we're not kids anymore.
oozey mess
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
RMH
Monterey Bay Aquarium
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
NASA
Keni
Origami Around
d e v o n
todays bird
AnasAbdin
hello vonnie
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
KIROKAZE
occasionally subtle
ojovivo
trying on a metaphor
Stranger Things
styofa doing anything
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from South Africa
seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@terransherwood
Utilitarianism kills
Here’s the link for the woman who chose death over loneliness.
Here’s the link about Canadian organ donation and euthanasia
Here’s the link about Canada allowing euthanasia for mental health (also includes stories about people being euthanized for things like hearing loss)
Dear Anti-Feminists/Meninists,
Imagine a world where men were considered the weaker sex.
Imagine a world where men were paid lesser than women for the SAME job even if they put in the SAME effort or sometimes more.
Imagine a world where men had to travel in packs to the washroom in fear of getting kidnapped or raped.
Imagine a world where men were constantly judged for their “jeans being too tight” or their “shirt being too thin”
Imagine a world where men are (in some countries) treated as nothing but breeding mules and given away to someone leagues older than them.
Imagine a world where young boys, no more than 14, were married to women over 50.
Imagine a world where men were called “sluts” or “whores” for having sex whereas women were called “heroes” and “awesome”.
Imagine a world where you would get unwanted catcalls from women when you went out, even for just a walk to the supermarket.
Imagine a world where if you were raped, everyone would say you deserved it just because of the clothes you were wearing.
Just imagine. And if you still feel comfortable with all of the above happening, then and only then can you start spouting your ignorance everywhere.
Dear feminists,
imagine a world where women: are 97% of combat fatalities, pay 97% of alimony, make 94% of work suicides, make up 93% of work fatalities, make up 81% of all war deaths, lose custody in 84% of divorces, account for 80% of all suicides, are 77% of homicide victims, 89% of women will be the victim of at least one violent crime, are over twice as likely to be victimised by strangers than men, are 165% more likely to be convicted than men, get 63% longer sentences than men for the same crime, and are 60-80% of the homeless.
Imagine a world where there are almost no women’s shelters.
Imagine a world where women are forced to sign up for the draft and are the ones who are expected to die for their country, whether they want it or not.
Imagine a world where female infant circumcision/genital mutilation is legal and performed widely and even completely socially accepted, but male genital mutilation is not.
Imagine a world where women are stereotyped as being violent abusers, rapists, child molesters, harassers, etc.
Imagine a world where women do all the worst, most dangerous jobs, work the most hours and sacrifice the most for their career, all while men complain because they’re not getting paid the same as those hard-working women.
Imagine a world where female suffering is ignored because they’re seen as the hyper-privileged gender with no issues whatsoever.
Imagine a world where men can legally force women into parenthood and make them pay for the child, even though they never wanted it in the first place.
Imagine a world where women, who were forced into parenthood, are seen as “deadbeats”, if they remove themselves from the child’s life.
Imagine a world where women are more likely to be victimized, but everyone keeps acting like they have nothing to worry about, because men are seen as the gender that must be protected at all costs.
Imagine a world where people like you dismiss every single problem women have, because you feel like you’re the real victim, even though it’s not supported by the evidence.
But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law.
You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt.
At least I have a good argument.
And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along.
A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker.
We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit.
A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave.
Your counterargument is…insults.
You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense.
If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children).
And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard.
You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.
If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug.
Another person who just insults and doesnt read.
The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments.
If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change.
You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal.
The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it.
“I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support.
“maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now?
Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law.
There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following.
If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you.
Giving sound arguments > ad hom attacks
There is a serious argument to be made that with these laws now changing, should we rethink the sentences of people who are in jail because of their involvement in marijuana pre-law changing, but insulting and belittling people that disagree is just a great way to be ignored.
Cheshireinthemiddle makes a valid point. You still knowingly broke a law. Just because people see a law as unjust isn't an excuse to break it. By all means, rally, protest, call law makers, educate the public, but simply saying "Nah, we're going to do it anyway" is asking for the consequences. No one in this thread has made a decent argument yet against them.
Here, I'll help. Considering that prisons tend to be a strain on taxpayer resources, reevaluating whether or not to keep drug dealers who only dealt with marijuana may help save money as well as giving a large group of people a new chance to make something better of their life. Considering there are a lot of problems within the US prison system, the resources that would have gone towards those prisoners could now be used to address other issues and potentially help fix even more problems.
It's not that hard to make a rational argument without insults. You all should try it sometime.
So…possible leaks. Similar to the ones for Sun/Moon which ended up being correct.
Metal bunny is amazing
Sleek plesiosaur lizard is awesome too.
But grookey is supposed to have connection to music and I just dont see it in baseball gorilla.
I think the term is Cricket Gorilla.
Would the end of the bat not have to be flat?
Plus it is swinging the bat in a very familiar baseball form.
where did you get that Grookey is supposed to have a connection to music?
