political correctness and newspeak can be considered one in the same. Let’s look at the two.

Newspeak is essentially a deconstructed version of Oldspeak (oldspeak being standard English). Newspeak saw many words, or their meanings completely removed from the English language. Take for example the word “free.” While it still existed, it could only be used in statements such as “The dog was free from lice.” It could not be used in its old sense of “politically free” or intellectually free.” Newspeak was designed to limit the range of thought by cutting the amount of words down to a minimum. Here is a quote from the book to get a better feel of newspeak.

“It’s a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well – better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words – in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,” he added as an afterthought.

Now on to political correctness. It is defined in Merriam-Webster as,   “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.” As we know, anything can be offensive (and is quite subjective anyways) these days and that is used to silence others who hold dissenting opinions or used to limit free speech. When used, political correctness is essentially controlling what others say, which can come down to outright censorship. Don’t call Anita Sarkeesian an idiot for that means you’re sexist. Don’t fly an American flag because you might offend Muslims. Being fat is unhealthy?! FAT SHAMING! 

It is clear that both these forms of language are used to eliminate anything that could go against a greater power. In the case of Newspeak: the Party. In the case of political correctness: SJWs, feminists, even government officials. In both of these, if you go against the said greater powers respectively, you are guilty of “thoughtcrime” - an occurrence or instance of controversial or socially unacceptable thoughts. Something that might very possibly land you in jail. It’s as if feminists, SJWs, etc don’t want you to think, especially when they spew their bullshit. The more people they have that don’t think, the better it is for their agenda. The exact same for newspeak and the Party.

You see feminists, SJWs, and others? This is why people will compare you to Nazis or call some of the shit you pull Orwellian. This trend of political correctness is disturbing to me because of how authoritarian it can get and I only hope it won’t get worse.

Hopefully I put everything down in a clear manner. I’m sure there are things that could be added and stuff, but I’m pretty tired and the post seems to be long enough anyways.

[encourage-janes-suicide-deactiv]

The fucking reach is insane. You’re comparing treating other people kindly to the destruction of free thought and ideas?

[swahtz]

Treating people kindly? You’re a fool if you think political correctness is all about treating people kindly. It’s nothing more than a mechanism to control speech. You can’t criticize Islam because that’s Islamaphobic. You can’t say feminism sucks because that’s misogyny. You can’t say Black Lives Matter is a terrible movement because that’s racist. See what I’m getting at? So to answer your question, no. I am not comparing “treating people kindly” to the destruction of free thought and ideas because  political correctness is not that. 

[swahtz]

You are such a fucking child. Wahh people don't like it when I butt my nose into their business and make them upset. When you grow up you're going to cringe at this point in your life so hard you go into cardiac arrest.

What the fuck are you talking about? People don’t like it when I butt my nose into their business and make them upset? Ehhhh ok. Though, I probably will cringe looking back at this, but ah well. We’ll have to wait and see. Still, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

[swahtz]

Feminism in History

We all know what feminism is like today. Extremist, racist, sexist, bigoted, etc, etc. But what was feminism like throughout history? Many people have this idea that feminism used to be a noble cause that was corrupted by the entitled idiots we see today, and it was something fighting for good. However, feminism has been plagued by radicalism for decades, so what we see today is nothing new.

Let’s start with the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, the first women’s rights convention. Frederick Douglass was present during this and gave a speech in which he had some interesting stuff to say. “Men have very little business here as speakers, anyhow; and if they come here at all they should take back benches and wrap themselves in silence. For this is an International Council, not of men, but of women, and woman should have all the say in it. This is her day in court. I do not mean to exalt the intellect of woman above man’s; but I have heard many men speak on this subject, some of them the most eloquent to be found anywhere in the country; and I believe no man, however gifted with thought and speech, can voice the wrongs and present the demands of women with the skill and effect, with the power and authority of woman herself” (source). So here we have a good example of feminist exclusion based on sex, and this presents a problem. If you are trying to achieve equality, wouldn’t you want all the help you can get no matter the race or sex? Don’t construe this the wrong way by making it out as if I’m saying “these women need men’s help because they are weak!” No, don’t be an idiot. I am simply pointing out that men are being excluded because of their sex... in something about gender equality. It should also be noted that on the first day only women were allowed in to speak. So much for the equality between the sexes. Albeit on the second day, it was open to general public (source). 

