🔥 | Latest

Anna, Christmas, and Family: REI TILtilthat I L TIL that Spain had a king who was so malformed due to incest that he couldn't close his mouth and ended up destroying his entire dynasty via ift.tt neeetsocks thats just how spaniards be whittneydoll hey lil mama lemme whisper in ya ear friendly-neighborhood-patriarch the monumental ugliness of El Hechizado always astonishes me nunyabizni The Hapsburg's were a unique bunch weren't they nobodys-favorite-machinist The Ancestry of King Charles II of Spain (1661-1700) Philip of Castile (1478-1505) Joanna of Castile (1479-1555) Charles V. Holy Roman Emperor (1500-58) Isabella of Portugal (1503-39) Isabella of Burgundy (1501-26 Anna of Bohemia and Hungary (1503-47 Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor (1503-64) Christian I of Denmark (1481-1559) Philip of Spain (1527-96) Christina of Denmark (1522-90) Anne of Albert V, Duke Habsburg of Bavaria (1528-90) (1528-79) Mana of Spain (1528-1603) Charles of Austria (1540-90) Maximillan II, Holy Roman Emperor (1527-76) Francis 1, Duke of Lorraine (1517-45 Anne of Austria (1549-80) Maria Anna of Bavaria (1551-1608) Renata of Lorraine (1544-1602) William V, Duke of Bavaria (1548-1626) Margarita of Austria (1584-1611) Philip I of Spain (1578-1621) Maria Anna of Bavaria Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor (1578-1637) (1574-1616 Maria Anna of Spain (1606-46 Philip V of Spain (1605-65) Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor (1608-57) Manana of Austria (1634-96 Charles l of Spain (1661-1700) His family tree was a fucking Christmas wreath. his body "did not contain a single drop of blood his heart was the size of a peppercorn short lame, epileptic senile his lungs corroded: his intestines rotten and gangrenous; completely bald before 35 he had a single testicle, black as coal, always on the verge of death, he repeatedly bafled Christendom by continuing to live his head was ul fwater In case you wanted to know what his coroner thought of him. Spanish History: 30 Times Tumblr Accidentally Taught Me Something While Making Me Laugh
Anna, Christmas, and Family: REI
 TILtilthat
 I L
 TIL that Spain had a king who was so malformed
 due to incest that he couldn't close his mouth and
 ended up destroying his entire dynasty
 via ift.tt
 neeetsocks
 thats just how spaniards be
 whittneydoll
 hey lil mama lemme whisper in ya ear
 friendly-neighborhood-patriarch
 the monumental ugliness of El Hechizado always
 astonishes me
 nunyabizni
 The Hapsburg's were a unique bunch weren't they
 nobodys-favorite-machinist
 The Ancestry of King Charles II of Spain
 (1661-1700)
 Philip of Castile
 (1478-1505)
 Joanna of Castile
 (1479-1555)
 Charles V. Holy
 Roman Emperor
 (1500-58)
 Isabella of
 Portugal
 (1503-39)
 Isabella of
 Burgundy
 (1501-26
 Anna of Bohemia
 and Hungary
 (1503-47
 Ferdinand I, Holy
 Roman Emperor
 (1503-64)
 Christian I
 of Denmark
 (1481-1559)
 Philip
 of Spain
 (1527-96)
 Christina of
 Denmark
 (1522-90)
 Anne of Albert V, Duke
 Habsburg of Bavaria
 (1528-90) (1528-79)
 Mana of
 Spain
 (1528-1603)
 Charles
 of Austria
 (1540-90)
 Maximillan II, Holy
 Roman Emperor
 (1527-76)
 Francis 1, Duke
 of Lorraine
 (1517-45
 Anne of
 Austria
 (1549-80)
 Maria Anna
 of Bavaria
 (1551-1608)
 Renata of
 Lorraine
 (1544-1602)
 William V, Duke
 of Bavaria
 (1548-1626)
 Margarita of
 Austria
 (1584-1611)
 Philip I
 of Spain
 (1578-1621)
 Maria Anna
 of Bavaria
 Ferdinand II, Holy
 Roman Emperor
 (1578-1637)
 (1574-1616
 Maria Anna
 of Spain
 (1606-46
 Philip V
 of Spain
 (1605-65)
 Ferdinand III, Holy
 Roman Emperor
 (1608-57)
 Manana of
 Austria
 (1634-96
 Charles l of Spain
 (1661-1700)
 His family tree was a fucking Christmas wreath.
 his body "did not contain a single drop of blood
 his heart was the size of a peppercorn
 short
 lame, epileptic
 senile
 his lungs corroded:
 his intestines rotten and
 gangrenous;
 completely bald before 35
 he had a single testicle,
 black as coal,
 always on the verge of death,
 he
 repeatedly bafled Christendom by
 continuing to
 live
 his head was ul fwater
 In case you wanted to know what his coroner
 thought of him.
Spanish History: 30 Times Tumblr Accidentally Taught Me Something While Making Me Laugh

Spanish History: 30 Times Tumblr Accidentally Taught Me Something While Making Me Laugh