His name in Japanese is sarunori. Saru means monkey and nori means rhythm. In English they mixed monkey and groove
We also already have a sports monkey
Scorbunny is also supposedly related to Futball (soccer) in some way so i don’t see these designs being likely. Theyre really cool tho
Ugh and the last one being a western style wrestler. Then emboar being a sumo wrestler. They dont need to continue the trend.
And if there’s a voltorb-like ⚽️ pokemon, i will lose it.
You’re all WEAK
Enjoy your three futbols fused together as a single pokemon.
I will!
I don't know, I think my friend's theory of Grookey being perfect already so the next forms are just more Grookeys has some good points to it. (image by Jelloween on Twitter)
I look forward to a time, when men are extinct and future generations of TRUE humans will never know that such a horrible animal ever existed.
I never liked the term “feminazi”, but that is exactly what came to mind when reading this.
welp
and if any of you white people respond with “wait but I didn’t do that. that was in the past”
i need you to check your privilege
and then drink bleach if you think your hands aren’t dirty
They’re not.
Guilt doesn’t transfer from generation to generation. I am not magically accountable for something my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather MIGHT have done. Also;
>social justice blogger >telling people to kill themselves
I love that there’s a blog called “this is white culture” that is solely devoted to bad things white people did, not their cultures at all. So I guess I can make a blog called “this is black culture” and post gang and crime records and that’s 100% okay. Or “this is Muslim culture” and make it all about terrorism.
But wait, you cry. Not all black people are criminals and not all Muslims are terrorists. That’s unfair! And racist!
WELL GOLLY GEE DO YOU THINK SO? Because saying that all white people are responsible for the Atlantic slave trade sounds pretty racist to me, given that, you know, that was between the African slaveholders and the British and Americans and had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my ancestors, who were incredibly poor farmers and serfs from Ireland and Lithuania who had to flee to America at around the turn of the century (by which time slavery had already been abolished in the US) because they were being treated like slaves. Even if they had been living in America at the time when slavery was legal they wouldn’t have been able to afford a slave; in fact they probably would have been working with them in the fields and treated about the same, since the first slaves in America were actually white serfs. But please, tell me more about how dirty my hands are because of circumstances surrounding my birth that I could not control and continue to treat me differently based on the color of my skin without actually knowing anything about my heritage, I’m sure that isn’t racist at all!
^ This!
Prior to 1655 there were no legal slaves in the colonies, only indentured servants. All masters were required to free their servants after their time was up. Seven years was the limit that an indentured servant could be held. Upon their release they were granted 50 acres of land. This included any Negro purchased from slave traders. Negros were also granted 50 acres upon their release.
Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to the US to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622 he was almost killed when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. 52 out of 57 people on the farm perished in the attack. He married a female black servant while working on the farm.
When Anthony was released he was legally recognized as a “free Negro” and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he held 250 acres and five black indentured servants. In 1654, it was time for Anthony to release John Casor, a black indentured servant. Instead Anthony told Casor he was extending his time. Casor left and became employed by the free white man Robert Parker.
Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slave of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.
Whites still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite slave until 1670. In that year, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting free whites, blacks, and Indians the right to own blacks as slaves.
By 1699, the number of free blacks prompted fears of a “Negro insurrection.” Virginia Colonial ordered the repatriation of freed blacks back to Africa. Many blacks sold themselves to white masters so they would not have to go to Africa. This was the first effort to gently repatriate free blacks back to Africa. The modern nations of Sierra Leone and Liberia both originated as colonies of repatriated former black slaves.
However, black slave owners continued to thrive in the United States.
By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone. _____________________________________________________
In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshiped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.
