No title available
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
art blog(derogatory)
if i look back, i am lost
KIROKAZE
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
𓃗
pixel skylines
RMH
tumblr dot com
Not today Justin
shark vs the universe
titsay
No title available
Love Begins
Kaledo Art
Keni
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
Product Placement
macklin celebrini has autism
seen from China
seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Portugal
seen from Germany
seen from Brazil
seen from Malaysia
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Poland
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Italy
@the-library-alcove
New policy: No more arguing with Christianists, especially the ones who think that missionizing is a good thing. Autoblock on sight.
EDIT: Addendum: Antisemitic atheists too.
Less a DNI, and more just an exasperated sigh at this point, yes, I vet new followers for my own safety and I will automatically block missionaries, Christian apologists, antisemitic atheists, antizionists, Nazis (WTAF are you following me in the first place?), and TERFs.
Truncated text of tweet from MrPitBull, Mar 11, 2026:
She kept finding women in laboratory photographs from the 1800s. Then she read the published papers—and every single woman had vanished. Someone had erased them from history.
Yale University, 1969.
Margaret Rossiter was a graduate student studying the history of science. She was one of very few women in her program.
Every Friday afternoon, students and faculty gathered for beers and informal conversation. One week, Margaret asked a simple question: "Were there ever any women scientists?"
The faculty answered firmly: No.
Someone mentioned Marie Curie. The group dismissed it—her husband Pierre really deserved the credit.
Margaret didn't argue. But she also didn't believe them.
So she started looking.
She found a reference book called "American Men of Science"—essentially a Who's Who of scientific achievement. Despite the title, she was shocked to discover it contained entries about women. Botanists trained at Wellesley. Geologists from Vermont.
There were names. There were credentials. There were careers.
The professors had been wrong.
But Margaret's discovery was just the beginning. Because as she dug deeper into archives across the country, she found something far more disturbing.
Photograph after photograph showed women standing at laboratory benches, working with equipment, listed on research teams.
But when she read the published papers, the award citations, the official histories—those same women had disappeared. Their names were missing. Their contributions erased.
It wasn't random. It was systematic.
Women who designed experiments watched male colleagues publish results without giving them credit. Women whose discoveries were assigned to supervisors. Women listed in acknowledgments instead of as authors. Women passed over for awards that went to male collaborators who contributed far less.
Margaret realized she was witnessing a pattern that stretched across centuries.
Women had always been present in science. The record had simply pushed them aside.
She needed a name for what she was documenting.
In the early 1990s, she found it in the work of Matilda Joslyn Gage—a 19th-century suffragist who had written about this exact phenomenon in 1870.
In 1993, Margaret published a paper formally naming it: The Matilda Effect.
The term captured something that had been hidden in plain sight for generations. Once you knew the term, you saw it everywhere.
Her dissertation became a lifelong mission.
For more than 30 years, Margaret researched and wrote her landmark three-volume series: Women Scientists in America. She examined letters, institutional policies, individual careers. She gathered undeniable evidence that women in science had been consistently under-credited and structurally excluded.
Her work faced resistance. Many dismissed women's history as political rather than academic. Others insisted she was exaggerating.
Margaret didn't argue emotionally. She presented data. Documented cases. Patterns repeated across decades and institutions.
Eventually, the evidence became undeniable.
Her research helped restore recognition to scientists who had been erased:
Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray work revealed DNA's structure—credit went to Watson and Crick.
Lise Meitner, who explained nuclear fission—omitted from the Nobel Prize.
Nettie Stevens, who discovered sex chromosomes—received little credit.
Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who discovered stars are made of hydrogen—initially dismissed.
And countless others whose names had nearly vanished.
Margaret changed the narrative. Science was no longer just the story of solitary male geniuses. It became a story of collaboration that included women who had been written out.