Next, we have the case of Susan B. Anthony, a revered hero of the suffragist movement. With the passage of the 15th Amendment, which guaranteed black men the right to vote, feminists seemed to go one of three ways. #1) They stood back and said that the prejudices suffered by black men should be taken care of first. #2) Why not both? #3) Women first. Here is an excerpt from a book in regards to Susan B. Anthony: “But we say, if you will not give the whole loaf of suffrage to the entire people, give it to the most intelligent first.” She had to pause because of the applause from those opposed to the 15th Amendment’s omission of women. When it began to subside, she continued, “If intelligence, justice, and morality are to have precedence in the government, let the question of woman be brought up first and that of the Negro last” (source). Obviously, she is taking the stance that women should be first, but going a step further in that women are more intelligent than black man. Racism. Clear and simple.

Fast forwards to the early 1900s and to Britain. Up until the outbreak of WWI, we see some pretty militant actions taking place. There were arson attacks such as the Saunderton Railway Station being set on fire. Bombings such as the one in Westminister Abbey or St Paul’s Cathedral. Attacking museums and communication lines. Attacking people’s homes such as attempting to blow up Llyod George’s house that was being built. These suffragists really got violent in Britain, going even further beyond than what we mostly see today. At least, I don’t know of any incidents in which a modern feminist bombed something. Of course, there has been vandalism *cough* Beach Body Ready *cough*

Fast forward again to the 1960s where feminism is really taking off and we still see radical feminism, notably with Valerie Solanas. She wrote the SCUM Manifesto, a book which called for a communist utopia in which men are absent because they have all been exterminated. Next, we have the Miss America Pageant in 1968 and a pamphlet entitled, “NO MORE MISS AMERICA!” In it, it said, “ In case of arrests, however, we plan to reject all male authority and demand to be busted by policewomen only. (In Atlantic City, women cops are not permitted to make arrests- dig that!)Male chauvinist-reactionaries on this issue had best stay away, nor are male liberals welcome in the demonstrations. But sympathetic men can donate money as well as cars and drivers.Male reporters will be refused interviews. We reject patronizing reportage. Only newswomen will be recognized” (source). Again, such as the case with Seneca Falls, they are excluding people because of their sex when they are trying to achieve gender equality, something made worse because it’s practically saying, “men, you can’t come, but give us money and rides!.” For the last example of 60s feminism, let’s look at Ti-Grace Atkinson. She has many interesting thigs to say, and one of the most important is her defence of the SCUM Manifesto and Solana after she shot Andy Warhol. At first, Atkinson admits to not reading it, but once she got a copy she praised it. Some other interesting quotes from Atkins include, “ The price of clinging to the enemy [a man] is your life. To enter into a relationship with a man who has divested himself as completely and publicly from the male role as much as possible would still be a risk. But to relate to a man who has done any less is suicide.... I, personally, have taken the position that I will not appear with any man publicly, where it could possibly be interpreted that we were friends.” “The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist” “ Love is the victim's response to the rapist” (source). So she’s sexist.

Now we are back at 2016, and feminism is a shit bucket... still. I’m not saying all feminists were like this throughout history as I’m sure there were some rational ones out there. For example, the National Organization for Women seemed to come to reject Ti-Grace Atkinson because of her radical ideology. This was done merely to show that feminism didn’t exactly use to be a grand social movement for good, that there were definitely elements of supremacy and extremism. Elements that are essential in today’s feminism and will probably never go away.  

[swahtz]

Came across these somewhere, but can’t remember where. Either way, this is hilarious. If someone is good with photoshop, PLEASE make the bottom one say “myth” and the top one say “fact.” That would be amazing. 