The civil rights movement of the 1960’s have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas’ The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn’s The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading. What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own subjects. (Of course, this neither condones the white traders who bought the slaves nor deny that many white traders still committed atrocities to maximize their business). This explains why slavery became “black”. Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes). In the middle ages, all European countries outlawed slavery (of course, Western powers retained countless “civilized” ways to enslave their citizens, but that’s another story), whereas the African kingdoms happily continued in their trade. Therefore, only colored people could be slaves, and that is how the stereotype for African-American slavery was born. It was not based on an ancestral hatred of blacks by whites, but simply on the fact that blacks were the only ones selling slaves, and they were selling people of their own race. (To be precise, Christians were also selling Muslim slaves captured in war, and Muslims were selling Christian slaves captured in war, but neither the Christians of Europe nor the Muslims of Africa and the Middle East were selling their own people). Then the Muslim the trade of African slaves declined rapidly when Arab domination was reduced by the emerging European powers. (Note: Arabs continued to capture and sell slaves, but mostly in the Mediterranean. In fact, Robert Davis estimates that 1.25 million European Christians were enslaved by the “barbary states” of northern Africa. As late as 1801 the USA bombed Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli precisely to stop that Arab slave trade of Christians. The rate of mortality of those Christian slaves in the Islamic world was roughly the same as the mortality rate in the Atlantic slave trade of the same period.) Christians took over in black Africa, though. The first ones were the Portuguese, who, applying an idea that originally developed in Italian seatrading cities, and often using Italian venture capital, started exploiting sub-Saharan slaves in the 1440s to support the economy of the sugar plantations (mainly for their own African colonies of Sao Tome and Madeira). The Dutch were the first, apparently, to import black slaves into North America, but black slaves had already been employed all over the world, including South and Central America. We tend to focus on what happened in North America because the United States would eventually fight a war over slavery (and it’s in the U.S. that large sectors of the population would start condemning slavery, contrary to the indifference that Muslims and most Europeans showed for it). Even after Europeans began transporting black slaves to America, most trade was just that: “trade”. In most instances, the Europeans did not need to use any force to get those slaves. The slaves were “sold” more or less legally by their (black) owners. Scholars estimate that about 12,000,000 Africans were sold by Africans to Europeans (most of them before 1776, when the USA wasn’t yet born) and 17,000,000 were sold to Arabs. The legends of European mercenaries capturing free people in the jungle are mostly just that: legends. A few mercenaries certainly stormed peaceful tribes and committed terrible crimes, but that was not the rule. There was no need to risk their lives, so most of them didn’t: they simply purchased people. As an African-American scholar (Nathan Huggins) has written, the “identity” of black Africans is largely a white invention: sub-Saharan Africans never felt like they were one people, they felt (and still feel) that they belonged to different tribes. The distinctions of tribe were far stronger than the distinctions of race. Everything else is true: millions of slaves died on ships and of diseases, millions of blacks worked for free to allow the Western economies to prosper, and the economic interests in slavery became so strong that the southern states of the United States opposed repealing it. But those millions of slaves were just one of the many instances of mass exploitation: the industrial revolution was exported to the USA by enterpreuners exploiting millions of poor immigrants from Europe. The fate of those immigrants was not much better than the fate of the slaves in the South. As a matter of fact, many slaves enjoyed far better living conditions in the southern plantations than European immigrants in the industrial cities (which were sometimes comparable to concentration camps). It is not a coincidence that slavery was abolished at a time when millions of European and Chinese immigrants provided the same kind of cheap labor. It is also fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who owned slaves, or about 1.4% of the white population (there were 27 million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves. Moral opposition to slavery was widespread even before Lincoln, and throughout Europe. On the other hand, opposition to slavery was never particularly strong in Africa itself, where slavery is slowly being eradicated only in our time. One can suspect that slavery would have remained common in most African kingdoms until this day: what crushed slavery in Africa was that all those African kingdoms became colonies of western European countries that (for one reason or another) eventually decided to outlaw slavery. When, in the 1960s, those African colonies regained their independence, numerous cases of slavery resurfaced. And countless African dictators behaved in a way that makes a slave owner look like a saint. Given the evidence that this kind of slavery was practiced by some Africans before it was practiced by some Americans, that it was abolished by all whites and not by some Africans, and that some Africans resumed it the moment they could, why would one keep blaming the USA but never blame, say, Ghana or the Congo? The more we study it, the less blame we have to put on the USA for the slave trade with black Africa: it was pioneered by the Arabs, its economic mechanism was invented by the Italians and the Portuguese, it was mostly run by western Europeans, and it was conducted with the full cooperation of many African kings. The USA fostered free criticism of the phenomenon: no such criticism was allowed in the Muslim and Christian nations that started trading goods for slaves, and no such criticism was allowed in the African nations that started selling their own people (and, even today, no such criticism is allowed within the Arab world). Today it is politically correct to blame some European empires and the USA for slavery (forgetting that it was practiced by everybody since prehistoric times). But I rarely read the other side of the story: that the nations who were the first to develop a repulsion for slavery and eventually abolish slavery were precisely those countries (especially Britain and the USA). In 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded in England: it was the first society anywhere in the world opposed to slavery. In 1792 English prime minister William Pitt called publicly for the end of the slave trade: it was the first time in history (anywhere in the world) that the ruler of a country had called for the abolition of slavery. No African king and emperor had ever done so. As Dinesh D’Souza wrote, “What is uniquely Western is not slavery but the movement to abolish slavery”.
To be completely fair, what was also unique about the western slave trade is the scale (the millions shipped to another continent in a relatively short period of time), and, of course, that it eventually became a racist affair, discriminating blacks, whereas previous slave trades had not discriminated based on the color of the skin. What is unique about the USA, in particular, is the unfair treatment that blacks received AFTER emancipation, which is, after all, the real source of the whole controversy, because, otherwise, just about everybody on this planet could claim to be the descendant of an ancient slave). That does not mean that western slave traders were justified in what they did, but placing all the blame on them is a way to absolve all the others. Also, it is worth noting that the death rate among the white crews of the slave ships (20-25%) was higher than the rate among black slaves (15%) because slaves were more valuable than sailors but nobody has written books and filmed epics about those sailors (often unwillingly enrolled or even kidnapped in ports around Europe when they were drunk). To this day, too many Africans, Arabs and Europeans believe that the African slave trade was an USA aberration, not their own invention.
