🔥 | Latest

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

Alive, Ariel, and Bad: waltdisneyconfessions It bothers me how male characters like Triton, the Sultan, and Chief Tui can all act very overprotective and try to stop their daughters from leaving home, but it's only Mother Gothel whose a villain because of it. It feels like a sexist double standard. takashi0: rainbowloliofjustice: lethal-cuddles: a-salty-scythe-meister: kayrowhitesyrup: someoneintheshadow456: valarie-lynn: waltdisneyconfessions: It bothers me how male characters like Triton, the Sultan, and Chief Tui can all act overprotective and try to stop their daughters from leaving home, but it’s only Mother Gothel whose a villain because of it. It feels like a sexist double standard. Triton was afraid of humans because his wife was killed, Ariel also had pretty much free range of the ocean if she had time to amass that massive collection. Sultan was…a sultan? Also probably kept Jasmine inside for her own protection. Chief Tui was terrified of the ocean because of past experience. Gothel kidnapped Rapunzel and only cared about the magic that kept her young. Yeah, totally the same situation and the only difference is sexual bias. Also…Frollo? Also Sultan said “I’m not going to be alive forever, I want to make sure you are provided for and taken care of” as the reason for why he wants to get Jasmine married. And he even says to Jafar “Jasmine hated those guys, she can’t marry someone she hates.” That shows he didn’t want her to be unhappy in her marriage.  Triton and Chief Tui know that life is dangerous. As someone who is an older sibling and helped raising her younger siblings I know that very powerful overprotective feeling. You know the dangers of the world. You know the world is uncaring and unkind. You know people aren’t afraid to play dirty and to hurt innocent people to get what they want. So you try to shield your children/siblings from such a scary world because you don’t want them to get hurt. You don’t want your child/sibling dying because someone was so uncaring of another life. Could triton and Chief tui be more understanding of their children’s dreams and passions? Yes! But again these are parents who faces the harshness of the world and wanted to protect their children from that. Jasmin is a princess, royalty are always going to have someone try to kill them, invade their lands, etc. at least sultan was allowing his daughter to choose the man she loved. He was aware of the dangers she faced but still wanted to make her happy. A lot of Disney parents are loving and caring and they want the best for their children, though sometimes like all parents they mess up along the way. Raising and caring for another human is tough. Frollo and mother Gothal are seen as villains because they aren’t trying to protect their “children” from the harshness of the world. Oh yes they say they are but it’s a way to control them. It’s a way to keep their “children “ under their thumbs. It wasn’t done out of love and care and a protectiveness. But control. Gothal only want repunzal for her magic hair to stay young forever. And Frollo didn’t think twice about killing a BABY! ^^ Disney dads truely only wanted what they felt was best for their daughters (sans Frollo). Mother Gothal kidnapped a baby and emotionally and mentally abused her for 18 years. ALL TO STAY YOUNG FOREVER BY USING HER HAIR! fucks sake The reason that mother Gothel is treated like a villain is that she has no actual care towards Rapunzel other than her magic hair.  Literally none.  Every other time, she’s emotionally and mentally abusive towards Rapunzel, lies to her, and gaslights her. She’s manipulative and everything she did was for her own benefit, not out of genuine love and care for Rapunzel.  That’s why she is treated like a villain. It isn’t a sexist double standard when she is genuinely abusive.  Meanwhile, Chief Tui, Sultan, and Triton have made mistakes dealing with their children but what parent doesn’t make mistakes? It shows them being people. People who wanted the best for their children even if they were overbearing or overprotective. One thing that has been relatively consistent among Disney is that they show parents as people who are not as understanding as they should be towards their kids but ultimately still good people who just want to do the best thing for their kids rather than showing them as ungodly saints who never make mistakes and never do anything wrong.  Hell, even though she isn’t Disney per se, you could easily include Merida’s mother as a counterpoint in all of this. Elinor behaves in similar ways that Chief Tui, Sultan, and Triton do regarding their daughters. Elinor is overprotective and overbearing, she destroyed Merida’s bow out of frustration and immediately regretted it, etc.  Yet she is never shown to actually be a bad person. She’s shown to have made mistakes, just like they did, but not an awful person or villain.  #tldr; the reason mother gothel is a villain is because she’s emotionally abusive#me thinks the person who submitted this didn’t really watch the movie#because you can see every moment of abusive that she puts rapunzel through…#STARTIGN WITH KIDNAPPING HER
Alive, Ariel, and Bad: waltdisneyconfessions
 It bothers me how male
 characters like Triton, the
 Sultan, and Chief Tui can
 all act very overprotective
 and try to stop their
 daughters from leaving
 home, but it's only Mother
 Gothel whose a villain
 because of it. It feels like
 a sexist double standard.
takashi0:
rainbowloliofjustice:

lethal-cuddles:

a-salty-scythe-meister:

kayrowhitesyrup:


someoneintheshadow456:


valarie-lynn:

waltdisneyconfessions:

It bothers me how male characters like Triton, the Sultan, and Chief Tui can all act overprotective and try to stop their daughters from leaving home, but it’s only Mother Gothel whose a villain because of it. It feels like a sexist double standard.

Triton was afraid of humans because his wife was killed, Ariel also had pretty much free range of the ocean if she had time to amass that massive collection. Sultan was…a sultan? Also probably kept Jasmine inside for her own protection. Chief Tui was terrified of the ocean because of past experience.
Gothel kidnapped Rapunzel and only cared about the magic that kept her young.
Yeah, totally the same situation and the only difference is sexual bias.
Also…Frollo?

Also Sultan said “I’m not going to be alive forever, I want to make sure you are provided for and taken care of” as the reason for why he wants to get Jasmine married. And he even says to Jafar “Jasmine hated those guys, she can’t marry someone she hates.” That shows he didn’t want her to be unhappy in her marriage. 