[notbeinggoverned]

[matt-ruins-your-shit]

“Jesus was a socialist.” - socialists trying to trick gullible Christian hipsters into voting for them.

[harbinger-of-reason]

Jesus also said render unto Caesar’s that wich is Caesar’s.

[elegantbeardedchaoscollection]

You’re negating the context around it.  Mark 12 is a bunch of Jews trying to catch Jesus up in a lie or speaking against the government.  He was speaking about the differences between the kingdoms of heaven and earth.  He never said anything against paying legitimate taxes to fund your government but he often spoke against government overstepping and baseless taxes.

Jesus was a realist.  He recognized the need for certain earthly bodies to exist.

[matt-ruins-your-shit]

Thank you yes. He was refuting the accusation that he was there to overthrow the government. He was saying you don’t need to stop paying your taxes in order to give back to God. They were trying to paint him as a danger to the government saying he was trying to replace Caeser with God and he was like nah. Also tax collector is basically synonymous with piece of human garbage in the rest of the Bible. When you have to specify that Jesus loves you even if you are a tax collector…it’s not exactly an endorsement of unrestrained taxation. The irony here is the statement is one made to let people know he’s not there to be involved in politics and it’s being used to argue his political stance.

[swahtz]

There was a documentary/video from 2009 as I recall it where a women went undercover as a man to prove male privilege was a thing and by then oh boy you just gotta watch it man it's called like "self made man" or some such thing I'll try and find a link for you

Really? I might of heard of this before, but I don't know. This sounds just wonderful though! I'll have to give it a watch.

[swahtz]

So, I got around to watching this debate, and I have to say this is utter bullshit.

My thoughts:

“Does social media reveal men’s hatred for women?” As if all men hate women and social media just reveals this hatred the male sex has for females.

Milo’s snickering in the background the first minute in as the moderator asks the question is hilarious.

I’ve decided I strongly dislike Kate Smurthwaite. 

Also her statement, “My head was photoshopped onto unattractive bodies” is body shaming!

Milo: “Pew Global Data research shows it is men who get more abuse online than women” Kate: *makes ugly, annoying face* “This is nonsense.” Another instance of feminists ignoring credible, empirical evidence that completely contradicts their views. It would help her case if she could back up her claim, however she does not, even when the mic returns to her.

Milo is the best.

What the fuck? Throughout the debate Milo is constantly interrupted and cut off, and the feminist fucks get a free pass.

This Connie character seems like a bitch. I mean, accusing Milo of posting on Twitter he wanted someone assassinated, and then later on in the debate she refuses to quote what the tweet supposedly said as evidence? Kind of makes me thinks she is full of shit.

Kate wants police to be trained to act on twitter harassment, abuse, threats, etc. This is nonsense. First off, what is considered harassment and abuse? Disagreeing with your opinion? *cough* Twitter’s abuse reporting system *cough* Secondly, they are just words on a screen. I’m fairly certain most threats sent out on social media have no credibility to begin with, especially the ones directed towards feminists. Just block them or something. Feminists are good at blocking people.

Milo is love

The girl in the black and white stripped shirt actually seems to be sensible.

Some of the faces Kate makes pisses me off.

Connie exemplifies what feminists, progressives, leftists, etc like doing and that is calling anyone who might voice contrasting opinions from them as a right winger. It’s quite stupid, really. “They don’t want to hear any contrasting conservative view and these people are very loud... and very determined to shut a lot of people up.” Oh, you mean like you and the rest of your psycho ideology? Do feminists know this is what they do and so try to make themselves feel better by blaming others? (i.e. conservatives)

Milo is life.

The audience though...

Also, be sure to check out the source of the video.

[swahtz]

It’s a new year, so a new justification to do stupid shit! 