Beard, Church, and Community: Generalissimo Justice is flying to SDCC @QueenAnitaCox Imagine the neckbeard INCELS in a basement in Kentuckey creating this Everglade Angels comic: "Remember the 90S Blake?! Tits were bigger then, draw them bigger!" Educated people will not buy this garbage Good luck selling this, Trump Bros! Idiot customers await! CADE ELS Thread Blake Northcott @BlakeNorthcott Thank you for your assessment of my new graphic novel. Perhaps I can help you with some fact checking, though. We are not 'Trump bros'. Neither myself nor my cover artist have ever voted in an American election. I'm Canadian, and the artist is Italian. /1 Generalissimo Justice is flying to SDCC @QueenAnitaCox Imagine the neckbeard INCELS in a basement in Kentuckey creating this Everglade Angels comic: "Remember the 90S Blake?! Tits were bigger then, draw them bigger!" Educated people will not buy this garbage Good luck selling this, Trump Bros! Idiot customers await! Thread Blake Northcott @BlakeNorthcott Neither of us live in subterranean dwellings, and to the best of my knowledge, neither of us have ever grown a beard - neck or otherwise. I've tried to grow one several times. The results have been rather disappointing. /2 8:27 pm 20 Jul 2019 Twitter Web App i View Tweet activity Blake Northcott @BlakeNorthcott And since my name is Blake, it's sometimes confusing to new readers - I'm not a 'dude' or a 'bro' I'm the one on the left. And my cover artist, Leila Leiz, is on the right. As you can see: both beardless. And both above ground! /3 8:27 pm 20 Jul 2019 Twitter Web App Blake Northcott @BlakeNorthcott Appreciate the Retweet of the cover art, though. You left out the URL EvergladeAngels.com Tell your 4 followers to check it out Love and hugs, Blake PS: It's spelled 'Kentucky'. You're an educated person, you should know that. PPS: The 90s and tits are both rad. /4 SEROM THE CREATOR OF HAPPYDEATH DAY, THEAUTHOR OF THE'NORTH VALLEY GRIMOIRE& THE ARTIST FROM RAT QUEENS CADE ELS celticpyro: peliaosfiendline: celticpyro: derpomatic: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: catherine-siena-dr-of-the-church: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: why do these people hate big tits and pretty women all of a sudden I’m a 46DD - I like me some representation!  The naturally big-titted community needs love, too! its kinda disheartening and surprising how often I hear that kinda stuff from you ladies The Stevens Universes are at it again.worst fandom on the net, but also “progressive” so it’s ignored by the same media that goes after bronies. Can’t believe she handed this guy an L. Sadly, instead of Taking the L, this is what they’ve gone and done
Beard, Church, and Community: Generalissimo Justice is flying to SDCC
 @QueenAnitaCox
 Imagine the neckbeard INCELS in a basement in
 Kentuckey creating this Everglade Angels comic:
 "Remember the 90S Blake?! Tits were bigger then, draw
 them bigger!" Educated people will not buy this garbage
 Good luck selling this, Trump Bros! Idiot customers
 await!
 CADE
 ELS

 Thread
 Blake Northcott
 @BlakeNorthcott
 Thank you for your assessment of my new graphic novel.
 Perhaps I can help you with some fact checking, though.
 We are not 'Trump bros'.
 Neither myself nor my cover artist have ever voted in an
 American election. I'm Canadian, and the artist is Italian.
 /1
 Generalissimo Justice is flying to SDCC
 @QueenAnitaCox
 Imagine the neckbeard INCELS in a basement in
 Kentuckey creating this Everglade Angels comic:
 "Remember the 90S Blake?! Tits were bigger then, draw
 them bigger!" Educated people will not buy this garbage
 Good luck selling this, Trump Bros! Idiot customers
 await!

 Thread
 Blake Northcott
 @BlakeNorthcott
 Neither of us live in subterranean dwellings, and to the
 best of my knowledge, neither of us have ever grown a
 beard - neck or otherwise.
 I've tried to grow one several times.
 The results have been rather disappointing. /2
 8:27 pm 20 Jul 2019 Twitter Web App
 i View Tweet activity

 Blake Northcott
 @BlakeNorthcott
 And since my name is Blake, it's sometimes confusing to
 new readers - I'm not a 'dude' or a 'bro'
 I'm the one on the left. And my cover artist, Leila Leiz, is
 on the right.
 As you can see: both beardless. And both above ground!
 /3
 8:27 pm 20 Jul 2019 Twitter Web App

 Blake Northcott
 @BlakeNorthcott
 Appreciate the Retweet of the cover art, though. You left
 out the URL EvergladeAngels.com
 Tell your 4 followers to check it out
 Love and hugs,
 Blake
 PS: It's spelled 'Kentucky'. You're an educated person,
 you should know that.
 PPS: The 90s and tits are both rad. /4
 SEROM THE CREATOR OF HAPPYDEATH DAY, THEAUTHOR OF
 THE'NORTH VALLEY GRIMOIRE& THE ARTIST FROM RAT QUEENS
 CADE
 ELS
celticpyro:

peliaosfiendline:
celticpyro:


derpomatic:

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

catherine-siena-dr-of-the-church:


friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:
why do these people hate big tits and pretty women all of a sudden 
I’m a 46DD - I like me some representation!  The naturally big-titted community needs love, too!


its kinda disheartening and surprising how often I hear that kinda stuff from you ladies

The Stevens Universes are at it again.worst fandom on the net, but also “progressive” so it’s ignored by the same media that goes after bronies.

Can’t believe she handed this guy an L.


Sadly, instead of Taking the L, this is what they’ve gone and done

celticpyro: peliaosfiendline: celticpyro: derpomatic: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: catherine-siena-dr-of-the-church: friendly-nei...

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: ...