By the time the slave trade was abolished in the West, there were many more slaves in Africa (black slaves of black owners) than in the Americas. Yeah so check your black privilege and learn the facts.
That was beautiful.
Wow. I already knew about African slave owners being the main source of slaves but I did not know all of that.
Apparently African slave owners treated their slaves better though? By how much I do not know. And slavery is slavery.
Originally I was going to say, fuck you I did not have anything to do with slavery and neither did (my) ancestors who would have been poor and miserable in industrial Britain.
But this pretty much says more that I ever can. I WOULD like to see the sources of all this though (just a neat compilation, if you can.)
my great great grandmother and her family came over from Greece basically as indentured servants. And, just to be sure this is included, it was not uncommon for south American cultures, like the aztecs and incas, to start wars specifically for the purpose of capturing people for the use of slaves an even for their human sacrifices
I don’t know how much of GTP’s post is accurate, but I know blaming white people exclusively for slavery is just…dumb and wrong.
I know for a fact that at least a third of this is accurate, like indentured servants getting land after their limited servitude, Africans owning slaves then and even today, and black people having slaves and indentures servants of many races. These are some things that people dont like to admit.
Will need sources on the rest though. I have only read biographies that mentioned things like high sailor mortality rates and opposition to slavery pre lincoln. Interesting post.
it’s official velma dinkley started the mommy kink back in 2004
*Velma voice* “Kinkies!”
Have you seen that space movie?
You know, the one where Chris plays the reckless, cocky leader who grew up without a dad
And Zoe Saldana is the smart, sassy badass
There’s that one alien whose family was murdered by the villain–he takes things too literally, and you don’t want to piss him off!
Then there’s the fast talking smartass and his quiet alien buddy
Don’t forget about the villain who has black markings on his face
He has this really powerful material that can bring great destruction (but it’s okay, the good guys get control of it in the end)
Oh, and there’s also a sequel where the good guys are saved from an overwhelming force by a mysterious, powerful man who is older than he looks and probably can’t be trusted… or can he? No, wait, no no no, definitely not!!!
His only weakness is forced sleep
Also the mentor dies :’(
Male supremacy is a hateful ideology advocating for the subjugation of women.
By Stapler
[6 slides]
[1a] Speaking of Cassie Jaye, she has sent an email to the Southern Poverty Law Center after they announced that they are officially adding the men’s rights website A Voice for Men to their list of hateful ideologies. When Jaye made the film, The Red Pill, SPLC’s Senior Fellow (Mark Potok) told her that the men’s rights movement, including website A Voice For Men, were not listed as hate groups because they didn’t fit their definition of group.
Apparently, this has changed. Cassie Jaye points out that “If this means any website that writes subjectively reprehensible commentary can be deemed a ‘hate group’, then why is Jezebel overlooked for their articles endorsing violence against men?” Sources:
https://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have
[1b] She may have a point.
[2] Going to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website, “Male Supremacy” has been added to their “Hate Group” map.
In the SPLC’s resource section the website gets broken into the categories: Extremist Groups, Individual Profiles and Ideologies. The Ideologies page is where you’ll find a lengthy write up on “Male Supremacy” but also the “alt-right”, “anti-immigration”, “anti-Muslim” and the “Sovereign Citizens Movement”.
[3] They define “Male Supremacy” as a hateful ideology advocating for the subjugation of women and have connected extremist profiles of Mike Cernovich and Roosh V, however, they quote a lot of Paul Elam (maybe they haven’t written up his profile just yet). They also attempt to conflate racism with the apparent misogynist beliefs of this hateful ideology.
[4 ]From the article:
“Male supremacy was fundamental to the foundation of the racist “alt-right,” and in many ways served as its “gateway drug.” It is characterized by angry rants blaming feminism for the decline of Western civilization, deriding feminists as “Social Justice Warriors” and spreading fear over interracial relationships drew many to the “alt-right.” Personalities like “alt-right” facilitator Milo Yiannopoulos, conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, pick-up artist Roosh V. (a.k.a. Daryush Valizadeh) and Return of Kings and altright.com writer Matt Forney also constantly straddle the line between more formal “alt-right” circles and the male supremacist world.”
To be sure, this also includes “violently bigoted Paul Elam” and his “hate group” A Voice for Men.
[4b] Groups considered part of this hateful ideology include MRAs, red-pillers, PUAs, INCELs and MGTOW.
[5] Diving into the well-researched history of the men’s rights movement (sourcing Michael Kimmel and David Futrelle) :
[5a] “Men’s rights activists decided to blame women (where others blamed minorities or immigrants) for taking away jobs, for the decline of the family, or for alimony and child custody issues after a divorce, rather than focusing on larger political and structural issues. The father’s rights movement served as a common entry-point into the men’s rights movement and its focus on domestic abuse: large portions of the movement were based on resentment of women and sustained by junk psychiatry, debunked statistics as well as anecdotal evidence”
[5b] They call Warren Farrell the father of the men’s rights movement with his book, “The Myth of Male Power” the MRA bible
[5c] And claim the legitimate grievances are just to draw people in to the MRM and the orient them towards hating women.