Triton and Chief Tui know that life is dangerous.
As someone who is an older sibling and helped raising her younger siblings I know that very powerful overprotective feeling.
You know the dangers of the world. You know the world is uncaring and unkind. You know people aren’t afraid to play dirty and to hurt innocent people to get what they want. So you try to shield your children/siblings from such a scary world because you don’t want them to get hurt. You don’t want your child/sibling dying because someone was so uncaring of another life.
Could triton and Chief tui be more understanding of their children’s dreams and passions? Yes! But again these are parents who faces the harshness of the world and wanted to protect their children from that.
Jasmin is a princess, royalty are always going to have someone try to kill them, invade their lands, etc. at least sultan was allowing his daughter to choose the man she loved. He was aware of the dangers she faced but still wanted to make her happy.
A lot of Disney parents are loving and caring and they want the best for their children, though sometimes like all parents they mess up along the way. Raising and caring for another human is tough.
Frollo and mother Gothal are seen as villains because they aren’t trying to protect their “children” from the harshness of the world. Oh yes they say they are but it’s a way to control them. It’s a way to keep their “children “ under their thumbs. It wasn’t done out of love and care and a protectiveness. But control.
Gothal only want repunzal for her magic hair to stay young forever. And Frollo didn’t think twice about killing a BABY! 


^^ Disney dads truely only wanted what they felt was best for their daughters (sans Frollo).
Mother Gothal kidnapped a baby and emotionally and mentally abused her for 18 years. ALL TO STAY YOUNG FOREVER BY USING HER HAIR!

fucks sake

The reason that mother Gothel is treated like a villain is that she has no actual care towards Rapunzel other than her magic hair. 
Literally none. 
Every other time, she’s emotionally and mentally abusive towards Rapunzel, lies to her, and gaslights her. She’s manipulative and everything she did was for her own benefit, not out of genuine love and care for Rapunzel. 
That’s why she is treated like a villain. It isn’t a sexist double standard when she is genuinely abusive. 
Meanwhile, Chief Tui, Sultan, and Triton have made mistakes dealing with their children but what parent doesn’t make mistakes? It shows them being people. People who wanted the best for their children even if they were overbearing or overprotective. One thing that has been relatively consistent among Disney is that they show parents as people who are not as understanding as they should be towards their kids but ultimately still good people who just want to do the best thing for their kids rather than showing them as ungodly saints who never make mistakes and never do anything wrong. 
Hell, even though she isn’t Disney per se, you could easily include Merida’s mother as a counterpoint in all of this. Elinor behaves in similar ways that Chief Tui, Sultan, and Triton do regarding their daughters. Elinor is overprotective and overbearing, she destroyed Merida’s bow out of frustration and immediately regretted it, etc. 
Yet she is never shown to actually be a bad person. She’s shown to have made mistakes, just like they did, but not an awful person or villain. 

#tldr; the reason mother gothel is a villain is because she’s emotionally abusive#me thinks the person who submitted this didn’t really watch the movie#because you can see every moment of abusive that she puts rapunzel through…#STARTIGN WITH KIDNAPPING HER

takashi0: rainbowloliofjustice: lethal-cuddles: a-salty-scythe-meister: kayrowhitesyrup: someoneintheshadow456: valarie-lynn: waltdi...

America, Batman, and Harry Potter: Tim Doyle- print shop owner person. NakatomiTim When people say they just want 'good stories' and no politics or 'SJW issues in their entertainment-what they are saying is that when they were kids, they completely missed the subtext of every story, movie, comic book, etc they took in. These stories have always been political Tim Doyle- print shop owner per... 12h v Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, X-Men, Wonder Woman, on and on and orn these are Political / 'SJW' stories. And the message, if you were paying attention at all is one of inclusion, deep compassion for your fellow man, and social justice 3 139 546 Tim Dovle-print shop owner per... 12h So if you look at say, Ms. Marvel, The Last Jedi, Black Panther, or whatever and say- "I just want stories like when was a kid, get these politics outta my face!" The truth is- you weren't a very observant kid. And you grew into a stunted adult. You missed something vital 4 t 246 876 Tim Doyle- print shop owner per... '12h v Superman is a story of an immigrant coming to America, and we're all stronger by him being here. Spider-Man is about using your power to benefit everyone, not just yourself. Star Wars is anti-authoritarian, Star Trek is a socialist utopia driven by exploration and science 7 T,112 538 Tim Doyle- print shop owner per... .12h Harry Potter is about racism, and the idea of 'genetic superiority', and the insane idea of being better than someone else by the virtue of your birth These ideas are not even subtext- they're right in your damn face, if you bother to open your eyes 2 1376 464 Tim Doyle- print shop owner per... 12h v If anyone ever tells you that these new stories & movies have 'forced diversity or are pushing "Liberal Agendas"-what they are telling you is they missed everything about what made the stories they do like- great. adora721: yayfeminism: 👏🏻 Just cause it needs to be reblogged.
America, Batman, and Harry Potter: Tim Doyle- print shop owner person.
 NakatomiTim
 When people say they just want 'good
 stories' and no politics or 'SJW issues in
 their entertainment-what they are
 saying is that when they were kids, they
 completely missed the subtext of every
 story, movie, comic book, etc they took
 in. These stories have always been
 political

 Tim Doyle- print shop owner per... 12h v
 Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter,
 Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, X-Men,
 Wonder Woman, on and on and orn
 these are Political / 'SJW' stories. And
 the message, if you were paying
 attention at all is one of inclusion, deep
 compassion for your fellow man, and
 social justice
 3
 139
 546
 Tim Dovle-print shop owner per... 12h
 So if you look at say, Ms. Marvel, The
 Last Jedi, Black Panther, or whatever
 and say- "I just want stories like when
 was a kid, get these politics outta my
 face!" The truth is- you weren't a very
 observant kid. And you grew into a
 stunted adult. You missed something
 vital
 4
 t 246
 876

