🔥 | Latest

Dude, Ironic, and Money: erin i you literally are a billionaire literally it is not ironic in any way Follow you weren't called a billionaire until you were... a billionaire if you think it's is a negative label, maybe it's because it means that you're hoarding money and resources from the rest of the world Elon Musk O Delonmusk Replying to blake,kistler @88CWorld ronically, the "billionaire label, when used by media, is almost always meant to devalue & denigrate the subject. I wasnt called that until my companies got to a certain size, but reality is that I still do the same science & engineeing as before. Just the scale has changed. 0:03 AM-10 Jul 2018 Elon Musk @elonmusk Following Replying to Geehouls No, it means I created jobs for 50,000 people directly and, through parts suppliers & supporting professions, 250,000 people indirectly, thus supporting half a million families. What have you done? 10:12 AM-10 Jul 2018 <p><a href="http://goat-yells-at-everything.tumblr.com/post/175791702726/libertarirynn-and-erin-there-is-a-perfect" class="tumblr_blog">goat-yells-at-everything</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/175791082409" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="280" data-tumblr-attribution="wendywilliamsgifs:gMu_B-ehUbLQbft6mYwVBg:Zn6VAn2F5H4ei"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/afb66cbf4ca5ebfb018b4780256bd5fa/tumblr_oh6qj0cx8U1tfn6k7o1_500.gifv" data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="280"/></figure></blockquote> <p>And Erin there is a perfect example of what Musk was talking about in his original tweet.</p> <p>“Billionaire” IS used in a very negative way by a LOT of people. Especially those who don’t realize it doesn’t mean “someone who literally sits on a vault of cash and swims in it like Scrooge McDuck.” Most Billionaires don’t just have money lying around. It’s tied up in a million different kinds of assets including his employee roster.</p> </blockquote><p>Exactly. And I’m surprisingly Hank Green is on his high horse snarking at Musk and offering a creative re-definition of “job creation“</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="785" data-orig-width="750"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ce07c8ec6880c76d43d18140978c281c/tumblr_pbq2563wUL1rw09tq_540.jpg" data-orig-height="785" data-orig-width="750"/></figure><p>Like dude… You are quite literally a job creator if you run a company that has employees. It’s not mutually exclusive with recognizing the contributions of other people, but if all being a billionaire means is literally having over $1 billion, then If you literally create jobs you are literally a Job creator. </p><p>The irony of not seeing “billionaire” used as a slur but then balking at the concept of being called a “job creator” is laughable.</p>
Dude, Ironic, and Money: erin i
 you literally are a billionaire
 literally
 it is not ironic in any way
 Follow
 you weren't called a billionaire until you
 were... a billionaire
 if you think it's is a negative label,
 maybe it's because it means that you're
 hoarding money and resources from the
 rest of the world
 Elon Musk O Delonmusk
 Replying to blake,kistler @88CWorld
 ronically, the "billionaire label, when used by media, is almost always
 meant to devalue & denigrate the subject. I wasnt called that until my
 companies got to a certain size, but reality is that I still do the same science
 & engineeing as before. Just the scale has changed.
 0:03 AM-10 Jul 2018

 Elon Musk
 @elonmusk
 Following
 Replying to Geehouls
 No, it means I created jobs for 50,000 people
 directly and, through parts suppliers &
 supporting professions, 250,000 people
 indirectly, thus supporting half a million
 families. What have you done?
 10:12 AM-10 Jul 2018
<p><a href="http://goat-yells-at-everything.tumblr.com/post/175791702726/libertarirynn-and-erin-there-is-a-perfect" class="tumblr_blog">goat-yells-at-everything</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/175791082409" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p>

<blockquote><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="280" data-tumblr-attribution="wendywilliamsgifs:gMu_B-ehUbLQbft6mYwVBg:Zn6VAn2F5H4ei"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/afb66cbf4ca5ebfb018b4780256bd5fa/tumblr_oh6qj0cx8U1tfn6k7o1_500.gifv" data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="280"/></figure></blockquote>