[swahtz]

Does your URL have any specific meaning?

swahtz.tumblr.com. swahtz has 6 letters in it. tumblr has 6 letters in it. com has 3 letters in it. 6+6+3=663. What’s  663+3? That’s right. 666. 666 is Satan’s number. Satan is sometimes seen carrying a pitchfork. A pitchfork has 3 tines each coming to a point. What else has 3 points? A triangle. The Illuminati’s symbol is a triangle. My URL = Illuminati confirmed.

[cargifs]

[sdrgiobhjkfdlbjreiug-deactivate]

here in my gar͙̟̗̳̲͠a͓̻̬̝ą̭͉̤aA͏̳̞̦ͅA̦̰͚̼͎͎̼A̴a̮͚̝̯͖͙a͡a̟̞̳̯̳̯̰a͙͕̙͚g͕̤̘͔e͓̖ͅ just bought this uh..new lamborghini here

fun to drive up here in the hollywood hills

but you know what i like a lot more thanKNOWLEDGE! this uh..new lamborghini here but you know what i like more than my new lamborghini here

my tedex talk where i talk about this ᶰᵉʷ ᶫᵃᵐᵇᵒʳᵍʰᶦᶰᶦ ʰᵉʳᵉ the ǝɥʇ the ǝɥʇ t̪͖̻͉h͈̳̖̪̥̬h̤̙̮̮̮͍̠h̺͈h̭̜̺h̦͙̹͙͉̘̲hh͇̺̖̣̪̦͙h͓̩͔͈͎̭͡h͈̜h̹̮̰̩̘͓̺͜ḩ̼̞͇̼h̻̬̦̺̫͇ḫ͙̣̟̪ in fact i’m a lot more proud of the 7 new hollywood hills that i had to get installed to hold 200 new lamborghinis (silence while mouth moves) THE it’s like the buffet warren billionare says: the more you earn the more you ＤＲＩＶＥ  ＵＰ  ＨＥＲＥ  ＩＮ  ＴＨＥ  ＨＯＬＬＹＷＯＯＤ  ＨＩＬＬＳ

in fact. the real reason why i keep this lamborghini here..is the real reason i keep thisLAMBORGHNI here is that it’s a reminder, a reminder that drears still possible because it wasn’t that long ago that i was in a little lamborghini, sleepin, on bookshelves in the hollywood hills with only FOURTY Seven billion dollars in my bank account and only FOURTY Seven lamborghinis in my lamborghini account and only FOURTY Seven hills in my hollywood account and only FOURTY Seven tedex talk where i talk about warren buffet in my TEDEXTALK WHERE I TALK ABOUT warren buffet account. but you know what? something happened that changed my life. i bumped into a LAMBORGHINI and another LAMBORGHINI and a few more LAMBORGHINIS. i found 5 lamborghinis. i don’t call it money anymore i call it FUEL UNITS. you must have enough fuel units! you must have enough lamborghinis. you must Ć͓̣̟̥Ọ̠̬͕̠̺ͅN̝͢S͓̟̤͇͔͚̙T̬͉̝̙̘̟R̫̻U̬̱C҉̲̥̬̪̜T̖͇̗͟ͅ ̖͙̥͎A̺͓̮̥̼̜̘͢DD̸̜̦͙͉I̙̺͈̰T͎̫̺͙͖͖͉̕Ì̖O͎̞N͙͕̺͜A͉L̢̤͙ ̖̫Ṕ͚̼̭̫Y̛̭̳̭̖̲̗Ḷ̳͞O̴͍̳̖̟̭̖N̸̼͕̞͔̗̟̯S̼̪͍̲̪̥͘. i’ll see you on my website, it’s a quick video and uh..you’ll see there absolutely nOTHING

̲̜̮̳̩̫

[swahtz]

Your 1984 post was brilliant and fucking perfect!!!

Thank you! Very much appreciated. 