News, Radio, and Roger: Top stories Katie Bouman is the 29Katie Bouman: The year-old scientist behind first image of black hole Video: Katie Bouman's> woman behind the first 2016 TED Talk, How to take a picture of a black black hole image hole Boston.com 1 hour ago BBC.com Fox News 8 hours ago 6 hours ago More for katie bouman friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt: catalogingthedeclineofthewest: Headlines, meet reality. Reality, meet headlines. Her documented “work” on the project is janitorial! MIT news article on the image and the team: http://news.mit.edu/2019/mit-haystack-first-image-black-hole-0410 From the article: An international team of over 200 astronomers, including scientists from MIT’s Haystack Observatory, has captured the first direct images of a black hole. They accomplished this remarkable feat by coordinating the power of eight major radio observatories on four continents, to work together as a virtual, Earth-sized telescope. In a series of papers published today in a special issue of Astrophysical Journal Letters, the team has revealed four images of the supermassive black hole at the heart of Messier 87, or M87, a galaxy within the Virgo galaxy cluster, 55 million light years from Earth. … The Haystack EHT team includes John Barrett, Roger Cappallo, Joseph Crowley, Mark Derome, Kevin Dudevoir, Michael Hecht, Lynn Matthews, Kotaro Moriyama, Michael Poirier, Alan Rogers, Chester Ruszczyk, Jason SooHoo, Don Sousa, Michael Titus, and Alan Whitney. Additional contributors were MIT alumni Daniel Palumbo, Katie Bouman, Lindy Blackburn, Sera Markoff, and Bill Freeman, a professor in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. She’s listed as an “additional contributor.”  Topkek. reblogging because ive seen katie boumans name several times but this is the first time ive heard about andrew chael. he deserves to be recognized. 850k lines of code is no joke.
News, Radio, and Roger: Top stories
 Katie Bouman is the 29Katie Bouman: The
 year-old scientist
 behind first image of
 black hole
 Video: Katie Bouman's>
 woman behind the first 2016 TED Talk, How to
 take a picture of a black
 black hole image
 hole
 Boston.com
 1 hour ago
 BBC.com
 Fox News
 8 hours ago
 6 hours ago
 More for katie bouman
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:
friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt:


catalogingthedeclineofthewest:

Headlines, meet reality. Reality, meet headlines.
Her documented “work” on the project is janitorial!
MIT news article on the image and the team: http://news.mit.edu/2019/mit-haystack-first-image-black-hole-0410
From the article:

An international team of over 200 astronomers, including scientists from MIT’s Haystack Observatory, has captured the first direct images of a black hole. They accomplished this remarkable feat by coordinating the power of eight major radio observatories on four continents, to work together as a virtual, Earth-sized telescope.
In a series of papers published today in a special issue of Astrophysical Journal Letters, the team has revealed four images of the supermassive black hole at the heart of Messier 87, or M87, a galaxy within the Virgo galaxy cluster, 55 million light years from Earth.
…
The Haystack EHT team includes John Barrett, Roger Cappallo, Joseph Crowley, Mark Derome, Kevin Dudevoir, Michael Hecht, Lynn Matthews, Kotaro Moriyama, Michael Poirier, Alan Rogers, Chester Ruszczyk, Jason SooHoo, Don Sousa, Michael Titus, and Alan Whitney. Additional contributors were MIT alumni Daniel Palumbo, Katie Bouman, Lindy Blackburn, Sera Markoff, and Bill Freeman, a professor in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

She’s listed as an “additional contributor.” 
Topkek.

reblogging because ive seen katie boumans name several times but this is the first time ive heard about andrew chael.
he deserves to be recognized.


850k lines of code is no joke.

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt: catalogingthedeclineofthewest: Headlines, meet reality. Reality, meet he...

Tumblr, Blog, and Http: IMPERIALBEDROOMS friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: farmgirlinthemiddleofnowhere: @friendly-neighborhood-patriarch Booo
Tumblr, Blog, and Http: IMPERIALBEDROOMS
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

farmgirlinthemiddleofnowhere:

@friendly-neighborhood-patriarch

Booo

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: farmgirlinthemiddleofnowhere: @friendly-neighborhood-patriarch Booo