<p>And Erin there is a perfect example of what Musk was talking about in his original tweet.</p>
<p>“Billionaire” IS used in a very negative way by a LOT of people. Especially those who don’t realize it doesn’t mean “someone who literally sits on a vault of cash and swims in it like Scrooge McDuck.” Most Billionaires don’t just have money lying around. It’s tied up in a million different kinds of assets including his employee roster.</p>
</blockquote><p>Exactly. And I’m surprisingly Hank Green is on his high horse snarking at Musk and offering a creative re-definition of “job creation“</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="785" data-orig-width="750"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ce07c8ec6880c76d43d18140978c281c/tumblr_pbq2563wUL1rw09tq_540.jpg" data-orig-height="785" data-orig-width="750"/></figure><p>Like dude… You are quite literally a job creator if you run a company that has employees. It’s not mutually exclusive with recognizing the contributions of other people, but if all being a billionaire means is literally having over $1 billion, then If you literally create jobs you are literally a Job creator. </p><p>The irony of not seeing “billionaire” used as a slur but then balking at the concept of being called a “job creator” is laughable.</p>

<p><a href="http://goat-yells-at-everything.tumblr.com/post/175791702726/libertarirynn-and-erin-there-is-a-perfect" class="tumblr_blog">goat...

Animals, Bad, and Bones: <p><a href="https://osberend.tumblr.com/post/154339311017/iopele-suspendnodisbelief-naamahdarling" class="tumblr_blog">osberend</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://iopele.tumblr.com/post/139458660302">iopele</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://suspendnodisbelief.tumblr.com/post/135039695690">suspendnodisbelief</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://naamahdarling.tumblr.com/post/134398266796">naamahdarling</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://optimysticals.tumblr.com/post/134385780223">optimysticals</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://youwantmuchmore.tumblr.com/post/127279952598">youwantmuchmore</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://thebestoftumbling.tumblr.com/post/123303726099">thebestoftumbling</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p> golden eagle having a relaxing time <br/></p> </blockquote> <p>This is the world’s largest flying Engine of Murder marveling at the fact that it can actually have its tummy rubbed.</p> </blockquote> <p>I feel like this is the next step up on “loose your fingers” roulette from petting a kittie’s tummy, but just below belly rubs for say a lion.</p> </blockquote> <p>Can someone who knows birds better than I do tell me whether this eagle is as happy as it looks?  Because I want it to be happy.  It looks so happy.  Bewildered by having a friend, but so happy.</p> </blockquote> <p>Just popping on this thread to confirm: yes, the eagle is happy about the belly rubs. Golden eagles make this sound when receiving allopreening and similar affectionate and soothing treatment from their parents and mates. It’s the “I am safe and well fed, and somebody familiar is taking good care of me” sound. Angry raptors and wounded raptors make some pretty dramatic hisses and shrieks; frightened raptors go dead silent and try to hide if they can, or fluff up big and get loud and in-your-face if hiding isn’t an option. They can easily sever a finger or break the bones of a human hand or wrist, and even with a very thick leather falconer’s gauntlet, I’ve known falconers to leave a mews (hawk house) with graphic punctures THROUGH the gauntlet into the meat of their hands and arms, just from buteos and kestrels way smaller than this eagle. A pissed off hawk will make damn sure you don’t try twice whatever you pulled that pissed her off, even if she’s been human-imprinted.