 Tim Doyle- print shop owner per... '12h v
 Superman is a story of an immigrant
 coming to America, and we're all
 stronger by him being here. Spider-Man
 is about using your power to benefit
 everyone, not just yourself. Star Wars is
 anti-authoritarian, Star Trek is a socialist
 utopia driven by exploration and science
 7
 T,112
 538
 Tim Doyle- print shop owner per... .12h
 Harry Potter is about racism, and the
 idea of 'genetic superiority', and the
 insane idea of being better than
 someone else by the virtue of your birth
 These ideas are not even subtext-
 they're right in your damn face, if you
 bother to open your eyes
 2
 1376
 464
 Tim Doyle- print shop owner per... 12h v
 If anyone ever tells you that these new
 stories & movies have 'forced diversity
 or are pushing "Liberal Agendas"-what
 they are telling you is they missed
 everything about what made the stories
 they do like- great.
adora721:
yayfeminism:
👏🏻
Just cause it needs to be reblogged.

adora721: yayfeminism: 👏🏻 Just cause it needs to be reblogged.

Apparently, Confused, and Family: Rock Apparently Factors Into Girlfriend's Shower Routine NEWS Local Relationships ISSUE 49-29 Jul 16, 2013 23 Jacob Ferris, 25, has no idea what his girlfriend Sarah uses this rock in her shower for rubitrightintomyeyes: theonion: Rock Apparently Factors Into Girlfriend’s Shower Routine SEATTLE—Saying he was confused about the full extent of its purpose as well as its overall benefit, local man Jacob Ferris, 25, nonetheless surmised today that the oblong rock located in girlfriend Sarah Milstein’s shower caddy must somehow factor into her bathing routine, sources confirmed. “I guess at some point while she’s showering, she rubs a rock on her body,” said Ferris, expressing what he claimed was “the only possible conclusion” about the light-gray rock in his girlfriend’s bathroom. “I mean, it looks sort of nice, so she could just have it there for decoration or something. But it’s usually right near all the other soaps and her loofah, so I think it’s probably something she actually uses while under the water.” “I really don’t know how it all works,” Ferris added. “All I know is that in between Sarah getting into the shower and getting out, there’s a rock involved.” Ferris, who said he was unable to determine exactly when in the showering process the rock first comes into play, told reporters he is equally clueless about what part of the body the rock is used on. In addition, Ferris said he occasionally inspects the roughly 3-ounce object when he’s in Milstein’s shower, and told reporters that the rock is nearly always wet and is occasionally moved to slightly different spots within the bathtub, leading him to believe that his girlfriend uses it fairly regularly. He also noted his girlfriend’s bathing time never seems particularly longer than the average person’s considering she has added a rock into the mix. Ferris added that all attempts to incorporate the rock into his own shower routine have ultimately been unsuccessful. “I tried rubbing it on my skin once, and it hurt,” Ferris said, concluding that pouring soap and water directly onto the rock neither made it softer nor easier on his skin. “I could maybe see how it could get some dirt off of your body, but it seems too painful to work. Her skin usually looks nice though, so maybe I’m wrong.” “There is a chance it could be a hair thing,” Ferris continued. “Maybe she rubs the rock in her hair? I don’t know.” Ferris confirmed he has considered numerous reasons for why his girlfriend uses the rock in the shower, including that she has some type of skin condition, that the rock is some sort of weird tradition her family has, or that everyone uses rocks in the shower and he has been out of the loop the entire time. “It could be for cleaning the bathtub,” said Ferris, adding he once suspected the rock was a device for making the bathroom smell nice, but then noticed it had no discernible smell whatsoever. “Like every few weekends she scrubs the tub with this rock? I guess I could see Sarah doing that.” While Ferris said he is mostly certain that the rock was initially purchased at a home goods store of some kind, he was not able to completely rule out the possibility it was just a rock that his girlfriend found on the ground and decided to put in her shower. “I wonder if I should put a rock in my shower for when she’s over here,” said Ferris, who said he once tried to locate a rock at a Bed Bath Beyond, but left after not wanting to walk up to a sales clerk and ask them where they kept their “shower rocks.” “Or I could just tell her to leave a rock at my place if she wants.” “I’m probably not going to do that,” Ferris added. At press time, a visibly perplexed Ferris had seen the rock sitting in Milstein’s trashcan and then looked in the shower to see another rock sitting in its place.
Apparently, Confused, and Family: Rock Apparently Factors Into Girlfriend's Shower
 Routine
 NEWS Local Relationships ISSUE 49-29 Jul 16, 2013
 23
 Jacob Ferris, 25, has no idea what his girlfriend Sarah uses this rock in her shower for
rubitrightintomyeyes:
theonion:

Rock Apparently Factors Into Girlfriend’s Shower Routine
SEATTLE—Saying he was confused about the full extent of its purpose as well as its overall benefit, local man Jacob Ferris, 25, nonetheless surmised today that the oblong rock located in girlfriend Sarah Milstein’s shower caddy must somehow factor into her bathing routine, sources confirmed.
“I guess at some point while she’s showering, she rubs a rock on her body,” said Ferris, expressing what he claimed was “the only possible conclusion” about the light-gray rock in his girlfriend’s bathroom. “I mean, it looks sort of nice, so she could just have it there for decoration or something. But it’s usually right near all the other soaps and her loofah, so I think it’s probably something she actually uses while under the water.”
“I really don’t know how it all works,” Ferris added. “All I know is that in between Sarah getting into the shower and getting out, there’s a rock involved.”
Ferris, who said he was unable to determine exactly when in the showering process the rock first comes into play, told reporters he is equally clueless about what part of the body the rock is used on.
In addition, Ferris said he occasionally inspects the roughly 3-ounce object when he’s in Milstein’s shower, and told reporters that the rock is nearly always wet and is occasionally moved to slightly different spots within the bathtub, leading him to believe that his girlfriend uses it fairly regularly. He also noted his girlfriend’s bathing time never seems particularly longer than the average person’s considering she has added a rock into the mix.
Ferris added that all attempts to incorporate the rock into his own shower routine have ultimately been unsuccessful.
“I tried rubbing it on my skin once, and it hurt,” Ferris said, concluding that pouring soap and water directly onto the rock neither made it softer nor easier on his skin. “I could maybe see how it could get some dirt off of your body, but it seems too painful to work. Her skin usually looks nice though, so maybe I’m wrong.”
“There is a chance it could be a hair thing,” Ferris continued. “Maybe she rubs the rock in her hair? I don’t know.”
Ferris confirmed he has considered numerous reasons for why his girlfriend uses the rock in the shower, including that she has some type of skin condition, that the rock is some sort of weird tradition her family has, or that everyone uses rocks in the shower and he has been out of the loop the entire time.
“It could be for cleaning the bathtub,” said Ferris, adding he once suspected the rock was a device for making the bathroom smell nice, but then noticed it had no discernible smell whatsoever. “Like every few weekends she scrubs the tub with this rock? I guess I could see Sarah doing that.”
While Ferris said he is mostly certain that the rock was initially purchased at a home goods store of some kind, he was not able to completely rule out the possibility it was just a rock that his girlfriend found on the ground and decided to put in her shower.
“I wonder if I should put a rock in my shower for when she’s over here,” said Ferris, who said he once tried to locate a rock at a Bed Bath  Beyond, but left after not wanting to walk up to a sales clerk and ask them where they kept their “shower rocks.” “Or I could just tell her to leave a rock at my place if she wants.”
“I’m probably not going to do that,” Ferris added.
At press time, a visibly perplexed Ferris had seen the rock sitting in Milstein’s trashcan and then looked in the shower to see another rock sitting in its place.

rubitrightintomyeyes: theonion: Rock Apparently Factors Into Girlfriend’s Shower Routine SEATTLE—Saying he was confused about the full exte...

England, Facts, and Food: Sixteen Films & Ken Loach @KenLoachSixteen Followv #1 Danie!Blake "I am not a client, a customer, nor a service user. I am not a r, a scrounger, a beggar nor a thief. I am not a national insurance number, nor a blip on a screen. I paid my dues, never a penny short, and was proud to do so. I don't tug the forelock but look my neighbour in the eye. I don't accept or seek charity My name is Daniel Blake, I am a man, not a dog. As such I demand my rights. I demand you treat me with respect. I, Daniel Blake, am a citizen, nothing more, nothing less. Thank you." a. Dr Lauren Gavaghan Followv DancingTheMind A England: homelessness up 60% since 2010 A rough sleeping up 134% ▲ 1.2 mill people on social housing wait list Food bank use up 4-fold since 2012 now 2,000 food banks in UK, up from just 29 at height of financial crisis #UNVisit2018 #IDanie!Blake is fact, not fiction. Dr Lauren Gavaghan Fllow DancingTheMind For anyone who doubts how realistic #IDanielBlake is, I urge a re-read of the 2018 UK poverty report by Prof Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights & poverty. It speaks volumes on the cruelty of this Conservative govt. @JamesCleverly you may want a refresher INT liiA Dr Lauren Gavaghan Ф @DancingTheMind Dear anyone who thinks they will vote Conservative when we have a #General Election please read the below report from UN Rapporteur on extreme poverty & human rights before you cast your vote.... Show this thread thasminlove: politicalsci: If anyone hasn’t watched ‘I, Daniel Blake’, it’s on BBC iPlayer for the next 18 days or so. Please do watch it if you can. It’s a film about ordinary, lovely, kind British people who due to unfortunate circumstances beyond their control have to claim benefits, and struggle through the system. It explores their lives and the benefit system in a realistic, humane way, and sticks to the facts. This happens to thousands of people across the UK regularly, and, as you will see, is completely inhumane. Be prepared with tissues.
England, Facts, and Food: Sixteen Films & Ken Loach
 @KenLoachSixteen
 Followv
 #1 Danie!Blake
 "I am not a client, a customer, nor a service user. I am not a
 r, a scrounger, a beggar nor a thief. I am not a national
 insurance number, nor a blip on a screen. I paid my dues, never a
 penny short, and was proud to do so. I don't tug the forelock but
 look my neighbour in the eye. I don't accept or seek charity My
 name is Daniel Blake, I am a man, not a dog. As such I demand
 my rights. I demand you treat me with respect. I, Daniel Blake,
 am a citizen, nothing more, nothing less. Thank you."

 a. Dr Lauren Gavaghan
 Followv
 DancingTheMind
 A England: homelessness up 60% since
 2010
 A rough sleeping up 134%
 ▲ 1.2 mill people on social housing wait list
 Food bank use up 4-fold since 2012
 now 2,000 food banks in UK, up from
 just 29 at height of financial crisis
 #UNVisit2018
 #IDanie!Blake is fact, not fiction.