The Matilda Effect became standard terminology. Scholars used it to examine how credit is assigned, how authors are listed, who receives awards, who gets left out.
saw this really horrible comment today about how “Jewish women love to lie about rape,” and yesterday I saw what’s basically the inverse, “Jewish men love sexual assault, the majority of them are predators and rapists” along with the “61% of Israeli men” disinformation, and none of this is new - both are actually very, very old, both Jewish women being portrayed as liars and “harlots,” and Jewish men being portrayed as innately predatory - but it’s so disturbing seeing the way it’s gaining traction, and knowing that quite a bit of it in these awful posts is stemming from denial of the atrocities of 10/7 and of what was inflicted on the hostages (and those crimes were perpetrated against Israeli victims regardless of gender).
I was looking something up the other day and got a result from the 1930s subreddit, and there was a comment that had been removed by the moderators, but to which someone had replied (and that was still up) telling them they were an antisemite for saying that Jews are the cause of all the abuses in Hollywood and that they’d never generalize like that about any other group of people. this doesn’t mean there haven’t been abusive Jewish men, especially in positions of power, there certainly have been, and we know who they are, and the Jewish community as a whole overwhelmingly condemns them, but their individual behavior is used to smear and demonize world Jewry in a particular way. it’s scary seeing the stereotypes and suspicions and vitriolic attitudes continue to grow.
I’m not really going anywhere useful with this, but it occurred to me how often we mention that Jews are only 0.2% of the world population, and how few people ever really know or even interact with Jewish people. sometimes I wonder if it wouldn’t be more useful to point out that the majority, 99.8% of the world is non-Jewish. of course it’s easy to believe such terrible things and to scapegoat such a small group, and of course it’s almost impossible to combat it or to remove it from centuries’ worth of ingrained culture.
Starting to think all the backlash to the idea of the trolley problem is just people trying to hide the fact that, deep down, they know they would be too scared to pull the lever.
I suppose one of the advantages I've gained from having been in the military is that I went from a suspicion I would have the conviction to make those kinds of calls, an absolute certainty that I do have it. I've held lives in my hands, but thankfully I rose to my training and my convictions. I chose the best of the options I had available to me at the time.
There is nothing shameful about being too afraid of making the decision, in my view. But yeah, it's cowardice to project your anxiety by claiming the philosophical quandary itself is meaningless.
No reason to wonder. A ton of people openly bragged about how morally pure they were for not pulling the lever in 2024. They just hate it when you contextualize it like that and insist they were taking a third option to sound less terrible when their actions are 1:1 compared to the thought experiment.
If anything, the reason I reject it is because I consider the thought experiment ITSELF to be cowardly.
All human lives are worth the same amount, and any LOSS of human life is as large a tragedy as any other amount of lost human life. You aren't doing a GOOD thing by condemning one person to die to save four more, you're not even doing a BETTER thing. It might be the more valuable thing in a coldly utilitarian point of view, but from my moral stance death is death. You don't get to compare and contrast your way out of that.
You’d be too scared to pull the lever huh?
People hate the trolley problem because it is inherent to the problem that choosing not to act is an active choice. That's why they reject the problem itself rather than making an argument for choosing to not pull the lever. They aren't afraid to pull the lever- they're afraid to admit that their priority is keeping their own hands clean.
Hear hear.
You can tell by the "well I'M too moral and pure to think killing one person to save five is good - ". If that person had engaged with the experiment honestly they'd know that it's not ABOUT trying to establish one course as the moral one. It's not about being able to, as @darkladynyara says, come out with your hands clean; you won't. It's about making you consider what you should and would do when all the choices available are bad ones.
[Image description: A tweet by David Wolfe: "If vaccines improved health, today's kids would be the healthiest in history. Instead, chronic illness is at an all-time high" with an illustration of a needle held by a hand. This was followed by a heading: Readers added context to this image: Child mortality is currently at its lowest rates in history. A dead child cannot get a chronic illness. ourworldindata.org/child-mortalit… bigthink.com/health/child-m… /end ID]
Yeah, because the Harris campaign disenfranchized its entire base and left votes on the table by listening to fucking consultants, buying **TV ADS** IN 2024, and saying she wouldn't be any different from biden at the peak of his unpopularity.