[poorrichardsnews]

Media and left heaped shame on themselves as terror attack unfolded in San Bernardino

Today, as a terror attack unfolded in San Bernardino, California, the progressive left in the media and around the political world imploded with the most shameful display of bias and hate I can ever recall seeing all at once.  At the end of the day, we know that 14 people died and 17 people were injured at the hands of a man named Syed Farook and his accomplices, described by his own father as a “devout Muslim.”  During the hours that the police pursued the suspects, however, details were scant.  Instead of facts, a spew of lies and rancor spilled out of every corner of the mainstream media and the liberal political sphere.

Early on, mainstream media outlets attempted to connect the shooting to the Planned Parenthood shooting that happened last week:

And this is from the Huffington Posts’s Sam Stein…

Fox New’s liberal talk show host Alan Colmes…

When it became clear that the shooting hadn’t targeted the Planned Parenthood location, the left moved on to other predictable narratives.

One #BlackLivesMatter activist blamed “whiteness”:

Another #BlackLivesMatter activist couldn’t wait to beat up on the cops who responded to the deadly situation:

The Daily Kos founder blamed Republicans:

Most of the media jumped on the obvious bandwagon: gun control, despite the fact that California already has the nation’s strictest gun laws.

Fox’s Geraldo Rivera packed his bags and moved to crazy town:

Speaking of being full of it, he was so sure that this wasn’t an act of Islamic Jihad…

I want to take a slight detour and compare how politicians on the left and on the right responded to today’s shootings.  First, let’s take a look at the left, who couldn’t wait to politicize the shooting for their own agendas (namely gun control).

President Obama immediately called for gun control. He, once again, falsely claimed that mass shootings are something unique to the United States (despite the fact that he just visited France, which suffered a far worse attack than our own just weeks ago).

Hillary Clinton jumped on the gun control train within minutes of the news breaking.

Bernie Sanders jumbled a few of Hillary Clinton’s words around, but issued almost the same exact sentiment.

Martin O’Malley flat out blamed the NRA:

Democrat House Leader Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement calling for gun control:

“Today, yet another American community is reeling from the horror of gun violence. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of San Bernardino. As the families of the victims grieve and the survivors focus on healing, the entire American family mourns.

“Gun violence is a crisis of epidemic proportions in our nation. Congress has a moral responsibility to vote on common sense measures to prevent the daily agony of gun violence in communities across America. Enough is enough.”

Now, let’s look at politicians on the right.  Instead of politicizing most of them expressed grief and sorrow for the victims.

The victims weren’t asking for gun control.  They were asking for prayer.  Outside of the building where the attack happened, the survivors joined together in prayer for the victims and their families.

Inside the building, victims texted their families, “Pray for us.”

As the sharp contrast in responses from the left and right came into focus, the liberal media launched a full-on coordinated attack on prayer itself! Over and over again, liberal “journalists” began mocking prayer.

Daily Kos founder and co-founder of Vox launched a vicious attack on prayer:

Think Progress’s contributing editor joined in:

MSNBC couldn’t wait to put him on the air to spew his filth:

Many others followed the seething hatred for prayer, pushing a gun control agenda instead of expressing compassion and pain for the victims.

Vox’s Matthew Yglesias:

More slime from Think Progress:

Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy jumped into the prayer shaming fray:

Others were quick to point out his hypocrisy:

Huffington Post wrote prayer shaming articles…

…but forgot about their own prayers:

But the worst of the worst came from the New York Daily News, which is actually printing this cover tomorrow:

Rarely have I been so sick to my stomach by the events of one day. On top of the horrific terrorist attack, the left eagerly disgorged venom on the things they hate the most: God, the American people, and liberty. Today, they did more than just their usual round of politicizing tragedy; they spat in the face of victims and their families.

Read it on Poor Richard’s News.

[therevenantrising-deactivated20]

The “There Have Been Over 250 Mass Shootings Already in 2015 Alone” Myth.

This myth has been going around for a while now and was started by the “Mass Shooting Tracker” that was created and grew out of the anti-gun troll section of Reddit, /r/GunsAreCool.  (Do not go there unless you want your head to explode with fear mongering stupidity that outshines even the dumbest of Tumblr SJWs.)