 Dr Lauren Gavaghan
 Fllow
 DancingTheMind
 For anyone who doubts how realistic
 #IDanielBlake is, I urge a re-read of the 2018
 UK poverty report by Prof Philip Alston, UN
 Special Rapporteur on human rights &
 poverty.
 It speaks volumes on the cruelty of this
 Conservative govt.
 @JamesCleverly you may want a refresher
 INT liiA Dr Lauren Gavaghan Ф @DancingTheMind
 Dear anyone who thinks they will vote Conservative when we have
 a #General Election please read the below report from UN
 Rapporteur on extreme poverty & human rights before you cast
 your vote....
 Show this thread
thasminlove:
politicalsci:



If anyone hasn’t watched ‘I, Daniel Blake’, it’s on BBC iPlayer for the next 18 days or so. Please do watch it if you can. It’s a film about ordinary, lovely, kind British people who due to unfortunate circumstances beyond their control have to claim benefits, and struggle through the system. It explores their lives and the benefit system in a realistic, humane way, and sticks to the facts. This happens to thousands of people across the UK regularly, and, as you will see, is completely inhumane. Be prepared with tissues.

thasminlove: politicalsci: If anyone hasn’t watched ‘I, Daniel Blake’, it’s on BBC iPlayer for the next 18 days or so. Please do watch it...

Comfortable, Driving, and Target: Mon @monschleichs Whenever people tailgate me when I'm going 40 in a 35 l always purposely slow down because it's like l gave you an extra 5 and you didn't appreciate it so now you get nothing tempestaurora: returnsandreturns: slowdissolve: firebirdeternal: thelightofthingshopedfor: whitepeopletwitter: She has a point There are two situations in which I make extremely sure I’m going precisely at or below the speed limit: I see a cop Some asshole is tailgating me This is both spiteful AND practical, because you can’t control whether or not they give you a safe following distance for the speed you’re travelling, but you CAN reduce the speed you both have to travel, having the triple benefit of A) increasing the likelihood that they’ll have enough time to stop without rear-ending you. B) lowering the speed of any possible collision and thus the severity and C) Pissing the fucker the fuck off. I feel so valid now i live in the south and i also do that anytime there’s a truck with confederate flags behind me  gotta do ten under the speed limit because safety my driving instructor told me that you should absolutely be doing this if some asshole is in your boot, though. because a) they shouldn’t be leaving such a small space between you guys anyway, and they need to learn better, b) you should not be going faster than you’re comfortable or faster than the speed limit because someone else is pressuring you, and c) if you get rear-ended, it’s always the person behind’s fault! if they crash into you, you will not be blamed! and its them who has to pay out
Comfortable, Driving, and Target: Mon
 @monschleichs
 Whenever people tailgate me when
 I'm going 40 in a 35 l always
 purposely slow down because it's like l
 gave you an extra 5 and you didn't
 appreciate it so now you get nothing
tempestaurora:

returnsandreturns:

slowdissolve:

firebirdeternal:

thelightofthingshopedfor:

whitepeopletwitter:
She has a point

There are two situations in which I make extremely sure I’m going precisely at or below the speed limit:
I see a cop
Some asshole is tailgating me

This is both spiteful AND practical, because you can’t control whether or not they give you a safe following distance for the speed you’re travelling, but you CAN reduce the speed you both have to travel, having the triple benefit of A) increasing the likelihood that they’ll have enough time to stop without rear-ending you. B) lowering the speed of any possible collision and thus the severity and C) Pissing the fucker the fuck off.


I feel so valid now

i live in the south and i also do that anytime there’s a truck with confederate flags behind me 
gotta do ten under the speed limit
because safety

my driving instructor told me that you should absolutely be doing this if some asshole is in your boot, though. because a) they shouldn’t be leaving such a small space between you guys anyway, and they need to learn better, b) you should not be going faster than you’re comfortable or faster than the speed limit because someone else is pressuring you, and c) if you get rear-ended, it’s always the person behind’s fault! if they crash into you, you will not be blamed! and its them who has to pay out

tempestaurora: returnsandreturns: slowdissolve: firebirdeternal: thelightofthingshopedfor: whitepeopletwitter: She has a point There a...

Fail, News, and Shit: Do you believe President Trump is a racist? Yeah. Yeah. No question. How can you say that? shadesoforlando: now-exiting-fuckability: whyyoustabbedme: why in the world are we still asking this question in 2019? Trump: says and does racist things. People: call Trump racist. Journalists and politicians: Ok but like There’s no benefit in her going on live television and saying Trump is a racist without elaborating on the subject What he’s asking is a leading question and sure, taking his ‘how can you say that’ out of context works well to make him seem like he supports Trump but that’s not how it was said in the interview. How it was said was to get her to continue to talk about why Trump is a racist Don’t believe me? Skip ahead in this video to 0:15 seconds and listen to the entire thing in context. She then goes on to ELABORATE on how he uses dogwhistles and his reaction to Charlottesville (by calling Nazi’s fine people) so people who tune in to the interview can draw connections to what she’s saying as opposed to just reacting, like op did, to the exact words that are said. I think too many people on here fail to realize that news, real news, isn’t done by just saying shit. You have to be able to back it up and in order to do so, you need to be able to spell something out for people who don’t get it. And someone who already has been criticized by people for her views (including by people on here, bizarrely, because they keep things she’s said out of context) need to be able to get all the information out there.
Fail, News, and Shit: Do you believe
 President Trump is a racist?

 Yeah. Yeah.
 No question.

 How can you say that?
shadesoforlando:

now-exiting-fuckability:

whyyoustabbedme:

why in the world are we still asking this question in 2019?