</p> <p>If you’re ever unsure about an animal’s level of okayness with something that’s happening, there are three spot-check questions you can ask, to common-sense your way through it:</p> <p>1. Is the animal capable of defending itself or making a threatening or fearful display, or otherwise giving protest, and if so, is it using this ability? (e.g. dog snarling or biting, swan hissing, horse kicking or biting) <br/><br/>2. Does the animal experience an incentive-based relationship with the human? (i.e. does the animal have a reason, in the animal’s frame of reference, for being near this human? e.g. dog sharing companionship / food / shelter, hawk receiving good quality abundant food and shelter and medical care from a falconer)</p> <p>3. Is the animal a domesticated species, with at least a full century of consistent species cohabitation with humans? (Domesticated animals frequently are conditioned from birth or by selective breeding to be unbothered by human actions that upset their feral nearest relatives.)</p> <p>In this situation, YES the eagle can self-defend, YES the eagle has incentive to cooperate with and trust the human handler, and NO the eagle is not a domesticated species, meaning we can expect a high level of reactivity to distress, compared to domestic animals: if the eagle was distressed, it would be pretty visible and apparent to the viewer. These aren’t a universally applicable metric, but they’re a good start for mammal and bird interactions.</p> <p>Pair that with the knowledge that eagles reserve those chirps for calm environments, and you can be pretty secure and comfy in the knowledge that the big honkin’ birb is happy and cozy.</p> <p>Also, to anybody wondering, falconers are almost single-handedly responsible for the recovery from near-extinction of several raptor species, including and especially peregrine falcons. Most hawks only live with the falconer for a year, and most of that year is spent getting the bird in ideal condition for survival and success as a wild breeding adult. Falconers are extensively trained and dedicated wildlife conservationists, pretty much by definition, especially in the continental USA, and they make up an unspeakably important part of the overall conservation of predatory bird species. Predatory birds are an important part of every ecosystem they inhabit. Just like apiarists and their bees, the relationship between falconer and hawk is one of great benefit to the animal and the ecosystem, in exchange for a huge amount of time, effort, expense, and education on the part of the human, for very little personal benefit to that one human. It’s definitely not exploitation of the bird, and most hawks working with falconers are hawks who absolutely would not have reached adulthood without human help: the sick, the injured, and the “runts” of the nest who don’t receive adequate resources from their own parents. These are, by and large, wonderful people who are in love with the natural world and putting a lifetime of knowledge and sheer exhausting <i>work</i> into conserving it and its winged wonders.</p> </blockquote> <p>reblogged for excellent info, I’m so glad that big gorgeous birb really is as happy as it looks!</p> </blockquote> <p>Today’s bit of <a href="http://osberend.tumblr.com/post/152834355142/lately-ive-been-thinking-about-positive-and">positive activism</a>: A reminder that, although the world may contain many bad and awful things, it also contains an enormous winged predator clucking happily as a human gives it a belly rub.<br/></p> </blockquote>
Animals, Bad, and Bones: <p><a href="https://osberend.tumblr.com/post/154339311017/iopele-suspendnodisbelief-naamahdarling" class="tumblr_blog">osberend</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://iopele.tumblr.com/post/139458660302">iopele</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://suspendnodisbelief.tumblr.com/post/135039695690">suspendnodisbelief</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://naamahdarling.tumblr.com/post/134398266796">naamahdarling</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://optimysticals.tumblr.com/post/134385780223">optimysticals</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://youwantmuchmore.tumblr.com/post/127279952598">youwantmuchmore</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://thebestoftumbling.tumblr.com/post/123303726099">thebestoftumbling</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>