America, Anaconda, and Cards Against Humanity: GAINST F SAVES A MERICA DAY THRE Dear Citizen, In order to deliver on our promise to save America, we knew we needed to tackle our country's biggest issue: wealth inequality. The richest 0.1% of Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 90% our lawyers wouldn't let us pursue our first choice - a campaign to eat all the rich Cards Against Humanity has redistributed your wealth Using the survey you filled out when you signed up, we identified the 100 poorest people and live in their houses so we settled for something more achievable. Today recipients and sent them each a check for $1,000. To see how this $1,000 is impacting these people's lives, read their stories at CardsAgainstHumanityRedistributesYourWealth.com The next 10,000 poorest recipients got a $15 refund check. You got nothing. And if you don't like it, tough titties love you, Cards Against Humanity My money stolen by Cards Against Humanity and redistributed to people poorer than me. Oh shit! I just got SAGAINSTHUMANITYSAVESA Cards Against Humanity Cards Against Humanity fandomsandfeminism: systlin: republicansareahategroup: jinglemurdocks: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: cyrodiil-burns: kasaron: systlin: strutsonicely: tomyfancy: systlin: I’M DYING Day 3 of 5 “Dear Citizen, In order to deliver on our promise to save America, we knew we needed to tackle our country’s biggest issue: wealth inequality. The richest 0.1% of Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 90%. Our lawyers wouldn’t let us pursue our first choice - a campaign to eat all the rich people and live in their homes - so we settled for something more achievable. Today, Card Against Humanity has redistributed your wealth. Using the survey you filled out when you signed up, we identified the 100 poorest recipients and sent them each  check for $1,000. To see how this $1,000 is impacting these peoples lives, read their stories at CardsAgainstHumanityRedistributesYourWealth.com. The next 10,000 poorest recipients got a $15 refund check. You got nothing. And if you don’t like it, tough titties. I love you, Cards Against Humanity” I was one of the 100 to get the check from these folks, and holy shit I was CACKLING at the hurt people on Facebook. Some people only cared about their precious $15 when it helped the poor. Congrats! I’m thrilled that some of my $$$ went to people who needed it.  This is actually kinda sketchy. If they had more than 17,000 people participate, they start turning a profit (you need around 7,000 “donators” to give 100 people $1,000USD, and then 10,000 people to get their $15USD refund). They got 150,000 people to donate. That means they made around 2 million dollars USD in profit. Since they are NOT a charity organization, they have no responsibility to inform the public of what they’re spending that money on, and how much gets fed into pockets of their own bigwigs.  I repeat, this is a mega, MEGA sketchy scheme that relies on the good-will of others and their own branding as a quirky company to possibly turn a massive profit, and it gave them free advertising through social media and news media. I’m glad some of it went to people who needed it; but the fact that around 4% of the proceeds went into those checks went to the donations/gifts, and a total of 11% was either returned or gifted. 89% of it went into CAH’s pockets should be a significant wake-up call as to the real intent behind this.  Lmao way to get capitalized on Socialists getting fooled by fake wokers TBH it’s not a good idea to give money to companies that haven’t been rated by Charity Navigator. CAH is stealing, using #wokeness as a shield, and the gullible are falling for it. You’re all fucking dumbasses. Nobody “donated” to CAH for this promotion you fuckwads, people paid $15 to be a part of it and get whatever surprises they threw at customers. The amount of people in the notes who have no fucking idea about what this promotion was or how it was marketed acting like CAH is some false charity is fucking astonishing ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Seriously the amount of people on this post fundamentally misunderstanding the whole concept of the CAH holiday event and thinking I and the other people who bought it got duped is ridiculous.  We didn’t donate the money, you dopes. We bought a product that we knew would would make us laugh our assess off and CAH delivered while also doing some nice stuff for other people.  Fuckin’ hell.  Also, THIS isn’t the only part of the holiday event. Everyone’s $15 also paid for: Day 1: they bought a piece of land along the border and hired a public domain lawyer, just to slow down Trumps wall. Day 2: the good news podcast, production, and all of the stickers/posters for it Day 3: the Wealth Distribution Day 4: they paid for a shit ton of Donor’s Choose projects for teachers. Day 5: they ran “pulse of the nation ” polling. So of course not ALL the money went towards JUST day 3. That was never the plan?!
America, Anaconda, and Cards Against Humanity: GAINST F
 SAVES A MERICA
 DAY
 THRE
 Dear Citizen,
 In order to deliver on our promise to save America, we knew we needed to tackle our
 country's biggest issue: wealth inequality. The richest 0.1% of Americans have as much
 wealth as the bottom 90%
 our lawyers wouldn't let us pursue our first choice - a campaign to eat all the rich
 Cards Against Humanity has redistributed your wealth
 Using the survey you filled out when you signed up, we identified the 100 poorest
 people and live in their houses so we settled for something more achievable. Today
 recipients and sent them each a check for $1,000. To see how this $1,000 is impacting
 these people's lives, read their stories at CardsAgainstHumanityRedistributesYourWealth.com
 The next 10,000 poorest recipients got a $15 refund check.
 You got nothing. And if you don't like it, tough titties
 love you,
 Cards Against Humanity
 My money stolen
 by Cards Against
 Humanity and
 redistributed to
 people poorer
 than me.
 Oh shit! I just got
 SAGAINSTHUMANITYSAVESA
 Cards Against Humanity
 Cards Against Humanity
fandomsandfeminism:
systlin:


republicansareahategroup:

jinglemurdocks:

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:


cyrodiil-burns:


kasaron:


systlin:

strutsonicely:

tomyfancy:

systlin:
I’M DYING
Day 3 of 5
“Dear Citizen,
In order to deliver on our promise to save America, we knew we needed to tackle our country’s biggest issue: wealth inequality. The richest 0.1% of Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 90%.
Our lawyers wouldn’t let us pursue our first choice - a campaign to eat all the rich people and live in their homes - so we settled for something more achievable. Today, Card Against Humanity has redistributed your wealth.
Using the survey you filled out when you signed up, we identified the 100 poorest recipients and sent them each  check for $1,000. To see how this $1,000 is impacting these peoples lives, read their stories at CardsAgainstHumanityRedistributesYourWealth.com. The next 10,000 poorest recipients got a $15 refund check.
You got nothing. And if you don’t like it, tough titties.
I love you,
Cards Against Humanity”


I was one of the 100 to get the check from these folks, and holy shit I was CACKLING at the hurt people on Facebook. Some people only cared about their precious $15 when it helped the poor. 

Congrats! I’m thrilled that some of my $$$ went to people who needed it. 

This is actually kinda sketchy.
If they had more than 17,000 people participate, they start turning a profit (you need around 7,000 “donators” to give 100 people $1,000USD, and then 10,000 people to get their $15USD refund).
They got 150,000 people to donate.
That means they made around 2 million dollars USD in profit.
Since they are NOT a charity organization, they have no responsibility to inform the public of what they’re spending that money on, and how much gets fed into pockets of their own bigwigs. 
I repeat, this is a mega, MEGA sketchy scheme that relies on the good-will of others and their own branding as a quirky company to possibly turn a massive profit, and it gave them free advertising through social media and news media.
I’m glad some of it went to people who needed it; but the fact that around 4% of the proceeds went into those checks went to the donations/gifts, and a total of 11% was either returned or gifted. 89% of it went into CAH’s pockets should be a significant wake-up call as to the real intent behind this. 


Lmao way to get capitalized on


Socialists getting fooled by fake wokers


TBH it’s not a good idea to give money to companies that haven’t been rated by Charity Navigator. CAH is stealing, using #wokeness as a shield, and the gullible are falling for it.