Trump: says and does racist things.
People: call Trump racist.
Journalists and politicians:

Ok but like
There’s no benefit in her going on live television and saying Trump is a racist without elaborating on the subject
What he’s asking is a leading question and sure, taking his ‘how can you say that’ out of context works well to make him seem like he supports Trump but that’s not how it was said in the interview. How it was said was to get her to continue to talk about why Trump is a racist
Don’t believe me? Skip ahead in this video to 0:15 seconds and listen to the entire thing in context.
She then goes on to ELABORATE on how he uses dogwhistles and his reaction to Charlottesville (by calling Nazi’s fine people) so people who tune in to the interview can draw connections to what she’s saying as opposed to just reacting, like op did, to the exact words that are said.
I think too many people on here fail to realize that news, real news, isn’t done by just saying shit. You have to be able to back it up and in order to do so, you need to be able to spell something out for people who don’t get it. And someone who already has been criticized by people for her views (including by people on here, bizarrely, because they keep things she’s said out of context) need to be able to get all the information out there.

shadesoforlando: now-exiting-fuckability: whyyoustabbedme: why in the world are we still asking this question in 2019? Trump: says and ...

Bad, Community, and Feminism: CALL-OUT CULTURE AS RITUAL DISPOSABILITY Feminist/queer spaces are more willing to criticize people than abusive systems because they want to reserve the right to use those systems for their own purposes. At least attacking people can be politically viable, especially in a token system where vou benefit directly by their absence, or where your status as a good feminist is dependent on constantly rooting out evil When the bounty system calls for the ears of evil people, well, most people have a fucking ear. When I used to curate games, I was approached by people in that abusive community who pressured me not to cover a game by a trans woman. Their reasoning was blatant jealousy, disguised under the thin, nauseating film of pretext that covers nearly everything people say about trans people. When I rejected their reasoning and covered the game, the targeting reticule of disposability turned toward me. What can we learn from this? Besides "lofty processes in queer/feminist spaces are nearly always about some embarrassingly petty shit," it's about the ritual nature of disposability, which has nothing to do with "deserving" it. Disposability has to happen on a regular basis, like forest fires keeping nature in balance. So when people write all those apologist articles about call-out culture and other instruments of violence in feminism, I don't think they understand that the people who most deserve those things can usually shrug off the effects, and the normalization of that violence inevitably trickles down and affects the weak. It is predictable as water. Criminal justice applies punishment under the conceit of blind justice, but we see the results: Prisons are flooded with the most vulnerable, and the rich can buy their way out of any problem In activist communities, these processes follow a similar pragmatism Punishment is not something that happens to bad people. It happens to those who cannot stop it from happening. It is laundered pain, not a balancing of scales. beachdeath:https://thenewinquiry.com/hot-allostatic-load/
Bad, Community, and Feminism: CALL-OUT CULTURE AS RITUAL DISPOSABILITY
 Feminist/queer spaces are more willing to criticize people than
 abusive systems because they want to reserve the right to use those
 systems for their own purposes. At least attacking people can be
 politically viable, especially in a token system where vou benefit
 directly by their absence, or where your status as a good feminist is
 dependent on constantly rooting out evil
 When the bounty system calls for the ears of evil people, well, most
 people have a fucking ear.
 When I used to curate games, I was approached by people in that
 abusive community who pressured me not to cover a game by a
 trans woman. Their reasoning was blatant jealousy, disguised under
 the thin, nauseating film of pretext that covers nearly everything
 people say about trans people.

 When I rejected their reasoning and covered the game, the targeting
 reticule of disposability turned toward me. What can we learn from
 this? Besides "lofty processes in queer/feminist spaces are nearly
 always about some embarrassingly petty shit," it's about the ritual
 nature of disposability, which has nothing to do with "deserving" it.
 Disposability has to happen on a regular basis, like forest fires
 keeping nature in balance.
 So when people write all those apologist articles about call-out
 culture and other instruments of violence in feminism, I don't think
 they understand that the people who most deserve those things can
 usually shrug off the effects, and the normalization of that violence
 inevitably trickles down and affects the weak. It is predictable as
 water. Criminal justice applies punishment under the conceit of
 blind justice, but we see the results: Prisons are flooded with the
 most vulnerable, and the rich can buy their way out of any problem
 In activist communities, these processes follow a similar
 pragmatism
 Punishment is not something that happens to bad people. It
 happens to those who cannot stop it from happening. It is
 laundered pain, not a balancing of scales.
beachdeath:https://thenewinquiry.com/hot-allostatic-load/

beachdeath:https://thenewinquiry.com/hot-allostatic-load/

Beard, Love, and New Year's: DONNY CATES @Doncates 14h Yeah. Way more innocent. Childlike at times. Adam @Arctic_Adam Replying to @Doncates What type of voice do you read the symbiote? More demonic like the movie or more innocent? DONNY CATES @Doncates 14h Yes Rinienne @RinNathe Replying to @Doncates We were teased the symbiote having a name, will it ever come up again? DONNY CATES Φ @Doncates. 13h Love Joshannukah @Joshy206 @Doncates what does venom smell like DONNY CATES Ф @Doncates. 14h Beard was my call, yeah. I think the symbiote will love it as long as it makes Eddie happy. Rinienne @RinNathe Replying to @Doncates Ok, last... three in one? I swear. Was it your idea to give Eddie beard? Can he keep it? Do you think the symbiote will like it when it comes back? 91t16 62 symbisexual-disaster: symbisexual-disaster: However, in an effort to be more positive this year, which will last for approximately 4 hours, here are some things from the AMA that I kind of liked? He does write the symbiote voice as very childlike, which I love, so…credit for that, at least.  remember yesterday morning when I was going to give Donny the benefit of the doubt and try to find things in his stupid replies that I liked? Adorable ^ this one is really rubbing me the wrong way. Eddie Venom have been in a canonically romantic relationship since like, 1995 or whatever. Venom shouldn’t have a childlike voice because a) that’s kinda gross and b) it’s how many decades/ centuries old before it got to Eddie?It’s not a great thing to conflate innocence and childlike qualities as being the same thing. You can have one w/o the other.Anyway, we’re going into the new year fully realising that Donny Cates is a fuckwit and I’m only picking the comic up once he gets fired and the queer stuff is back on the menu.
Beard, Love, and New Year's: DONNY CATES @Doncates 14h
 Yeah. Way more innocent. Childlike at times.
 Adam @Arctic_Adam
 Replying to @Doncates
 What type of voice do you read the symbiote? More demonic like the movie
 or more innocent?