She tanked us by running and doing it bad, he tanked us by robbing us of a primary. The democrats hate you, you should hate them back-- better yet, go Be them. Be the next mamdani
i really ought to just scroll away but i cant help myself, essentially the choices you were presented with were "pie", "swarm of poison bees" and "roll a dice on the other two options"
how on EARTH does anyone, even someone who dislikes that flavour of pie, think chancing being served the bees is a good idea? and now the whole resturants getting stung because of your decisions maybe at least have the decency to pretend to regret it, geez
What a fantastic analogy
Ah, the "greater Israel" conspiracy. Otherwise known as the paranoid conviction that the Jews are itching to take over the very places many Jews had to flee to Israel from due to the level of severe, violent antisemitism present there.
Umm, no, I actually know irl someone who supports the idea of greater Israel.
She believes the government needs to deport every arab citizen, take control over the west bank and gaza and deport everyone there too, and also take over parts of Jordan and over the Sinai Peninsula and deport everyone there.
That's a real conversation I had with a friend's mom who also dragged my friend into protests calling for greater Israel. They also protested against the hostage deals. They're Israeli Jews.
It's a real opinion people have, it's just not nearly as common as people make it out to be. But the idea that Jews cannot be radicalized into extreme opinions and views is harmful. No group is immune to extremists.
It's not that no Jew could ever possibly be radicalized into that opinion.
It's that that's still way, way less territory than people currently claim Israel is trying to conquer. As in, at this very moment.
And also, that the "Greater Israel" conspiracy isn't "a fringe group somewhere in Israel wants this." It's "the Israeli government is currently plotting this, and there's a 150-year-old global, pro-genocide Jewish movement which has always wanted and planned for it. That's what Zionism is."
Op is that what you meant? If so I'm sorry for misunderstanding you.
Yeah last I checked people thought Israel wanted, like, all of Egypt and Syria. Like. They think Israel wants to be a Modern Empire (often while ignoring Russia or China ACTUALLY going modern empire...)
@moran-with-a-g, what you're describing your friend's mother advocating for is fairly unremarkable Revanchism. It's bad, indeed genocidal, but just about any country on Earth with more limited boarders today than they had in the past has some number of citizens who want to go back to the old boarders. I would compare your friend's mother to an Armenian nationalist who wants Armenia to control Cicilia.
This isn't what is being talked about. I don't know if you're Israeli yourself, but if you are you may very well live in blissful ignorance of the vast numbers of gentile conspiracy theorists who fervently believe that it is the unanimous consensus of all Israelis to actively work towards this map:
Which, obviously, isn't the case.
I think that the "from the Nile to the Euphrates" aspect of it specifically makes antisemites feel justified about chanting "From the River to the Sea (Palestine will be Arab)."
Oh. Yeah I am Israeli. I don't think I ever heard of this 💀
This is what I know as "greater Israel" that I thought op was talking about:
Which I know sometimes includes Sinai too but I can't find a picture of that.
I have unfortunately come across people at my college who believe that the United States is part of the vision for "Greater Israel" 🙃
A lot of you guys could be time traveled back in time into Auschwitz to watch Jews being shoved screaming and sobbing into the gas chambers and your only reaction would be to laugh and post on tumblr about their white zio tears.
I’m not even saying that we can’t or shouldn’t discuss aid to Israel - I think there are ways to have that policy discussion and think about the outcomes of stopping aid (which Netanyahu wants, btw, because it means “taking off the golden handcuffs”) or continuing it (instead of using it for other countries, like Ukraine or other purposes).
But that requires actually discussing it without the lies and distortions that are so endemic to this topic in a way that doesn’t come up the same way for the same people with other countries that I have the same or more qualms and concerns about providing them aid (like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Egypt etc).
That means realizing that much of this kind of aid is basically a voucher to get supplies from US weapons and defense manufacturers, so that the money doesn’t even really leave the US.
I think the US aid system in general needed change prior to November 2024, and now it’s fucked to where arms and military equipment are the only aid that can reliably be expected to be funded and provided. Good job to those who didn’t vote for Kamala with that.