You’re all fucking dumbasses. Nobody “donated” to CAH for this promotion you fuckwads, people paid $15 to be a part of it and get whatever surprises they threw at customers. The amount of people in the notes who have no fucking idea about what this promotion was or how it was marketed acting like CAH is some false charity is fucking astonishing

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Seriously the amount of people on this post fundamentally misunderstanding the whole concept of the CAH holiday event and thinking I and the other people who bought it got duped is ridiculous. 
We didn’t donate the money, you dopes. We bought a product that we knew would would make us laugh our assess off and CAH delivered while also doing some nice stuff for other people. 
Fuckin’ hell. 


Also, THIS isn’t the only part of the holiday event. Everyone’s $15 also paid for:
Day 1: they bought a piece of land along the border and hired a public domain lawyer, just to slow down Trumps wall. 
Day 2: the good news podcast, production, and all of the stickers/posters for it
Day 3: the Wealth Distribution 
Day 4: they paid for a shit ton of Donor’s Choose projects for teachers. 
Day 5: they ran “pulse of the nation ” polling. 
So of course not ALL the money went towards JUST day 3. That was never the plan?!

fandomsandfeminism: systlin: republicansareahategroup: jinglemurdocks: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: cyrodiil-burns: kasaron: s...

Tumblr, Blog, and Http: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: dear-tumb1r: ah yes, yellow concrete, make russian boy BEEG n STRONK the resigned look on his face is priceless.
Tumblr, Blog, and Http: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

dear-tumb1r:
ah yes, yellow concrete, make russian boy BEEG n STRONK 
the resigned look on his face is priceless.

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: dear-tumb1r: ah yes, yellow concrete, make russian boy BEEG n STRONK the resigned look on his face is pri...

Feminism, Money, and Work: Misogynist Misandrist Feminist Legit question, I'm not trying to hate on feminists or anything. Why is it called feminist if they're for equality? castiel-knight-of-hell: That's a very good question and thank you for asking so politely The word feminism was coined by Charles Fourier in 1837, a French philosopher who advocated for the emancipation of women because he believed society treated women as slaves. We weren't allowed to vote, own anything, or work a real job. Women were ruled by their fathers/household patriarch until they married at which time they'd be under the rule of their husband. If a woman did not belong to male household she was shunned by society and had very little means to make money most of them unsavory. You know the idiom "rule of thumb"? That comes from a running joke that started in the 1600s, and was still around in Fourier's time, that said it was okay for a man to beat a woman with a stick as long as it wasn't any thicker than his thumb. The point of the word feminist, and the feminist movement, has never been to say that women are better than men. The point is that women and things associated with women have been given a lesser place in society and we want to bring those things up to a place of equality. The focus is on the feminine because that's what's being pushed down. However, focusing on the feminine does not mean we're focusing only women. Men are belittled and called "less of a man" anytime they portray a trait that is associated with femininity. If women and the feminine were equal to men and masculinity then that wouldn't happen. Feminism is about raising up things associated with females to have an equal place in society as the things associated with males. It's called feminism, not equalism, because the focus is on raising up not tearing down. Equalism would suggest that male things need to come down to a lower level so that female things can meet it in the middle. That's not the point. The point is to raise up the feminine so that it's on the same playing field that the masculine is already on. We don't want men to lower themselves, we just want them to make room for us. Stay awake at FUNsubstance.com Why it’s called feminism and not equalism
Feminism, Money, and Work: Misogynist
 Misandrist
 Feminist
 Legit question, I'm not trying to hate on
 feminists or anything. Why is it called feminist
 if they're for equality?
 castiel-knight-of-hell:
 That's a very good question and thank you for
 asking so politely
 The word feminism was coined by Charles Fourier
 in 1837, a French philosopher who advocated for
 the emancipation of women because he believed
 society treated women as slaves. We weren't
 allowed to vote, own anything, or work a real job.
 Women were ruled by their fathers/household
 patriarch until they married at which time they'd be
 under the rule of their husband. If a woman did not
 belong to male household she was shunned by
 society and had very little means to make money
 most of them unsavory. You know the idiom "rule
 of thumb"? That comes from a running joke that
 started in the 1600s, and was still around in
 Fourier's time, that said it was okay for a man to
 beat a woman with a stick as long as it wasn't any
 thicker than his thumb.
 The point of the word feminist, and the feminist
 movement, has never been to say that women are
 better than men. The point is that women and
 things associated with women have been given a
 lesser place in society and we want to bring those
 things up to a place of equality. The focus is on the
 feminine because that's what's being pushed
 down. However, focusing on the feminine does not
 mean we're focusing only women. Men are belittled
 and called "less of a man" anytime they portray a
 trait that is associated with femininity. If women
 and the feminine were equal to men and
 masculinity then that wouldn't happen. Feminism
 is about raising up things associated with females
 to have an equal place in society as the things
 associated with males. It's called feminism, not
 equalism, because the focus is on raising up not
 tearing down. Equalism would suggest that male
 things need to come down to a lower level so that
 female things can meet it in the middle. That's not
 the point. The point is to raise up the feminine so
 that it's on the same playing field that the
 masculine is already on. We don't want men to
 lower themselves, we just want them to make
 room for us.
 Stay awake at FUNsubstance.com
Why it’s called feminism and not equalism