 DONNY CATES @Doncates 14h
 Yes
 Rinienne @RinNathe
 Replying to @Doncates
 We were teased the symbiote having a name, will it ever come up again?

 DONNY CATES Φ @Doncates. 13h
 Love
 Joshannukah @Joshy206
 @Doncates what does venom smell like

 DONNY CATES Ф @Doncates. 14h
 Beard was my call, yeah. I think the symbiote will love it as long as it makes
 Eddie happy.
 Rinienne @RinNathe
 Replying to @Doncates
 Ok, last... three in one? I swear. Was it your idea to give Eddie beard? Can
 he keep it? Do you think the symbiote will like it when it comes back?
 91t16 62
symbisexual-disaster:
symbisexual-disaster:
However, in an effort to be more positive this year, which will last for approximately 4 hours, here are some things from the AMA that I kind of liked? He does write the symbiote voice as very childlike, which I love, so…credit for that, at least. 
remember yesterday morning when I was going to give Donny the benefit of the doubt and try to find things in his stupid replies that I liked? Adorable

^ this one is really rubbing me the wrong way. Eddie  Venom have been in a canonically romantic relationship since like, 1995 or whatever. Venom shouldn’t have a childlike voice because a) that’s kinda gross and b) it’s how many decades/ centuries old before it got to Eddie?It’s not a great thing to conflate innocence and childlike qualities as being the same thing. You can have one w/o the other.Anyway, we’re going into the new year fully realising that Donny Cates is a fuckwit and I’m only picking the comic up once he gets fired and the queer stuff is back on the menu.

symbisexual-disaster: symbisexual-disaster: However, in an effort to be more positive this year, which will last for approximately 4 hours, ...

Future, Memes, and Access: Ayahusaca Grows New Brain Cells and has Antidepressant Effects @truth_society "Ayahuasca is not a drug in the Western sense, something you take to get rid of something. Properly used, it opens up parts of yourself that you usually have no access to. The parts of the brain that hold emotional memories come together with those parts that modulate insight and awareness, so you see past experiences in a new way." - Dr. Gabor Mate Interest in the therapeutic potential of ayahuasca🍃 has exploded over the past few years as more and more people learn about the wonderful benefits of this sacred brew. Ayahuasca is the combination of specific plant species containing DMT and MAOIs to produce a long lasting hallucinogenic experience with profound health benefits.😊 - New research is demonstrating what indigenous South American peoples have known for thousands of years; this plant medicine drink has potent antidepressant qualities and could potentially be used to combat addiction and PTSD.🙏 - Researchers placed harmine and tetrahydroharmine – the most prevalent alkaloids in ayahuasca – in a petri dish with hippocampal stem cells, and found that this greatly increased the rate at which these cells developed into fully mature neurons. The results of this study were first presented at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Psychedelics Research, and represent the first evidence that components of ayahuasca have neurogenic properties, thereby opening up a wealth of possibilities for future research.✨ - Another more recent study has become the first to analyze the antidepressant properties of ayahuasca in a controlled setting.🔬 29 patients with severe depression were given either one session of ayahuasca or a placebo, then analyzed for changes in their depression scores.💯 - One day immediately following the sessions, the ayahuasca group scored significantly lower on depression tests compared to the placebo group. After seven days, the placebo group had returned to a normal depression level, while the ayahuasca group were still on a much lower depression score.😎 - It is important to remember that taking ayahuasca in a safe, therapeutic, and supportive environment is the greatest method for obtaining the most healing benefit possible.🙏 - This ancient brew is schedule one in the United States which means it has no medicinal value, yet is has been used as a medicine longer then the United States has existed as a country..🤔 - Source: http:-beckleyfoundation.org-ayahuasca-stimulates-the-birth-of-new-brain-cells-
Future, Memes, and Access: Ayahusaca Grows New Brain Cells
 and has Antidepressant Effects
 @truth_society
 "Ayahuasca is not a drug in the Western sense,
 something you take to get rid of something.
 Properly used, it opens up parts of yourself that you
 usually have no access to. The parts of the brain that
 hold emotional memories come together with those
 parts that modulate insight and awareness, so you see
 past experiences in a new way." - Dr. Gabor Mate
Interest in the therapeutic potential of ayahuasca🍃 has exploded over the past few years as more and more people learn about the wonderful benefits of this sacred brew. Ayahuasca is the combination of specific plant species containing DMT and MAOIs to produce a long lasting hallucinogenic experience with profound health benefits.😊 - New research is demonstrating what indigenous South American peoples have known for thousands of years; this plant medicine drink has potent antidepressant qualities and could potentially be used to combat addiction and PTSD.🙏 - Researchers placed harmine and tetrahydroharmine – the most prevalent alkaloids in ayahuasca – in a petri dish with hippocampal stem cells, and found that this greatly increased the rate at which these cells developed into fully mature neurons. The results of this study were first presented at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Psychedelics Research, and represent the first evidence that components of ayahuasca have neurogenic properties, thereby opening up a wealth of possibilities for future research.✨ - Another more recent study has become the first to analyze the antidepressant properties of ayahuasca in a controlled setting.🔬 29 patients with severe depression were given either one session of ayahuasca or a placebo, then analyzed for changes in their depression scores.💯 - One day immediately following the sessions, the ayahuasca group scored significantly lower on depression tests compared to the placebo group. After seven days, the placebo group had returned to a normal depression level, while the ayahuasca group were still on a much lower depression score.😎 - It is important to remember that taking ayahuasca in a safe, therapeutic, and supportive environment is the greatest method for obtaining the most healing benefit possible.🙏 - This ancient brew is schedule one in the United States which means it has no medicinal value, yet is has been used as a medicine longer then the United States has existed as a country..🤔 - Source: http:-beckleyfoundation.org-ayahuasca-stimulates-the-birth-of-new-brain-cells-

Interest in the therapeutic potential of ayahuasca🍃 has exploded over the past few years as more and more people learn about the wonderful b...