There is more to this section – along with a section on gamergate and the alt-right if you’re interested in reading it.
Sources:
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/02/21/year-hate-trump-buoyed-white-supremacists-2017-sparking-backlash-among-black-nationalist
https://www.facebook.com/CassieJayeOfficial/posts/467166223685978
So the former president of National Organization of Women, Warren Farrell decided to be a caddy shade throwing bitch to a bunch of misandrist for promoting violence against men and somehow MRAs are the hate group and not these people.
No it’s not a hate movement at all, even though their rallies are organized by, feature and celebrate known convicted murderers, rapists, terrorist, and con artist.
Feminists threaten to kill woman for saying men need abuse shelters.
Feminists prevent a meeting about male suicide.
Feminists stage mock murders to scare men.
Feminist attacks male cartoonist and is hailed a hero of feminism.
Feminists shut down forum for battered husbands.
Propaganda campaign against male fathers wanting custody.
Feminists wish to slander accused names before convicted.
Create rape laws that exclude female rapists.
Make it impossible to charge women with rape.
Feminists against equal custody.
Female felons should serve home sentences.
Told judges to be lenient on women.
Feminists cover up female domestic violence.
Feminists don’t want the gov to help unemployed men.
Feminists launch campaigns to help girls only while boys are doing worse in every facet of education.
Males who were raped as a child still have to pay child support.
Women should have the right to put a child up for adoption before the father gets custody.
Feminists against beyond reasonable doubt when it’s male rapists.
5 rights feminism ignores for men.
Feminists blame males for their abuse.
The primary aggressor clause where only men get charged with abuse.
Shame men into going to war.
Feminists dismiss female child rapists.
Feminists say men can’t talk about domestic abuse.
Feminists mock a man who has his dick cut off.
Strawmanning MRA members.
feminists attack church.
Feminists transphobia
Feminists slander the MRM
Again,
And again,
Call them terrorists.
Feminists say Men can’t be raped.
Feminists defend female raping minor.
Feminist defends why fucking an 8 year old boy isn’t rape.
Feminists primary aggressor clause discriminates against males.
Feminists cover up female domestic abuse stats.
Woman smashing bottle in mans face in public. Nobody gives a fuck.
Jezebel mocks men who are abused.
Feminists make sure the gov doesn’t spend money on male shelters or male research.
Female on male abuse in public is at best ignored, and at worst celebrated.
Public stops a man from abusing a woman in public, same crowd laughs when the roles are reversed.
No funding for male shelter.
Founder of Canadas only male shelter for abuse forced to close due to lack of funding before committing suicide.
Feminists threaten to kill woman for saying men need abuse shelters.
Feminists prevent a meeting about male suicide.
Feminists stage mock murders to scare men.
Feminist attacks male cartoonist and is hailed a hero of feminism.
Feminists skewed the Definition of Domestic Abuse, resulting in only male abusers being arrested and female abusers not.
Feminists’s DV training hurts Police training
Feminist Mary Koss denies male rape victims.
Feminists violently protesting against Warren Farrell at U of Toronto
A mob of feminists at a recent protest attacking and sexually molesting a group of Rosary-praying Catholic men who were peacefully protecting the cathedral in the city of San Juan from threats of vandalism.
Feminists disrupt a forum for battered men
Feminists fought a law for equal custody to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit.
Multiple times.
Feminists started a campaign against Father’s rights groups
Feminists fought against laws granting men anonymity until charged with the crime of rape—not convicted, just charged.
Feminists fought against a law to end to the justice system favoring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men.
Feminist fought against men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of “being male” under primary aggressor policies.
Feminists in India and Israel fought against female
rapists being arrested, charged and convicted of rape.
Feminists fought against a economic stimulus for male-dominated job such as construction, etc
Feminist fought a law against Paternity Fraud.
Feminist Harriet Harman has publicly requested employers to hire women in preference to White men if both job candidates are equally
Equality Minister,feminist Patricia Hewitt, was found guilty of breaching the Sex Discrimination Act by “overlooking a strong male candidate for a job in favour of a weaker female applicant”
Elected in 2009, the lesbian feminist prime minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has vowed to “end of the Age of Testosterone
Feminists want to peeing while standing illegal
Erin Pizzey had to flee the UK because she and her family received death threats and her dog murdered all because feminists didn’t like that she discovered women were equally as violent as men.
Also Suzanne Steinmetz and her children received death threats and bomb threats she discovered that the rate at which men were victimized by domestic violence was similar to the rate for women.
Richard Gelles and Murray Straus have all received death threats from feminists, simply for publishing their findings (that female-to-male family violence
was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence).
Feminists say Men can’t be raped.
Feminists defend female raping minor.
Feminist defends why fucking an 8 year old boy isn’t rape.
Most feminists backed studies are bullshit.
Beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t apply to rape.
Feminist changes mind on rape culture when her son is falsely accused.
Feminists primary aggressor clause discriminates against males.