I’m also more on the hawkish side of things and so recognize the need for a solid, effective, adaptive national defense. There’s a lot that can be done to make the defense department as well as DHS and DOJ (and the CIA and NSA etc) more accountable, ethical, responsive and responsible - so it doesn’t mean I think they should continue as they are or even as they were under Obama or Biden.
I admit to not being fully understanding of why it would be cobshdered “golden handcuffs”
I get that we basically just give defense contractor fun bucks that they then spend on American armaments but I still assume getting a piece of America’s bloated military industrial complex would be considered beneficial to a far right warmonger, I’m not really sure where the handcuff part comes in since as far as I’m aware we aren’t really capable of demanding exactly how that equipment is used once it’s been purchased.
It's because Israeli military systems and equipment (from fighter jets to Iron Dom and so on) are American-made and rely on access to American suppliers and producers. So, we are able to influence how the equipment is used, or if they can get replacement supplies. We saw that when the US *would* hold up disbursements or re-supplying and the pressure and concern from the Israeli government.
These aren't just simple plug-and-play components, but require, generally, the specific ammo or parts, or a close equivalent from the same provider.
There are Israeli contractors and suppliers who could fill the gap, but that would require a transition and a build-up, which takes time and money, neither of which the Israeli government can easily afford due to the choices made by Netanyahu and his coalition.
(With the Massie amendment, any resources or aid for Palestinians would also get cut, and US foreign aid often has requirements for how it is used as authorized by Congress, which is something to keep in mind).
So, cutting aid to Israel would allow Netanyahu and his coalition to do what they want with the equipment they want when they want (presuming that the aid cutting has a phase-out provision, which would seem likely) and would free up their hand to give even less of a fuck about what the US or others say - and which would also encourage them to seek aid and assistance elsewhere, possibly from places we wouldn't want them to.
Leaving aside things like value for money of tech sharing and intel sharing (Worth way more than the War Fun Bucks) and Iron Dome supply, which allows Israel to not retaliate every time an Iranian proxy gets a bug up their ass or orders from Daddy/Vladdy and is explicitly an area defense for civilians (Which everyone SHOULD be ok with but which Ocasio-Cortez was screamed at for tearfully voting 'present' on before she could go fully mask off... JUST focusing on the precision weapons of it all... The US is a premier manufacture of precision munitions that mostly work as intended (Hi Russia, you actually genocidal fucks) to look at what an actually genocidal conflict would look like with non-precision weapons of the types that RU/Iran have, look at Ukraine, or any target Iran tries to hit. The accuracy of those weapons (Shahed Terror drones and ballistic missiles) are 'Minute of City.' Dumb bombs from an aircraft are 'Dumb' because you cannot precision guide them. The casualties on display everywhere because people are obsessed with Jews are the result of precision munitions being deployed against terrorist militias that do not wear uniforms and operate from concentrated urban areas (Hamas). Hez and the Houthis are slightly different in their methodologies so you're seeing less focused stories about those. This is not me saying "This is a good thing and the IDF did a super great job" by the way. This is me specifically saying that without access to precision munitions the civilian casualty counts would be drastically higher in what is already an ugly stupid war of choice. (That Iran and its imperial satraps chose) Take away the precision munitions and the layers of ABM, and the restraining US hand and Israel doesn't throw in the towel. It looks for other regional allies and it hits back really fucking hard. This idea that 'Oh israel has healthcare becuz we give them money (Daddy Warbucks Fun Bux) and Israel will dissolve without american weapons because.. (they have no arms industry and only america is real?) Bla bla metropole bla bla ways of being" is a Columbia University Crackbrained one. Like. Whoever insists on it smoked crack, and probably went to Columbia and never grew the fuck up. Everything is leverage, everything is strength projection and in the current multipolar world overeducated commie fucks claim to want... Diplomacy is/was/will be a fucking protection racket. Not the star trek federation of good intentions. And right now? Democrats and their dipshit staffers are relying on what they think things 'should be' on the advice of dumbfucks like ben rhodes and matt duss instead of dealing with what they are, and they're obsessing over israel because it's easy, instead of actually dealing with shit closer to home. Oh, and because a whole shitload of people hate Jews so focusing on this and getting real fucking conspiratorial is rewarding to anyone who does it. Especially if they phrase it in amorphous academic terms or simplistic activist lingo.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez penned a letter to her constituents Friday explaining her emotional reaction to voting “present” on a bill fun