There is a problem with the shooting tracker, however.  It defines a mass shooting as one with four or more people hit by bullets in one event.  To the Mass Shooting Tracker, an incident in which four people are wounded, but no one is killed, is still a mass shooting.  This is not an accident.  This was done on purpose to give people the assumption that mass shootings are rising sharply.  They are not.

You see, according to the government’s own criteria, the Federal Bureau of Investigation defines “mass murder” as an event in which four or more people are killed in one area at one time, excluding the perpetrator and a “mass shooting” as a “mass murder” in which the murder tool used was a firearm. The FBI’s metric has long been used by the media and academics, and according to that definition, last week’s Oregon college shooting is the 32nd mass shooting in the U.S. in 2015. That’s a relatively small number.  But since it’s mass shootings that attract the most public interest, it’s not difficult to see why anti-gunners would want to find a way to greatly inflate that number.

So let’s take a moment to audit some of the Mass Shooting Tracker’s recorded shootings.  In just 2013 alone, there are several recorded instances that are clearly not mass shootings, even by Mass Shooting Tracker’s own definition of a “mass shooting”.

2013

Alright, let’s dive right in. First, the easy targets. The following shootings, referenced by their number in the 2013 list, are missing citations so I was unable to verify the shooting tracker’s numbers. Most of them reference dead links, a few (that I will point out) simply don’t have any citations at all.

37, 39, 40, 43, 45, 51 (no citation at all, citation listed points to a different shooting), 80, 105, 112, 182, 221, 226, 230, 232, 256, 268, 273 (no citation at all), 285 (no citation at all), 287 (no citation at all), 304, 332, 335, 353, 355 (no citation at all)

Next up I’m going to go through some of the incidents one by one. I’ll be pointing out the conclusions I reached and linking the sources I used to come to that conclusion.

#10 1/12/2013

This one lists one dead and four wounded in a mass shooting. Follow one of the links, however, and you’ll find that it is actually two separate incidents. The suspect shot two people at 1:10am on Jan 12. Later that day, around 11:55pm in an entirely separate incident, the suspect shot three people, killing one. Neither incident can be considered a mass shooting using GrC’s definition, and saying the entire day is considered one mass shooting is seriously stretching even their definition.

#28 2/11/2013

Two of the cited links are dead, but from the remaining one this simply isn’t a mass shooting. A boy was killed and his mother and another woman were hit by gunfire. I tried to find additional articles with more information but what I found confirmed what was in the first article. I don’t have any idea why the list states 1 killed and 4 wounded.

#31 2/13/2013

The cited source is dead but a Google search of the suspect’s name brings up this article. The suspect shot and killed two people, shot and injured the man trying to subdue him, and was then beaten into submission. Three people shot, not a mass shooting.

#66 4/6/2013

Follow the first citation and you’ll find that a total of four people were shot by the same man in two separate incidents that occurred a week apart. Again, seriously stretching GrC’s definition of a mass shooting.

#73 4/13/2013

Clearly whoever added this one just looked at the headline and didn’t bother to read the article. Two people shot, two other people injured while jumping through a window. Not a mass shooting.

#89 4/28/2013

Another one with dead links for citations, but a search of the suspect brings up this article. He killed four people in separate incidents over a two week period. Horrifying and incredibly sad, but not a mass shooting.

#95 5/5/2013

Another case of reading the title and not the article. No mass shooting occurred, the incidents were separate and unrelated.

#98 5/6/2013

Surprise, another pellet gun ‘shooting.’

#108 5/13/2013

This one is a mass shooting by GrC’s definition, but the number injured is wrong. The list states 5 injured, the article states 4.

#117 5/21/2013

Three people shot, not a mass shooting.

#125 5/28/2013

Five bodies were found buried in the desert. According to the medical examiner some of them had broken bones that were likely the result of firearms and blunt-force injury. No conclusive evidence of a mass shooting here.

#154 6/22/2013

Another one with incorrect numbers listed. It should be one killed and three wounded.