Feminists cover up female domestic abuse stats.
Jezebel mocks men who are abused.
Feminists make sure the gov doesn’t spend money on male shelters or male research.
Feminists prevent a meeting about male suicide.
Feminists stage mock murders to scare men.
Feminist attacks male cartoonist and is hailed a hero of feminism.
Feminists shut down forum for battered husbands.
Propaganda campaign against male fathers wanting custody.
Feminists wish to slander accused names before convicted.
Try to shut down female prisons.
Create rape laws that exclude female rapists.
Make it impossible to charge women with rape.
Feminists against equal custody.
Female felons should serve home sentences.
Told judges to be lenient on women.
Feminists cover up female domestic violence.
Feminists don’t want the gov to help unemployed men.
Feminists launch campaigns to help girls only while boys are doing worse in every facet of education.
Males who were raped as a child still have to pay child support.
Women should have the right to put a child up for adoption before the father gets custody
Feminists against beyond reasonable doubt when it’s male rapists.
5 rights feminism ignores for men.
Feminists blame males for their abuse.
The primary aggressor clause where only men get charged with abuse.
Shame men into going to war.
Feminists dismiss female child rapists.
Feminists say men can’t talk about domestic abuse.
Feminists mock a man who has his dick cut off.
feminists attack church.
Feminists shut down a festival about gender equality for including men.
Feminists hope MRA’s die.
Feminists against fathers day.
Feminist makes up fake assault stories.
Female reporter bullied by feminists at the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference
BECAUSE NONE OF THIS IS THE ACTIONS OF A HATE GROUP?
RIGHT??
@siryouarebeingmocked @cheshireinthemiddle @matt-ruins-your-shit @alaija @brett-caton @feminismisahatemovement
We all knew this was coming and now we all know we are going to see a shit ton of the same post from a shit ton of edgy 14 year olds all going through their boys are icky phase.
Motherfuckers
it’s a badge of honor.
pretty sure the organization I’ve helped is on the SPLC hate group list too.
More often than not, opposition from the SPLC means you’re pissing off the right people, at least these days.
The irony is that the MRM actually started as a part of second-wave feminism so that men could also challenge gender roles and speak about their own issues.
I still maintain that only addressing one gender/sex’s problems is only doing half the work and solving half the problem.
No see, feminists who do bad things shouldnt influence how feminism is perceived. But MRAs who are even assumed bad speak on all MRAs.
Cause that’s how it works apparently.
somebody: If you had a superpower, what would it be?
most people: *some comic book shit*
me:
“What’s your superpower?” “Bethesda glitch.”
Honestly, that’s probably the most overpowered superpower.
WHAT IS THIS
Boku No Hero Academia and it’s worth every ounce of your time.
Quirk: NoClip Disabled
Ok but why is that guy Lucas from Mother 3
That’s clearly buff Tintin
Excuse you, that's obviously Buff Vault-Boy.
Tumblr mindset.
“Why are people sad that this guy was murdered? Remember that fatphobic comment he made back in 2007? He deserved it.”
Summer time wild
Brooklyn be wild 😭
A legend
she’s not a fucking legend. she’s a fucking crazy ass bitch who is literally putting innocent lives in jepordy. fuck her. lock her the fuck up for as long as you can.
Im guessing because its not a gun just an explosive rocket all of this shit is okay.
None of this is okay. Not a single bit
This is absolutely disgusting
Yeah, this isnt okay.
This looks like an abusive relationship that likely relies on fear.
Anyone who calls her a legend or supports her actions, just ask yourself if you would approve of this if a man did this to his girlfriend. Would you bring up abuse? Violence against women? “Patriarchy”? Then you probably shouldnt glorify it when a woman does it.
welp
and if any of you white people respond with “wait but I didn’t do that. that was in the past”
i need you to check your privilege
and then drink bleach if you think your hands aren’t dirty
They’re not.
Guilt doesn’t transfer from generation to generation. I am not magically accountable for something my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather MIGHT have done. Also;
>social justice blogger >telling people to kill themselves
I love that there’s a blog called “this is white culture” that is solely devoted to bad things white people did, not their cultures at all. So I guess I can make a blog called “this is black culture” and post gang and crime records and that’s 100% okay. Or “this is Muslim culture” and make it all about terrorism.
But wait, you cry. Not all black people are criminals and not all Muslims are terrorists. That’s unfair! And racist!
WELL GOLLY GEE DO YOU THINK SO? Because saying that all white people are responsible for the Atlantic slave trade sounds pretty racist to me, given that, you know, that was between the African slaveholders and the British and Americans and had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my ancestors, who were incredibly poor farmers and serfs from Ireland and Lithuania who had to flee to America at around the turn of the century (by which time slavery had already been abolished in the US) because they were being treated like slaves. Even if they had been living in America at the time when slavery was legal they wouldn’t have been able to afford a slave; in fact they probably would have been working with them in the fields and treated about the same, since the first slaves in America were actually white serfs. But please, tell me more about how dirty my hands are because of circumstances surrounding my birth that I could not control and continue to treat me differently based on the color of my skin without actually knowing anything about my heritage, I’m sure that isn’t racist at all!