Anaconda, Bodies , and Books: The most likely chemical in chocolate that might explain its feel-good effect is PEA, of which there can be up to 700 mg in a 100 g bar (0.7%). Most chocolate contains much less than this, and a more typical amount would be 50-100 mg. In its pure state PEA is an oily liquid with a fishlike smell, and it can be made in the laboratory from ammonia. (PEA has the curious property of absorbing carbon dioxide from the air.) When people are injected with PEA, the level of glucose in their blood goes up and so does their blood pressure. These effects combine to produce a feeling of well-being and alertness. PEA may trigger the release of dopamine, which is the brain chemical that makes us feel happy, in which case PEA would be acting in the same way as amphetamines such as ecstasy. PEA and ecstasy molecules are roughly the same shape and size, and this has led to the suggestion that they might work in the same way, but scientific proof is lacking that they do. Our own bodies produce tiny but detectable amounts of PEA naturally, and it is formed from an essential dietary amino acid called phenylalanine. The level of natural PEA varies and it increases when we are under stress. It is also higher than normal in schizophrenics and hyperactive children, but this is more likely to be a symptom of these conditions rather than their cause. Not everyone can cope with a sudden influx of PEA, which is why some people are sensitive to chocolate, often suffering a violent headache if they eat too much. This happens because the excess PEA constricts the walls of blood vessels in the brain. The human body has little use for PEA and employs an enzyme, monoamine oxidase, to dispose of it. People whose bodies are intolerant of chocolate appear to have difficulty making enough of the enzyme to prevent the PEA building up to levels that triggers migraines. symbisexual-disaster: Trying to learn more about chocolate and PEA, thought this was an interesting resource! Link In order to get his fix, Venom probably stops the MAO enzyme from getting rid of the PEA. Then he just sucks it up himself so that Eddie doesn’t get headaches. If I’m understanding this right, a chocolate-intolerant person would greatly benefit from bonding with a symbiote. Since chocolate-intolerants don’t make enough of the MAO enzyme, they need to either a) not eat chocolate ever if they don’t want a migraine or b) hook up with a symbiote that will slurp it up for them!  So it might be fun to write either Eddie or an OC who could never enjoy chocolate before, but after bonding, somehow is actually able to? Fun fun. 
Anaconda, Bodies , and Books: The most likely chemical in chocolate that might explain its feel-good effect is PEA, of which there can
 be up to 700 mg in a 100 g bar (0.7%). Most chocolate contains much less than this, and a more typical
 amount would be 50-100 mg. In its pure state PEA is an oily liquid with a fishlike smell, and it can be made
 in the laboratory from ammonia. (PEA has the curious property of absorbing carbon dioxide from the air.)
 When people are injected with PEA, the level of glucose in their blood goes up and so does their blood
 pressure. These effects combine to produce a feeling of well-being and alertness. PEA may trigger the
 release of dopamine, which is the brain chemical that makes us feel happy, in which case PEA would be
 acting in the same way as amphetamines such as ecstasy. PEA and ecstasy molecules are roughly the same
 shape and size, and this has led to the suggestion that they might work in the same way, but scientific proof
 is lacking that they do.
 Our own bodies produce tiny but detectable amounts of PEA naturally, and it is formed from an essential
 dietary amino acid called phenylalanine. The level of natural PEA varies and it increases when we are under
 stress. It is also higher than normal in schizophrenics and hyperactive children, but this is more likely to be a
 symptom of these conditions rather than their cause.
 Not everyone can cope with a sudden influx of PEA, which is why some people are sensitive to chocolate,
 often suffering a violent headache if they eat too much. This happens because the excess PEA constricts the
 walls of blood vessels in the brain. The human body has little use for PEA and employs an enzyme,
 monoamine oxidase, to dispose of it. People whose bodies are intolerant of chocolate appear to have
 difficulty making enough of the enzyme to prevent the PEA building up to levels that triggers migraines.
symbisexual-disaster:
Trying to learn more about chocolate and PEA, thought this was an interesting resource! Link
In order to get his fix, Venom probably stops the MAO enzyme from getting rid of the PEA. Then he just sucks it up himself so that Eddie doesn’t get headaches.
If I’m understanding this right, a chocolate-intolerant person would greatly benefit from bonding with a symbiote. Since chocolate-intolerants don’t make enough of the MAO enzyme, they need to either a) not eat chocolate ever if they don’t want a migraine or b) hook up with a symbiote that will slurp it up for them! 
So it might be fun to write either Eddie or an OC who could never enjoy chocolate before, but after bonding, somehow is actually able to? Fun fun. 

symbisexual-disaster: Trying to learn more about chocolate and PEA, thought this was an interesting resource! Link In order to get his fix, ...

At-St, Friends, and New York: callmeblake: ohimtherebabe: [x] Frank Iero at St. Vitus Bar, New York  - January 18th, 2014 at the Fadeaway Records Friends Benefit
At-St, Friends, and New York: callmeblake:
ohimtherebabe:
[x]


Frank Iero at St. Vitus Bar, New York  - January 18th, 2014 at the Fadeaway Records Friends Benefit

callmeblake: ohimtherebabe: [x] Frank Iero at St. Vitus Bar, New York  - January 18th, 2014 at the Fadeaway Records Friends Benefit