#164 6/27/2013

One killed and two wounded. Not a mass shooting.

#170 7/2/2013

One killed two wounded, not a mass shooting.

#178 7/6/2013

Three people shot, one person stabbed. Not a mass shooting. Yet another case of reading the title and not the article.

#185 7/10/2013

I have no idea where they got the 12 injured number from. Following the cited links I only see two murders. If I am missing something on this one let me know, otherwise it does not look like a mass shooting.

#194 7/14/2013

Three shot one stabbed, not a mass shooting.

#208 7/28/2013

Two separate incidents that weren’t confirmed to be related, not a mass shooting.

#222 8/11/2013

The suspect killed four people over eleven days. Another one that stretches the definition of mass shooting.

#246 8/28/2013

This one appears to be several separate incidents spread over a week that have all been added together. Stretching, definition, etc.

#258 9/15/2013

Read the article and not just the title ya dingus. Unrelated incidents.

#264 9/17/2013

The three victims - two males, ages 14 and 15, and a 17-year-old girl - were taken to Sparrow Hospital and treated for non-life threatening injuries, Lansing police said during a press conference. A fourth victim came to the hospital with a gunshot wound but it is unclear whether he is connected to the shooting.

#266 9/17/2013

Three people shot, one woman killed after she was ejected from her car. Not a mass shooting.

#279 9/26/2013

Three people shot, one person suffered a cut wound. Not a mass shooting.

#290 10/12/2013

Three people shot, one person struck by a car while fleeing. Not a mass shooting.

#296 10/20/2013

Three people were shot, the shooter was subdued. Not a mass shooting.

#310 10/31/2013

Three people shot, another man crashed his motorcycle trying to leave. Not a mass shooting.

#311 11/2/2013

“It is unknown at this time, since this case is all still under investigation, whether that shooting is related to the shootings on Shelby Avenue or whether the victim who went to Hardin Memorial came from a different shooting altogether,” Shumate said. Insufficient evidence to determine if it was a mass shooting.

#358 12/29/2013

Three people shot one person was run over. Not a mass shooting.

2014

When we look at 2014, we see the same trend of false mass shooting reports.

There were numerous incidents (indicated below by their number in the list) with dead links as citations and one without a citation at all. With how questionable their data is any incidents that cannot be independently verified should be treated with skepticism.

57, 58, 69, 70 (no citation at all, cited link points to a different shooting), 71, 74, 75, 108, 109, 138, 161, 162, 163, 189, 209, 228, 234, 255, 327, 332

I also found more incidents on this list that either had incorrect numbers, weren’t mass shootings at all, or played pretty fast and loose with GrC’s definition of a mass shooting.

#10 1/16/2014

Questionable as a mass shooting, as there were two separate incidents one day apart.

#19 1/28/2014

The number of injured listed (5) is incorrect. One person injured suffered a gunshot wound to the foot, the other four were not shot but injured in the chaos.

#31 2/15/2014

Felton said as of Sunday morning, police are unsure if all five victims are related to the same shooting. Not confirmed as a mass shooting.

#133 6/24/2014

The injury total is incorrect, it should be 4 instead of 7.

#150 7/6/2014

Culpepper said two people are dead and two people are critically injured. It’s not clear if the victims suffered their injuries through the car crash or from the gunfire. Cannot be confirmed as a mass shooting.

#166 7/20/2014

The injuries in this one were from an explosion, not gunfire. No officers were shot. Not a mass shooting.

#223 8/27/2014

The shootings in this one were spread out over a five day period, stretching the definition of a mass shooting.

#231 9/1/2014

A bullet also flew through the window of an unmarked police van in the area, shattering glass onto a detective who was inside at the time, the NYPD said. The detective was taken to the hospital with minor injuries, police said. Three people shot, not a mass shooting.

#264 10/8/2014

Authorities didn’t say how the four were killed. Autopsies being conducted Thursday will determine the cause of death, Soares said. Not confirmed as a mass shooting.