^ This!
Prior to 1655 there were no legal slaves in the colonies, only indentured servants. All masters were required to free their servants after their time was up. Seven years was the limit that an indentured servant could be held. Upon their release they were granted 50 acres of land. This included any Negro purchased from slave traders. Negros were also granted 50 acres upon their release.
Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to the US to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622 he was almost killed when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. 52 out of 57 people on the farm perished in the attack. He married a female black servant while working on the farm.
When Anthony was released he was legally recognized as a “free Negro” and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he held 250 acres and five black indentured servants. In 1654, it was time for Anthony to release John Casor, a black indentured servant. Instead Anthony told Casor he was extending his time. Casor left and became employed by the free white man Robert Parker.
Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slave of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.
Whites still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite slave until 1670. In that year, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting free whites, blacks, and Indians the right to own blacks as slaves.
By 1699, the number of free blacks prompted fears of a “Negro insurrection.” Virginia Colonial ordered the repatriation of freed blacks back to Africa. Many blacks sold themselves to white masters so they would not have to go to Africa. This was the first effort to gently repatriate free blacks back to Africa. The modern nations of Sierra Leone and Liberia both originated as colonies of repatriated former black slaves.
However, black slave owners continued to thrive in the United States.
By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone. _____________________________________________________
In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshiped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.
The civil rights movement of the 1960’s have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas’ The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn’s The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading. What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own subjects. (Of course, this neither condones the white traders who bought the slaves nor deny that many white traders still committed atrocities to maximize their business). This explains why slavery became “black”. Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes). In the middle ages, all European countries outlawed slavery (of course, Western powers retained countless “civilized” ways to enslave their citizens, but that’s another story), whereas the African kingdoms happily continued in their trade. Therefore, only colored people could be slaves, and that is how the stereotype for African-American slavery was born. It was not based on an ancestral hatred of blacks by whites, but simply on the fact that blacks were the only ones selling slaves, and they were selling people of their own race. (To be precise, Christians were also selling Muslim slaves captured in war, and Muslims were selling Christian slaves captured in war, but neither the Christians of Europe nor the Muslims of Africa and the Middle East were selling their own people). Then the Muslim the trade of African slaves declined rapidly when Arab domination was reduced by the emerging European powers. (Note: Arabs continued to capture and sell slaves, but mostly in the Mediterranean. In fact, Robert Davis estimates that 1.25 million European Christians were enslaved by the “barbary states” of northern Africa. As late as 1801 the USA bombed Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli precisely to stop that Arab slave trade of Christians. The rate of mortality of those Christian slaves in the Islamic world was roughly the same as the mortality rate in the Atlantic slave trade of the same period.) Christians took over in black Africa, though. The first ones were the Portuguese, who, applying an idea that originally developed in Italian seatrading cities, and often using Italian venture capital, started exploiting sub-Saharan slaves in the 1440s to support the economy of the sugar plantations (mainly for their own African colonies of Sao Tome and Madeira). The Dutch were the first, apparently, to import black slaves into North America, but black slaves had already been employed all over the world, including South and Central America. We tend to focus on what happened in North America because the United States would eventually fight a war over slavery (and it’s in the U.S. that large sectors of the population would start condemning slavery, contrary to the indifference that Muslims and most Europeans showed for it). Even after Europeans began transporting black slaves to America, most trade was just that: “trade”. In most instances, the Europeans did not need to use any force to get those slaves. The slaves were “sold” more or less legally by their (black) owners. Scholars estimate that about 12,000,000 Africans were sold by Africans to Europeans (most of them before 1776, when the USA wasn’t yet born) and 17,000,000 were sold to Arabs. The legends of European mercenaries capturing free people in the jungle are mostly just that: legends. A few mercenaries certainly stormed peaceful tribes and committed terrible crimes, but that was not the rule. There was no need to risk their lives, so most of them didn’t: they simply purchased people. As an African-American scholar (Nathan Huggins) has written, the “identity” of black Africans is largely a white invention: sub-Saharan Africans never felt like they were one people, they felt (and still feel) that they belonged to different tribes. The distinctions of tribe were far stronger than the distinctions of race. Everything else is true: millions of slaves died on ships and of diseases, millions of blacks worked for free to allow the Western economies to prosper, and the economic interests in slavery became so strong that the southern states of the United States opposed repealing it. But those millions of slaves were just one of the many instances of mass exploitation: the industrial revolution was exported to the USA by enterpreuners exploiting millions of poor immigrants from Europe. The fate of those immigrants was not much better than the fate of the slaves in the South. As a matter of fact, many slaves enjoyed far better living conditions in the southern plantations than European immigrants in the industrial cities (which were sometimes comparable to concentration