golden eagle having a relaxing time

<br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is the world’s largest flying Engine of Murder marveling at the fact that it can actually have its tummy rubbed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I feel like this is the next step up on “loose your fingers” roulette from petting a kittie’s tummy, but just below belly rubs for say a lion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Can someone who knows birds better than I do tell me whether this eagle is as happy as it looks?  Because I want it to be happy.  It looks so happy.  Bewildered by having a friend, but so happy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Just popping on this thread to confirm: yes, the eagle is happy about the belly rubs. Golden eagles make this sound when receiving allopreening and similar affectionate and soothing treatment from their parents and mates. It’s the “I am safe and well fed, and somebody familiar is taking good care of me” sound. Angry raptors and wounded raptors make some pretty dramatic hisses and shrieks; frightened raptors go dead silent and try to hide if they can, or fluff up big and get loud and in-your-face if hiding isn’t an option. They can easily sever a finger or break the bones of a human hand or wrist, and even with a very thick leather falconer’s gauntlet, I’ve known falconers to leave a mews (hawk house) with graphic punctures THROUGH the gauntlet into the meat of their hands and arms, just from buteos and kestrels way smaller than this eagle. A pissed off hawk will make damn sure you don’t try twice whatever you pulled that pissed her off, even if she’s been human-imprinted.</p>
<p>If you’re ever unsure about an animal’s level of okayness with something that’s happening, there are three spot-check questions you can ask, to common-sense your way through it:</p>
<p>1. Is the animal capable of defending itself or making a threatening or fearful display, or otherwise giving protest, and if so, is it using this ability? (e.g. dog snarling or biting, swan hissing, horse kicking or biting) <br/><br/>2. Does the animal experience an incentive-based relationship with the human? (i.e. does the animal have a reason, in the animal’s frame of reference, for being near this human? e.g. dog sharing companionship / food / shelter, hawk receiving good quality abundant food and shelter and medical care from a falconer)</p>
<p>3. Is the animal a domesticated species, with at least a full century of consistent species cohabitation with humans? (Domesticated animals frequently are conditioned from birth or by selective breeding to be unbothered by human actions that upset their feral nearest relatives.)</p>
<p>In this situation, YES the eagle can self-defend, YES the eagle has incentive to cooperate with and trust the human handler, and NO the eagle is not a domesticated species, meaning we can expect a high level of reactivity to distress, compared to domestic animals: if the eagle was distressed, it would be pretty visible and apparent to the viewer. These aren’t a universally applicable metric, but they’re a good start for mammal and bird interactions.</p>
<p>Pair that with the knowledge that eagles reserve those chirps for calm environments, and you can be pretty secure and comfy in the knowledge that the big honkin’ birb is happy and cozy.</p>
<p>Also, to anybody wondering, falconers are almost single-handedly responsible for the recovery from near-extinction of several raptor species, including and especially peregrine falcons. Most hawks only live with the falconer for a year, and most of that year is spent getting the bird in ideal condition for survival and success as a wild breeding adult. Falconers are extensively trained and dedicated wildlife conservationists, pretty much by definition, especially in the continental USA, and they make up an unspeakably important part of the overall conservation of predatory bird species. Predatory birds are an important part of every ecosystem they inhabit. Just like apiarists and their bees, the relationship between falconer and hawk is one of great benefit to the animal and the ecosystem, in exchange for a huge amount of time, effort, expense, and education on the part of the human, for very little personal benefit to that one human. It’s definitely not exploitation of the bird, and most hawks working with falconers are hawks who absolutely would not have reached adulthood without human help: the sick, the injured, and the “runts” of the nest who don’t receive adequate resources from their own parents. These are, by and large, wonderful people who are in love with the natural world and putting a lifetime of knowledge and sheer exhausting <i>work</i> into conserving it and its winged wonders.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>reblogged for excellent info, I’m so glad that big gorgeous birb really is as happy as it looks!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Today’s bit of <a href="http://osberend.tumblr.com/post/152834355142/lately-ive-been-thinking-about-positive-and">positive activism</a>: A reminder that, although the world may contain many bad and awful things, it also contains an enormous winged predator clucking happily as a human gives it a belly rub.<br/></p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://osberend.tumblr.com/post/154339311017/iopele-suspendnodisbelief-naamahdarling" class="tumblr_blog">osberend</a>:</p><blo...