Why it’s called feminism and not equalism

Feminism, Money, and Work: Misogynist Misandrist Feminist Legit question, I'm not trying to hate on feminists or anything. Why is it called feminist if they're for equality? That's a very good question and thank you for asking so politely The word feminism was coined by Charles Fourier in 1837, a French philosopher who advocated for the emancipation of women because he believed society treated women as slaves. We weren't allowed to vote, own anything, or work a real job Women were ruled by their fathers/household patriarch until they married at which time they'd be under the rule of their husband. If a woman did not belong to male household she was shunned by society and had very little means to make money most of them unsavory. You know the idiom rule of thumb? That comes from a running joke that started in the 1600s, and was still around in Fourier's time, that said it was okay for a man to beat a woman with a stick as long as it wasn't any thicker than his thumb The point of the word feminist, and the feminist movement, has never been to say that women are better than men. The point is that women and things associated with women have been givena lesser place in society and we want to bring those things up to a place of equality. The focus is on the feminine because that's what's being pushed down. However, focusing on the feminine does not mean we're focusing only women. Men are belittled and called "less of a man" anytime they portray a trait that is associated with femininity. If women and the feminine were equal to men and masculinity then that wouldn't happen. Feminism is about raising up things associated with females to have an equal place in society as the things associated with males. It's called feminism, not equalism, because the focus is on raising up not tearing down. Equalism would suggest that male things need to come down to a lower level so that female things can meet it in the middle. That's not the point. The point is to raise up the feminine so that it's on the same playing field that the masculine is already on. We don't want men to lower themselves, we just want them to make room for us. Stay awake at FUNSubstance.com Why its called feminism and not equalism
Feminism, Money, and Work: Misogynist
 Misandrist
 Feminist
 Legit question, I'm not trying to hate on
 feminists or anything. Why is it called feminist
 if they're for equality?
 That's a very good question and thank you for
 asking so politely
 The word feminism was coined by Charles Fourier
 in 1837, a French philosopher who advocated for
 the emancipation of women because he believed
 society treated women as slaves. We weren't
 allowed to vote, own anything, or work a real job
 Women were ruled by their fathers/household
 patriarch until they married at which time they'd be
 under the rule of their husband. If a woman did not
 belong to male household she was shunned by
 society and had very little means to make money
 most of them unsavory. You know the idiom rule
 of thumb? That comes from a running joke that
 started in the 1600s, and was still around in
 Fourier's time, that said it was okay for a man to
 beat a woman with a stick as long as it wasn't any
 thicker than his thumb
 The point of the word feminist, and the feminist
 movement, has never been to say that women are
 better than men. The point is that women and
 things associated with women have been givena
 lesser place in society and we want to bring those
 things up to a place of equality. The focus is on the
 feminine because that's what's being pushed
 down. However, focusing on the feminine does not
 mean we're focusing only women. Men are belittled
 and called "less of a man" anytime they portray a
 trait that is associated with femininity. If women
 and the feminine were equal to men and
 masculinity then that wouldn't happen. Feminism
 is about raising up things associated with females
 to have an equal place in society as the things
 associated with males. It's called feminism, not
 equalism, because the focus is on raising up not
 tearing down. Equalism would suggest that male
 things need to come down to a lower level so that
 female things can meet it in the middle. That's not
 the point. The point is to raise up the feminine so
 that it's on the same playing field that the
 masculine is already on. We don't want men to
 lower themselves, we just want them to make
 room for us.
 Stay awake at FUNSubstance.com
Why its called feminism and not equalism

Why its called feminism and not equalism

Feminism, Life, and Money: Misogynist Misandrist Feminist anotherdayinthe-life: sarcastic-monkeys: thebutterghost: glenn-griffon: the-walking-tardis: castiel-knight-of-hell: xtheycallmeslimshadyx: problematic-url: basilsilos: pennman9000: dil-howlters-uncreative-username: WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND So for all you feminists out their who think that all men should die, remember, you are not a feminist. reblogging for the last comment Yes Legit question, I’m not trying to hate on feminists or anything. Why is it called feminist if they’re for equality? That’s a very good question and thank you for asking so politely.  The word feminism was coined by Charles Fourier in 1837, a French philosopher who advocated for the emancipation of women because he believed society treated women as slaves. We weren’t allowed to vote, own anything, or work a real job. Women were ruled by their fathers/household patriarch until they married at which time they’d be under the rule of their husband. If a woman did not belong to male household she was shunned by society and had very little means to make money, most of them unsavory. You know the idiom “rule of thumb”? That comes from a running joke that started in the 1600s, and was still around in Fourier’s time, that said it was okay for a man to beat a woman with a stick as long as it wasn’t any thicker than his thumb.  The point of the word feminist, and the feminist movement, has never been to say that women are better than men. The point is that women and things associated with women have been given a lesser place in society and we want to bring those things up to a place of equality. The focus is on the feminine because that’s what’s being pushed down. However, focusing on the feminine does not mean we’re focusing only women. Men are belittled and called “less of a man” anytime they portray a trait that is associated with femininity. If women and the feminine were equal to men and masculinity then that wouldn’t happen. Feminism is about raising up things associated with females to have an equal place in society as the things associated with males. It’s called feminism, not equalism, because the focus is on raising up not tearing down. Equalism would suggest that male things need to come down to a lower level so that female things can meet it in the middle. That’s not the point. The point is to raise up the feminine so that it’s on the same playing field that the masculine is already on. We don’t want men to lower themselves, we just want them to make room for us. This needs to be spread far and wide to everyone on tumblr.  !!!!!!!!!!!!!IMPORTANTHOLYSHIT!!!!!!!! THANK YOU This needs more notes
Feminism, Life, and Money: Misogynist
 Misandrist
 Feminist
anotherdayinthe-life:
sarcastic-monkeys:


thebutterghost:

glenn-griffon:

the-walking-tardis:


castiel-knight-of-hell:

xtheycallmeslimshadyx:


problematic-url:


basilsilos:


pennman9000:

dil-howlters-uncreative-username:

WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND

So for all you feminists out their who think that all men should die, remember, you are not a feminist.


reblogging for the last comment


Yes


Legit question, I’m not trying to hate on feminists or anything. Why is it called feminist if they’re for equality?