To OP’s point, Indigenous Bridges put this statement on Instagram in late 2023:
#i feel like a lot of folks think that by saying Palestinians are native to the area known as the Levant#they are saying that Palestinians have a right to do literally anything they want there to other people who are there#and that is why they push so hard to make Jews NOT native to that land- because if Jews ARE native?#then by their own logic they are allowed to do whatever they want#of course this doesn't actually hold up and I promise you that if any native tribe here in the USA gained the power to have a state-#a full state on their land of origin#the leftists would turn on them in a fucking heartbeat#it's like... like to me#this is why leftists are the way they are about the fucking Holocaust and trying to claim it for everyone BUT the Jews#because they cannot stand that the Jews- who they HATE. HAVE something in their eyes#to be native is to be oppressed which is to have social capital to them and to be more valid#to have experienced genocide and pain is to be oppressed and is to have again that social capital and validity#and the PROBLEM they have with jews having those things is that if we ARE indeed marginalized oppressed people...#then the left is going to be forced to listen when we tell them all how fucking antisemitic and racist they are and they DON'T WANT TO HEAR
@hazel2468, your tags pass peer review.
I've had three separate propals get mad at my pinned because, according to them, if Palestinians aren't indigenous to Israel, then they have no human rights.
Note: not civil rights. HUMAN RIGHTS. As in "if you're not indigenous, you have no right to be alive."
Further note: my pinned explicitly notes that not being indigenous doesn't mean Palestinians shouldn't have the right to dignity and safety.
They are literally defining humanity by some weird "your culture must be this noble savage" metric.
"Noble savage" racism is a beast. Native erasure is a beast. Antisemitism (no matter what noble veneer it hides under) is a beast. At the mo I'm side-eyeing a whole lotta people who practice all three and never bothered to unpack any of it.
My paternal great-grandfather was half-Native, the family legend goes, although most people who see me tend to erase that bit because I'm fair-skinned. My mother's family are all Jewish, and because I can read as anything but I get a carload of shocked Pikachu faces any time I bring it up. It makes me happy to see Native and Jewish solidarity; goyische (and white) leftists can stay mad about it.
I've encountered this weird extremist idea too. It's like... often it's Americans, who live in America, and think both Israel and America should be destroyed. But they don't want to do it themselves; they just want to feel like good people for calling for that. Because the rest of the time, they just feel bad about living on stolen land.
The specific call for destroying-Israel-and-America is a huge red flag for propaganda from the dictatorship of Iran. Like, I promise you there are not two (2) lone deeply evil countries on earth that should be nuked from orbit.
But there's definitely one (1) deeply evil dictatorship on earth that specifically and routinely calls for that.
There are many (many) countries on earth with extremely complicated histories full of ethnic cleansing, slavery, and genocide.
(Many of them way more recent than the U.S.'s practices of ethnic cleansing, slavery, and genocide. Myanmar just ethnically cleansed the Rohingya Muslims a few years ago, and nobody would suggest we should wipe Myanmar off the planet.)
Sometime in late 2023, I was beefing my way through some instagram comments, and a nonbinary Ethnic Studies professor genuinely told me that someday, trans women of color would do to the U.S. what Hamas had done to Israel.
I honestly don't know what leads someone to go, "aha! this is the one specific demographic that actually deserves to be here, and to torture, mutilate, and burn its way across the country in order to claim it." (And the demographic isn't even "people indigenous to this land.")
I do assume this person was unaware of exactly how fucking brutal Hamas's attack was.
But the idea that trans women of color, as a group, are like, "Wow, I really wish we could slaughter and conquer America, including cis indigenous people, transmascs, an unknown number of enbies, cis people with disabilities, cis Black people, white trans women," and so on, is just fucking mind-blowing to me.