#277 10/22/2014

Three people shot, not a mass shooting.

2015

Not surprising at all, 2015 has even more false reports.

I didn’t find as many issues in 2015 as I did in the previous two years, but it also wasn’t error free. The following shootings, referenced by their number in the list, could not be verfied. Most of the citations pointed to dead links and one did not have a citation at all.

49, 60, 77, 90, 124 (no citation at all, link points to a different shooting), 145, 189, 218, 225, 237

The following incidents either weren’t mass shootings or could not be confirmed to be mass shootings due to lack of information.

#45 3/2/2015

Three men were shot, the rest suffered injuries unrelated to the shooting. Not a mass shooting.

#71 3/29/2015

Three people shot, one person injured but with no bullet wounds. Not a mass shooting.

#111 5/19/2015

This is an interesting one, but definitely not a mass shooting. One person confirmed shot. One cop shot with a stun gun (do stun guns count in mass shootings?). One cop had cuts on his face. One woman with minor injuries (no mention of gunshot wounds).

#125 5/30/2015

Three shot, one ‘taken to the hospital and treated for injuries he sustained in the fight.’ Not a mass shooting.

#195 7/17/2015

This one is a bit of a mess and I’m including it because it isn’t clear at all how many people were actually shot. The article clearly states that two people were shot and another person was beaten and stabbed, but it doesn’t state the nature of the other injuries or the death. This one cannot be confirmed as a mass shooting.

#287 9/26/2015

This one does not appear to be a mass shooting. The suspect shot two men, shot at a women but did not hit her, bludgeoned another man, shot another man who then crashed into a wall, then tried to get into another woman’s car before he was apprehended. All told three people were shot.

And finally some stats. Of the 996 total incidents listed on the mass shooting tracker:

54 could not be verified due to the lack of citations

34 were either not mass shootings or could not be confirmed as mass shootings due to the lack of information

7 stretched the definition of a mass shooting, with one person committing separate shootings anywhere from one day to two weeks apart

4 were mass shootings according to the shooting tracker’s definition but the listed number of victims was incorrect

1 was a ‘mass shooting’ committed with a pellet gun

At this point, it’s no wonder that even Politifact found Mass Shooting Tracker’s findings to be “Half True” at best.

When we hold MST’s reports to the long-time upheld accepted FBI definition of a “mass shooting”, a staggering number, a good majority, of even more events reported can be eliminated even further.

But then again, what else can we really expect from a highly vocal anti-gunner who openly admits that his website is pure propaganda?

So next time someone tries to spread fear mongering and tells you that there have been over 250 mass shootings in 2015 alone, you can tell them to shut the fuck up.

[just--space]

If Earth had Saturn’s Rings

From an excellent post by Jason Davis

From Washington, D.C., the rings would only fill a portion of the sky, but appear striking nonetheless. Here, we see them at sunrise.

From Guatemala, only 14 degrees above the equator, the rings would begin to stretch across the horizon. Their reflected light would make the moon much brighter.

From Earth’s equator, Saturn’s rings would be viewed edge-on, appearing as a thin, bright line bisecting the sky.

At the March and September equinoxes, the Sun would be positioned directly over the rings, casting a dramatic shadow at the equator.

At midnight at the Tropic of Capricorn, which sits at 23 degrees south latitude, the Earth casts a shadow over the middle of the rings, while the outer portions remain lit.

via x

[tipsytactician]

[swahtz]

Wanna see a few jokes?

Welcome to the land of college and university, friends, where everyone is a hypersensitive, fucking pussy shit brain totalitarian who can’t handle some mean words and a swastika made of shit, and choose to go after the University's president over such trivial matters even though he can’t really do much about it, and then complain about nonexistent, systemic oppression. 

Holy shit. 

You know, I would like to propose an experiment. Once we have the technology to colonize Mars, we send some SJW’s and feminist there first and see what happens when they have an entire planet to themselves.Whoops, I forgot. That would be racist against the fucking rocks of Mars because “colonization.”