That’s a very good question and thank you for asking so politely. 
The word feminism was coined by Charles Fourier in 1837, a French philosopher who advocated for the emancipation of women because he believed society treated women as slaves. We weren’t allowed to vote, own anything, or work a real job. Women were ruled by their fathers/household patriarch until they married at which time they’d be under the rule of their husband. If a woman did not belong to male household she was shunned by society and had very little means to make money, most of them unsavory. You know the idiom “rule of thumb”? That comes from a running joke that started in the 1600s, and was still around in Fourier’s time, that said it was okay for a man to beat a woman with a stick as long as it wasn’t any thicker than his thumb. 
The point of the word feminist, and the feminist movement, has never been to say that women are better than men. The point is that women and things associated with women have been given a lesser place in society and we want to bring those things up to a place of equality. The focus is on the feminine because that’s what’s being pushed down. However, focusing on the feminine does not mean we’re focusing only women. Men are belittled and called “less of a man” anytime they portray a trait that is associated with femininity. If women and the feminine were equal to men and masculinity then that wouldn’t happen. Feminism is about raising up things associated with females to have an equal place in society as the things associated with males. It’s called feminism, not equalism, because the focus is on raising up not tearing down. Equalism would suggest that male things need to come down to a lower level so that female things can meet it in the middle. That’s not the point. The point is to raise up the feminine so that it’s on the same playing field that the masculine is already on. We don’t want men to lower themselves, we just want them to make room for us.


This needs to be spread far and wide to everyone on tumblr. 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!IMPORTANTHOLYSHIT!!!!!!!!


THANK YOU


This needs more notes

anotherdayinthe-life: sarcastic-monkeys: thebutterghost: glenn-griffon: the-walking-tardis: castiel-knight-of-hell: xtheycallmeslimsh...

Feminism, Money, and Target: Misogynist Misandrist Feminist kyraneko: ambris: rae-is-trash: shortcuttothestars: ambris-art: glenn-griffon: the-walking-tardis: xtheycallmeslimshadyx: problematic-url: basilsilos: pennman9000: dil-howlters-uncreative-username: WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND So for all you feminists out their who think that all men should die, remember, you are not a feminist. reblogging for the last comment Yes Legit question, I’m not trying to hate on feminists or anything. Why is it called feminist if they’re for equality? castiel-knight-of-hell: That’s a very good question and thank you for asking so politely.  The word feminism was coined by Charles Fourier in 1837, a French philosopher who advocated for the emancipation of women because he believed society treated women as slaves. We weren’t allowed to vote, own anything, or work a real job. Women were ruled by their fathers/household patriarch until they married at which time they’d be under the rule of their husband. If a woman did not belong to male household she was shunned by society and had very little means to make money, most of them unsavory. You know the idiom “rule of thumb”? That comes from a running joke that started in the 1600s, and was still around in Fourier’s time, that said it was okay for a man to beat a woman with a stick as long as it wasn’t any thicker than his thumb.  The point of the word feminist, and the feminist movement, has never been to say that women are better than men. The point is that women and things associated with women have been given a lesser place in society and we want to bring those things up to a place of equality. The focus is on the feminine because that’s what’s being pushed down. However, focusing on the feminine does not mean we’re focusing only women. Men are belittled and called “less of a man” anytime they portray a trait that is associated with femininity. If women and the feminine were equal to men and masculinity then that wouldn’t happen. Feminism is about raising up things associated with females to have an equal place in society as the things associated with males. It’s called feminism, not equalism, because the focus is on raising up not tearing down. Equalism would suggest that male things need to come down to a lower level so that female things can meet it in the middle. That’s not the point. The point is to raise up the feminine so that it’s on the same playing field that the masculine is already on. We don’t want men to lower themselves, we just want them to make room for us. This needs to be spread far and wide to everyone on tumblr.  ALL OF THIS. THANK YOU This is very thorough explanation, thank you! Show this to my old english teacher who tried to tell me that feminism wasn’t equality because of the root word “fem” Okay so my first thought was “ALL OF THIS, THANK YOU” but then I noticed I literally already reblogged this and with those words and I’ve since forgotten. Welp, always good to reblog It’s named after the group whose status they have been trying to raise to achieve equality. It’s not about the end goal, it’s identifying the ones whose disadvantage they’re trying to erase. Someone send this to English teacher who thinks feminism = misandry
Feminism, Money, and Target: Misogynist
 Misandrist
 Feminist
kyraneko:

ambris:

rae-is-trash:

shortcuttothestars:

ambris-art:

glenn-griffon:

the-walking-tardis:

xtheycallmeslimshadyx:

problematic-url:

basilsilos:

pennman9000:

dil-howlters-uncreative-username:

WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND

So for all you feminists out their who think that all men should die, remember, you are not a feminist.

reblogging for the last comment

Yes

Legit question, I’m not trying to hate on feminists or anything. Why is it called feminist if they’re for equality?

castiel-knight-of-hell:





That’s a very good question and thank you for asking so politely. 
The word feminism was coined by Charles Fourier in 1837, a French philosopher who advocated for the emancipation of women because he believed society treated women as slaves. We weren’t allowed to vote, own anything, or work a real job. Women were ruled by their fathers/household patriarch until they married at which time they’d be under the rule of their husband. If a woman did not belong to male household she was shunned by society and had very little means to make money, most of them unsavory. You know the idiom “rule of thumb”? That comes from a running joke that started in the 1600s, and was still around in Fourier’s time, that said it was okay for a man to beat a woman with a stick as long as it wasn’t any thicker than his thumb. 
The point of the word feminist, and the feminist movement, has never been to say that women are better than men. The point is that women and things associated with women have been given a lesser place in society and we want to bring those things up to a place of equality. The focus is on the feminine because that’s what’s being pushed down. However, focusing on the feminine does not mean we’re focusing only women. Men are belittled and called “less of a man” anytime they portray a trait that is associated with femininity. If women and the feminine were equal to men and masculinity then that wouldn’t happen. Feminism is about raising up things associated with females to have an equal place in society as the things associated with males. It’s called feminism, not equalism, because the focus is on raising up not tearing down. Equalism would suggest that male things need to come down to a lower level so that female things can meet it in the middle. That’s not the point. The point is to raise up the feminine so that it’s on the same playing field that the masculine is already on. We don’t want men to lower themselves, we just want them to make room for us.