Alive, Dude, and Ignorant: Reply T 33 JTİzzle495-34m But they're not the exact same product, men and women are biologically different. If a woman where to, for example, use a razor marketed towards men, she would skin herself alive because women's skin works different than men's skin. ...Vote <p><a href="http://robin-hood-for-freedom.tumblr.com/post/173597799982/libertarirynn-transtruscum-bizarrolord" class="tumblr_blog">robin-hood-for-freedom</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/173597101529/transtruscum-bizarrolord-ray-winters-sings" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://transtruscum.tumblr.com/post/173566700804/bizarrolord-ray-winters-sings" class="tumblr_blog">transtruscum</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://bizarrolord.tumblr.com/post/173553934044/ray-winters-sings-watercolor-gryphon-mens" class="tumblr_blog">bizarrolord</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://ray-winters-sings.tumblr.com/post/172975536457/watercolor-gryphon-mens-shampoo-turns-woman-to" class="tumblr_blog">ray-winters-sings</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://watercolor-gryphon.tumblr.com/post/172929336883/mens-shampoo-turns-woman-to-stone" class="tumblr_blog">watercolor-gryphon</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Mens shampoo turns woman to stone</p></blockquote> <p>Mens sunscreen catapults women into the sun</p> </blockquote> <p>My mom <i>actually believed </i>this “men and women are basically two different species” stuff. (As do many other radfems.)</p> <p>I’d like to say this is a troll or sarcasm, but I’m not sure.</p> </blockquote> <p>It’s reddit, this isn’t a radfem or a troll. Just an ignorant dude.</p> </blockquote> <p>I mean the point that a lot of the “pink tax“ products are not in fact the “exact same product” is true though. Maybe not with razors but with shampoos and stuff the things that go into the scents and moisturizers have different costs. </p> <p>Also if in fact there is no difference between men’s and women’s razors, then just buy the cheaper men’s razor. Problem solved.</p> </blockquote> <p>Arent women’s razors designed to last longer, because women typically shave larger parts of their body?  </p> </blockquote> <p>That’s probably true. Also men usually use razors to shave their face and I’m fairly certain facial hair is coarser than leg and armpit hair so it stands to reason that they would be designed a little differently.</p><p>Plus people keep acting like they are being *forced* to buy products marketed towards women. Literally no one is doing that. I guarantee you if people stopped buying products marketed towards women companies would stop making them. But people won’t, because whether they want to admit it or not most of these products *are* fundamentally different. This is not a “tax“ by any definition of the word. </p>
Alive, Dude, and Ignorant: Reply T 33
 JTİzzle495-34m
 But they're not the exact same product, men
 and women are biologically different. If a
 woman where to, for example, use a razor
 marketed towards men, she would skin herself
 alive because women's skin works different
 than men's skin.
 ...Vote
<p><a href="http://robin-hood-for-freedom.tumblr.com/post/173597799982/libertarirynn-transtruscum-bizarrolord" class="tumblr_blog">robin-hood-for-freedom</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/173597101529/transtruscum-bizarrolord-ray-winters-sings" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://transtruscum.tumblr.com/post/173566700804/bizarrolord-ray-winters-sings" class="tumblr_blog">transtruscum</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://bizarrolord.tumblr.com/post/173553934044/ray-winters-sings-watercolor-gryphon-mens" class="tumblr_blog">bizarrolord</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://ray-winters-sings.tumblr.com/post/172975536457/watercolor-gryphon-mens-shampoo-turns-woman-to" class="tumblr_blog">ray-winters-sings</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://watercolor-gryphon.tumblr.com/post/172929336883/mens-shampoo-turns-woman-to-stone" class="tumblr_blog">watercolor-gryphon</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mens shampoo turns woman to stone</p></blockquote>

<p>Mens sunscreen catapults women into the sun</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My mom <i>actually believed </i>this “men and women are basically two different species” stuff. (As do many other radfems.)</p>
<p>I’d like to say this is a troll or sarcasm, but I’m not sure.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s reddit, this isn’t a radfem or a troll. Just an ignorant dude.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I mean the point that a lot of the “pink tax“ products are not in fact the “exact same product” is true though. Maybe not with razors but with shampoos and stuff the things that go into the scents and moisturizers have different costs. </p>
<p>Also if in fact there is no difference between men’s and women’s razors, then just buy the cheaper men’s razor. Problem solved.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Arent women’s razors designed to last longer, because women typically shave larger parts of their body?  </p>
</blockquote>
<p>That’s probably true. Also men usually use razors to shave their face and I’m fairly certain facial hair is coarser than leg and armpit hair so it stands to reason that they would be designed a little differently.</p><p>Plus people keep acting like they are being *forced* to buy products marketed towards women. Literally no one is doing that. I guarantee you if people stopped buying products marketed towards women companies would stop making them. But people won’t, because whether they want to admit it or not most of these products *are* fundamentally different. This is not a “tax“ by any definition of the word. </p>

<p><a href="http://robin-hood-for-freedom.tumblr.com/post/173597799982/libertarirynn-transtruscum-bizarrolord" class="tumblr_blog">robin-hoo...