Like, I absolutely understand that we all feel this level of rage at our oppressors sometimes. But most of us recognize that it only works as an angry fantasy, and in real life would be like trying to rebuild from an apocalypse.
I don't even think this person counted themself among trans women of color. I think they were just making a really impassioned statement without thinking any of it through.
I also don't remember who it was that said, somewhere in the weeds of tumblr discourse, that we should destroy Japan too. They wanted to destroy Israel because they thought it was an ethnostate. The response was that there are many countries whose populations are basically one ethnic group, like Japan (which is not what an ethnostate is, but it's what most people seem to THINK it is); and they immediately and enthusiastically included Japan on the list, to the absolute bafflement of everyone else.
I think there are a lot of people who are very scared and angry, and don't really care about anybody or anything; they just want to lash out and imagine their problems could be solved through violence.
And also, a non-zero number of those people have unknowingly absorbed the concept of scapegoating Jews.
I'm reading the bible for the first time and the song of songs has me baffled, why is it part of the bible?
because love is holy
something my rabbi has said a few times that I find super fascinating is that one way to read the relationship between the Jewish people and Hashem is as a relationship between lovers (kind of along the same lines as how on Shabbat we frame Shabbat as a bride and the Jewish people collectively as the groom).
other groups of people have relationships with Hashem, but the relationship between Jews and Hashem is unique and is one we and Hashem both chose
one reason that we actively choose to follow the commandments in the Torah is because we're aligning our interests with Hashem's, and sometimes that means doing things that look irrational to people outside the relationship but that make sense to us
sometimes a relationship between lovers is erotic! in that light it makes complete sense to include the Shir Hashirim in the Tanakh
take this with a slight grain of salt because I'm paraphrasing verbal conversations that I had probably a few weeks ago, but regardless of this post's exact accuracy the idea is really fun to throw back and forth with a rabbi!
It never fails to gobsmack me the things some of y'all believe Jews believe. I remember someone confidently saying that Jews believe they all go to the Christian version of Heaven, regardless of whether they were good people or not, because they're "chosen" and in Heaven they get a segregated all-Jews section. Like, y'all are just making shit up at this point. And you could just, idk, ask Jews, but even when a Jewish person tells you "um that's not what we believe" you think they're lying.
Dr. Rafael Medoff says editor at Dark Horse Comics demanded book on Nazi genocide include anti-Israel genocide charges
The GOP candidates for governor offered conspiracy theories, unverified heroic stories and a prayer in their only appearance together.
Scott Bottoms being an unhinged antisemite, Victor Marx (the nominee) being…unhinged as a whole. great choices happening in US politics right now. none of these candidates have a chance at winning in Colorado, but the fact that the men here were serious choices in any way is concerning.
Marine veteran Victor Marx, whose wild claims – including saying he was forced to kill a man at age 7 – have drawn widespread attention and
Marx, who has gained notice due to a claim he killed a man when he was a child, will advance to the general election against state Attorney
First-time political candidate Victor Marx pulled off a narrow win in the Republican primary for Colorado governor. Here’s a look at the uno
Marjorie Fiterman 102 and Bernie Littman 100 are the world's oldest married couple.
I think it’s kind of insane to think that blocking defensive aid like Iron Dome would mean that Israel would be *less incentivized* to engage in military offenses, or be more restrained in what it does.
It's born of a severe lack of understanding of what motivates Israel and Israelis.
They really do believe that if not for the iron dome and bomb shelters Israel would just steamroll all over the Middle East and create the grand judean empire…
The only thing that will happen is that more innocents will die and Israel will be incentivised to more aggressively eliminate threats. The iron dome is what allows it to have MORE restraint.
But I guess it’s too much to ask AOC to actually understand geopolitics.
The amendment to block military assistance failed, but partisan split cemented the increasingly polarized view of the U.S. ally.
what is our defense secretary occupied with while we're exchanging strikes with iran, you may ask? look no further!