camps). It is not a coincidence that slavery was abolished at a time when millions of European and Chinese immigrants provided the same kind of cheap labor. It is also fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who owned slaves, or about 1.4% of the white population (there were 27 million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves. Moral opposition to slavery was widespread even before Lincoln, and throughout Europe. On the other hand, opposition to slavery was never particularly strong in Africa itself, where slavery is slowly being eradicated only in our time. One can suspect that slavery would have remained common in most African kingdoms until this day: what crushed slavery in Africa was that all those African kingdoms became colonies of western European countries that (for one reason or another) eventually decided to outlaw slavery. When, in the 1960s, those African colonies regained their independence, numerous cases of slavery resurfaced. And countless African dictators behaved in a way that makes a slave owner look like a saint. Given the evidence that this kind of slavery was practiced by some Africans before it was practiced by some Americans, that it was abolished by all whites and not by some Africans, and that some Africans resumed it the moment they could, why would one keep blaming the USA but never blame, say, Ghana or the Congo? The more we study it, the less blame we have to put on the USA for the slave trade with black Africa: it was pioneered by the Arabs, its economic mechanism was invented by the Italians and the Portuguese, it was mostly run by western Europeans, and it was conducted with the full cooperation of many African kings. The USA fostered free criticism of the phenomenon: no such criticism was allowed in the Muslim and Christian nations that started trading goods for slaves, and no such criticism was allowed in the African nations that started selling their own people (and, even today, no such criticism is allowed within the Arab world). Today it is politically correct to blame some European empires and the USA for slavery (forgetting that it was practiced by everybody since prehistoric times). But I rarely read the other side of the story: that the nations who were the first to develop a repulsion for slavery and eventually abolish slavery were precisely those countries (especially Britain and the USA). In 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded in England: it was the first society anywhere in the world opposed to slavery. In 1792 English prime minister William Pitt called publicly for the end of the slave trade: it was the first time in history (anywhere in the world) that the ruler of a country had called for the abolition of slavery. No African king and emperor had ever done so. As Dinesh D’Souza wrote, “What is uniquely Western is not slavery but the movement to abolish slavery”.
To be completely fair, what was also unique about the western slave trade is the scale (the millions shipped to another continent in a relatively short period of time), and, of course, that it eventually became a racist affair, discriminating blacks, whereas previous slave trades had not discriminated based on the color of the skin. What is unique about the USA, in particular, is the unfair treatment that blacks received AFTER emancipation, which is, after all, the real source of the whole controversy, because, otherwise, just about everybody on this planet could claim to be the descendant of an ancient slave). That does not mean that western slave traders were justified in what they did, but placing all the blame on them is a way to absolve all the others. Also, it is worth noting that the death rate among the white crews of the slave ships (20-25%) was higher than the rate among black slaves (15%) because slaves were more valuable than sailors but nobody has written books and filmed epics about those sailors (often unwillingly enrolled or even kidnapped in ports around Europe when they were drunk). To this day, too many Africans, Arabs and Europeans believe that the African slave trade was an USA aberration, not their own invention.
By the time the slave trade was abolished in the West, there were many more slaves in Africa (black slaves of black owners) than in the Americas. Yeah so check your black privilege and learn the facts.
That was beautiful.
Wow. I already knew about African slave owners being the main source of slaves but I did not know all of that.
Apparently African slave owners treated their slaves better though? By how much I do not know. And slavery is slavery.
Originally I was going to say, fuck you I did not have anything to do with slavery and neither did (my) ancestors who would have been poor and miserable in industrial Britain.
But this pretty much says more that I ever can. I WOULD like to see the sources of all this though (just a neat compilation, if you can.)
my great great grandmother and her family came over from Greece basically as indentured servants. And, just to be sure this is included, it was not uncommon for south American cultures, like the aztecs and incas, to start wars specifically for the purpose of capturing people for the use of slaves an even for their human sacrifices
I don’t know how much of GTP’s post is accurate, but I know blaming white people exclusively for slavery is just…dumb and wrong.
I know for a fact that at least a third of this is accurate, like indentured servants getting land after their limited servitude, Africans owning slaves then and even today, and black people having slaves and indentures servants of many races. These are some things that people dont like to admit.
Will need sources on the rest though. I have only read biographies that mentioned things like high sailor mortality rates and opposition to slavery pre lincoln. Interesting post.
Gonna have to edit in sources for this when I get on a pc but here’s a comic to tide you over
EDIT: sources here here here here and here
There was a terrible hate crime near me this week.
Some racist broke the window and burned the store of an immigrant:
They left this terrible message:
Thankfully, the security camera caught this hateful white person on tape:
Wait a minute…
Oh.
Whoops
Sources please. Since twitter and the like is already saturated with people doing this
I was sceptical too, but here are sources from WCCB, The Telegraph, WBTV and The Charlotte Observer.
Fake hate crimes are a problem. The more things like this happens, the more real hate crimes won’t be taken seriously.
I dont know, framing an entire race (“ white america”) for crimes seems like a hate crime itself to me.
False rape accusations run lives.
Spread this far and wide. And if a feminists starts her bullshit, tell her to shut the fuck up.
Important.