Mondays, Muslim, and Definition: The Independent @lndependent Follow Someone told this woman Sharia law should be banned. She shut them down in the most epic way Someone told this woman Sharia law should be banned. She shut them down... Monday's episode of ABC's Q&A featured two people with vastly different opinions engineer Yassmin Abdel- indy100.com Amin HaqueAminHaqq 13m Replying to @Independent Hey @Independent, can you guys quit your bullshit? Pointing out that a faith that was more egalitarian literally over 1000 years isnt shutting someone down". You got the next 1400 years to poorly explain. Islam, to me, is the most feminist religion. Right. We got equal rights well before the Europeans. We don't take our husband's last names because we ain't their property. We were given the right to own our own land... The fact is what is culture is separate from what is faith and the fact that people go around dissing my falth without knowing anything abo t..y Amin HaqueAminHaqq 10m Please, @Independent, tell me, why did she refer to praying, something that only applies to the individual, as a defence for sharia law? *LAWS* apply to evervone. Me praying flve times a day is Sharia. Lambie continued, unwilling to listen to the Muslim woman's definition of Sharia law t What about equal rights to women? That, says Magied, is completely separate from Islam. And then she delivered the following smack-down: Amin Haque@AminHaqq 5m So go ahead @Independent, write an article about the sharia *laws, that apply to someone who leaves their faith, or about inheritance, or domestic violence?? Dont forgot your patronising hashtags #pwned #owned #smackdown Or is that too clickbaity for you? The Independent quotes a woman who think Sharia Law is feminist
Mondays, Muslim, and Definition: The Independent
 @lndependent
 Follow
 Someone told this woman Sharia law should
 be banned. She shut them down in the most
 epic way
 Someone told this woman Sharia law should be banned. She shut them down...
 Monday's episode of ABC's Q&A featured two people with vastly different opinions
 engineer Yassmin Abdel-
 indy100.com

 Amin HaqueAminHaqq 13m
 Replying to @Independent
 Hey @Independent, can you guys quit your bullshit?
 Pointing out that a faith that was more egalitarian literally over 1000 years isnt
 shutting someone down". You got the next 1400 years to poorly explain.
 Islam, to me, is the most feminist religion. Right.
 We got equal rights well before the Europeans. We
 don't take our husband's last names because we ain't
 their property. We were given the right to own our
 own land... The fact is what is culture is separate from
 what is faith and the fact that people go around
 dissing my falth without knowing anything abo
 t..y

 Amin HaqueAminHaqq 10m
 Please, @Independent, tell me, why did she refer to praying, something that
 only applies to the individual, as a defence for sharia law? *LAWS* apply to
 evervone.
 Me praying flve times a day is Sharia.
 Lambie continued, unwilling to listen to the Muslim woman's definition of Sharia law
 t What about equal rights to women?
 That, says Magied, is completely separate from Islam.
 And then she delivered the following smack-down:

 Amin Haque@AminHaqq 5m
 So go ahead @Independent, write an article about the sharia *laws, that apply
 to someone who leaves their faith, or about inheritance, or domestic violence??
 Dont forgot your patronising hashtags #pwned #owned #smackdown
 Or is that too clickbaity for you?
The Independent quotes a woman who think Sharia Law is feminist