This needs to be spread far and wide to everyone on tumblr. 

ALL OF THIS.
THANK YOU

This is very thorough explanation, thank you!

Show this to my old english teacher who tried to tell me that feminism wasn’t equality because of the root word “fem”

Okay so my first thought was “ALL OF THIS, THANK YOU” but then I noticed I literally already reblogged this and with those words and I’ve since forgotten.
Welp, always good to reblog

It’s named after the group whose status they have been trying to raise to achieve equality. It’s not about the end goal, it’s identifying the ones whose disadvantage they’re trying to erase.


Someone send this to English teacher who thinks feminism = misandry

kyraneko: ambris: rae-is-trash: shortcuttothestars: ambris-art: glenn-griffon: the-walking-tardis: xtheycallmeslimshadyx: problemati...

Feminism, Money, and Teacher: Misogynist Misandrist Feminist rae-is-trash: shortcuttothestars: ambris-art: glenn-griffon: the-walking-tardis: xtheycallmeslimshadyx: problematic-url: basilsilos: pennman9000: dil-howlters-uncreative-username: WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND So for all you feminists out their who think that all men should die, remember, you are not a feminist. reblogging for the last comment Yes Legit question, I’m not trying to hate on feminists or anything. Why is it called feminist if they’re for equality? castiel-knight-of-hell: That’s a very good question and thank you for asking so politely.  The word feminism was coined by Charles Fourier in 1837, a French philosopher who advocated for the emancipation of women because he believed society treated women as slaves. We weren’t allowed to vote, own anything, or work a real job. Women were ruled by their fathers/household patriarch until they married at which time they’d be under the rule of their husband. If a woman did not belong to male household she was shunned by society and had very little means to make money, most of them unsavory. You know the idiom “rule of thumb”? That comes from a running joke that started in the 1600s, and was still around in Fourier’s time, that said it was okay for a man to beat a woman with a stick as long as it wasn’t any thicker than his thumb.  The point of the word feminist, and the feminist movement, has never been to say that women are better than men. The point is that women and things associated with women have been given a lesser place in society and we want to bring those things up to a place of equality. The focus is on the feminine because that’s what’s being pushed down. However, focusing on the feminine does not mean we’re focusing only women. Men are belittled and called “less of a man” anytime they portray a trait that is associated with femininity. If women and the feminine were equal to men and masculinity then that wouldn’t happen. Feminism is about raising up things associated with females to have an equal place in society as the things associated with males. It’s called feminism, not equalism, because the focus is on raising up not tearing down. Equalism would suggest that male things need to come down to a lower level so that female things can meet it in the middle. That’s not the point. The point is to raise up the feminine so that it’s on the same playing field that the masculine is already on. We don’t want men to lower themselves, we just want them to make room for us. This needs to be spread far and wide to everyone on tumblr.  ALL OF THIS. THANK YOU This is very thorough explanation, thank you! Show this to my old english teacher who tried to tell me that feminism wasn’t equality because of the root word “fem”
Feminism, Money, and Teacher: Misogynist
 Misandrist
 Feminist
rae-is-trash:

shortcuttothestars:

ambris-art:

glenn-griffon:

the-walking-tardis:

xtheycallmeslimshadyx:

problematic-url:

basilsilos:

pennman9000:

dil-howlters-uncreative-username:

WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND

So for all you feminists out their who think that all men should die, remember, you are not a feminist.

reblogging for the last comment

Yes

Legit question, I’m not trying to hate on feminists or anything. Why is it called feminist if they’re for equality?

castiel-knight-of-hell:





That’s a very good question and thank you for asking so politely. 
The word feminism was coined by Charles Fourier in 1837, a French philosopher who advocated for the emancipation of women because he believed society treated women as slaves. We weren’t allowed to vote, own anything, or work a real job. Women were ruled by their fathers/household patriarch until they married at which time they’d be under the rule of their husband. If a woman did not belong to male household she was shunned by society and had very little means to make money, most of them unsavory. You know the idiom “rule of thumb”? That comes from a running joke that started in the 1600s, and was still around in Fourier’s time, that said it was okay for a man to beat a woman with a stick as long as it wasn’t any thicker than his thumb. 
The point of the word feminist, and the feminist movement, has never been to say that women are better than men. The point is that women and things associated with women have been given a lesser place in society and we want to bring those things up to a place of equality. The focus is on the feminine because that’s what’s being pushed down. However, focusing on the feminine does not mean we’re focusing only women. Men are belittled and called “less of a man” anytime they portray a trait that is associated with femininity. If women and the feminine were equal to men and masculinity then that wouldn’t happen. Feminism is about raising up things associated with females to have an equal place in society as the things associated with males. It’s called feminism, not equalism, because the focus is on raising up not tearing down. Equalism would suggest that male things need to come down to a lower level so that female things can meet it in the middle. That’s not the point. The point is to raise up the feminine so that it’s on the same playing field that the masculine is already on. We don’t want men to lower themselves, we just want them to make room for us.

This needs to be spread far and wide to everyone on tumblr. 

ALL OF THIS.
THANK YOU

This is very thorough explanation, thank you!

Show this to my old english teacher who tried to tell me that feminism wasn’t equality because of the root word “fem”

rae-is-trash: shortcuttothestars: ambris-art: glenn-griffon: the-walking-tardis: xtheycallmeslimshadyx: problematic-url: basilsilos: ...