The Independent quotes a woman who think Sharia Law is feminist

America, Basic Bitch, and Bitch: <p><a href="http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/172639808419/pennsylvanian-patriot-elementarynationalism" class="tumblr_blog">siryouarebeingmocked</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://pennsylvanian-patriot.tumblr.com/post/172213417879/elementarynationalism-sprmint-bkgsoda-veterans" class="tumblr_blog">pennsylvanian-patriot</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://elementarynationalism.tumblr.com/post/172213285049/sprmint-bkgsoda-veterans-for-gun-reform-you" class="tumblr_blog">elementarynationalism</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://sprmint-bkgsoda.tumblr.com/post/172172146960/veterans-for-gun-reform" class="tumblr_blog">sprmint-bkgsoda</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Veterans for Gun Reform.</p></blockquote> <p><i>‘You smell that?’</i><br/></p> <p><i>‘What?’<br/></i></p> <p><i>‘Astroturf, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that.’</i></p> </blockquote> <p>Alarming because most Americans have been brainwashed into believing that serving in the military automatically elevates someone to being an authority figure that must be respected and thanked. So this might actually have an effect on middle-ground basic bitch conservatives.</p> </blockquote> <p><br/>Let’s see how long before they spout some incorrect factoid.</p><p><i>&gt;the M16 is the same thing as an AR-15.</i></p><p>Wow, less than thirty seconds.</p><p><i>&gt;same weapon that’s killed hundreds of people in the deadliest mass shootings in america</i></p><p><a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/index.html">https://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/index.html</a></p><p>Some guy with handguns killed 32 people  at VTech. That was the deadliest mass shooting until Orlando. The Luby’s shooting in 1981 took 24 people, and that was the worst until the VTech shooting.  San Ysidro, 1984, Uzi carbine, Shotgun, handgun. 21 Dead. Then U Texas clock tower shooting, 1966, 17 dead, no AR-15 or variant.</p><p>In short, this claim requires a <b>very narrow definition </b>to be strictly accurate. To be precise, ONLY the <b>top two shootings</b>. Vegas and Orlando.</p><h2>And as always, ‘let’s restrict something million of people use safely and legally because a few dozen people use it for murder’ is a poor argument on its face.</h2></blockquote> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="426" data-orig-width="640"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/8bf46cc3d4df660e3405f3c938077487/tumblr_inline_p6qnpkBz3E1rw09tq_500.jpg" data-orig-height="426" data-orig-width="640"/></figure>
America, Basic Bitch, and Bitch: <p><a href="http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/172639808419/pennsylvanian-patriot-elementarynationalism" class="tumblr_blog">siryouarebeingmocked</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://pennsylvanian-patriot.tumblr.com/post/172213417879/elementarynationalism-sprmint-bkgsoda-veterans" class="tumblr_blog">pennsylvanian-patriot</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="https://elementarynationalism.tumblr.com/post/172213285049/sprmint-bkgsoda-veterans-for-gun-reform-you" class="tumblr_blog">elementarynationalism</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://sprmint-bkgsoda.tumblr.com/post/172172146960/veterans-for-gun-reform" class="tumblr_blog">sprmint-bkgsoda</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Veterans for Gun Reform.</p></blockquote>
<p><i>‘You smell that?’</i><br/></p>
<p><i>‘What?’<br/></i></p>
<p><i>‘Astroturf, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that.’</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Alarming because most Americans have been brainwashed into believing that serving in the military automatically elevates someone to being an authority figure that must be respected and thanked. So this might actually have an effect on middle-ground basic bitch conservatives.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br/>Let’s see how long before they spout some incorrect factoid.</p><p><i>&gt;the M16 is the same thing as an AR-15.</i></p><p>Wow, less than thirty seconds.</p><p><i>&gt;same weapon that’s killed hundreds of people in the deadliest mass shootings in america</i></p><p><a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/index.html">https://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/index.html</a></p><p>Some guy with handguns killed 32 people  at VTech. That was the deadliest mass shooting until Orlando. The Luby’s shooting in 1981 took 24 people, and that was the worst until the VTech shooting.  San Ysidro, 1984, Uzi carbine, Shotgun, handgun. 21 Dead. Then U Texas clock tower shooting, 1966, 17 dead, no AR-15 or variant.</p><p>In short, this claim requires a <b>very narrow definition </b>to be strictly accurate. To be precise, ONLY the <b>top two shootings</b>. Vegas and Orlando.</p><h2>And as always, ‘let’s restrict something million of people use safely and legally because a few dozen people use it for murder’ is a poor argument on its face.</h2></blockquote>

<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="426" data-orig-width="640"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/8bf46cc3d4df660e3405f3c938077487/tumblr_inline_p6qnpkBz3E1rw09tq_500.jpg" data-orig-height="426" data-orig-width="640"/></figure>

<p><a href="http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/172639808419/pennsylvanian-patriot-elementarynationalism" class="tumblr_blog">siryou...

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 <p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p> <p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</b><br/>Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p> <p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</b><br/>Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p> <p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</b><br/>The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p> <p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.</p> <p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p> <p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.</p> <p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.</p> <p>U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).</p> <p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.</p> <p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p> <p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p> </blockquote> <p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p> </blockquote> <p>Important </p> </blockquote> <p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
<p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p>
<p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</b><br/>Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p>
<p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</b><br/>Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p>
<p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</b><br/>The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p>
<p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.</p>
<p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p>
<p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.</p>
<p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.</p>
<p>U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).</p>
<p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.</p>
<p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Important </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>

<p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blo...