🔥 | Latest

Beijing, Definitely, and Guns: BANG BANG WE CAN END GUN VIOLENCE. xphilosoraptorx: unlimited-shitpost-works: siryouarebeingmocked: 8lastrat8: american–support: kasaron: allriot-political-tshirts: American citizens own 40% of all guns in the world. Out of more than one billion firearms in the world, American citizens hold 393 million, for a population of roughly 326 million. That’s a lot of guns! The last time the US federal government managed to pass laws that limit the spread and use of guns was 25 years ago. It was 1994. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was temporary. It expired in 2004, resulting in a massive increase in mass shootings across the country. Republicans are running out of excuses, blaming the latest incidents in Drayton and El Paso on video games. We can end gun violence. Let’s start with gun control. What sort of gun control legislation would you like to see be put into place? OP, that claim of shootings increased is false. The violence and shootings didn’t change in that decade from the previous decade, and in fact, violence has been on the decline. WHAT HAS CHANGED is how much media is shoved down your throat. Thats it. The nonstop spam from legacy media of a single event for a month, if not months on end is what changed. It used to be a 5, maybe 10 minute story has now turned into a 4 week “constant coverage” of spewing the same info daily, with nothing added. After the early 90s, we saw a sharp decline and its been declining ever since. Meanwhile, ownership is at an alltime high, increasing, as if a plethora of armed citizens reduces the audacity of a potential killer to attempt knowing they’ll get capped. What has also changed is the increase in the absolutely terrible idea of “gun free zones” seeing as approximately 85-95% of these shootings are occuring in these zones. Seems like that’s your problem. Hmm, this graph seems to showcase that despite the US owning vastly more guns… homicide rate is lower than a hefty chunk of even the non gun owners… I’d just like to know how they propose to take our guns. If I got one logical explanation from one of these half wits that didn’t include magic or ridiculous gestapo tactics we could have a conversation but, every F’ing time it devolves into name calling, insults, and slander. They simply can’t explain how to take the guns away. Not a single one of them has ever responded to me without crass vulgarities and irrational screeching. myamberreason said:  Anyway, guys, why you need THAT many guns? I understand owned a few for protection or legal hunting, but why do you have around 40% of firearms in the world?? I’m sorry, are you implying the Yanks should meet international proportional quotas on guns? We do own a few for self-defense and hunting. It’s just that the rest of the world doesn’t own very many guns. The reason we all have so many guns is very simple: logistics. The point of the second amendment is for us, the citizens of the USA, to be “shit your pants, wake up in a cold sweat” terrifying to the people running this country, so much so that they involuntarily have second, third, even fourth thoughts about ever violating our rights. The 2nd amendment is the most important and most powerful of all the amendments. Every single right and amendment could taken away, and we could regain them all with that one. And I’m not the only one who recognizes the importance of the 2nd.And it definitely terrifies Beijing. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t have to justify an amount of guns to you any more than I have to justify how many video games or coffee cups I have.
Beijing, Definitely, and Guns: BANG
 BANG
 WE CAN END GUN VIOLENCE.
xphilosoraptorx:

unlimited-shitpost-works:
siryouarebeingmocked:


8lastrat8:

american–support:

kasaron:


allriot-political-tshirts:


American citizens own 40% of all guns in the world. 

Out of more than one billion firearms in the world, American citizens hold 393 million, for a population of roughly 326 million. That’s a lot of guns!

The last time the US federal government managed to pass laws that limit the spread and use of guns was 25 years ago. It was 1994. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was temporary. It expired in 2004, resulting in a massive increase in mass shootings across the country. Republicans are running out of excuses, blaming the latest incidents in Drayton and El Paso on video games.

We can end gun violence. Let’s start with gun control.


What sort of gun control legislation would you like to see be put into place?


OP, that claim of shootings increased is false. The violence and shootings didn’t change in that decade from the previous decade, and in fact, violence has been on the decline. 
WHAT HAS CHANGED is how much media is shoved down your throat. Thats it. The nonstop spam from legacy media of a single event for a month, if not months on end is what changed. It used to be a 5, maybe 10 minute story has now turned into a 4 week “constant coverage” of spewing the same info daily, with nothing added. 
After the early 90s, we saw a sharp decline and its been declining ever since. 
Meanwhile, ownership is at an alltime high, increasing, as if a plethora of armed citizens reduces the audacity of a potential killer to attempt knowing they’ll get capped.
What has also changed is the increase in the absolutely terrible idea of “gun free zones” seeing as approximately 85-95% of these shootings are occuring in these zones. Seems like that’s your problem. 
Hmm, this graph seems to showcase that despite the US owning vastly more guns… homicide rate is lower than a hefty chunk of even the non gun owners…


I’d just like to know how they propose to take our guns. If I got one logical explanation from one of these half wits that didn’t include magic or ridiculous gestapo tactics we could have a conversation but, every F’ing time it devolves into name calling, insults, and slander. They simply can’t explain how to take the guns away. Not a single one of them has ever responded to me without crass vulgarities and irrational screeching. 



myamberreason said: 
Anyway, guys, why you need THAT many guns? I understand owned a few for protection or legal hunting, but why do you have around 40% of firearms in the world??


I’m sorry, are you implying the Yanks should meet international proportional quotas on guns?


We do own a few for self-defense and hunting.  It’s just that the rest of the world doesn’t own very many guns.


The reason we all have so many guns is very simple: logistics. The point of the second amendment is for us, the citizens of the USA, to be “shit your pants, wake up in a cold sweat” terrifying to the people running this country, so much so that they involuntarily have second, third, even fourth thoughts about ever violating our rights. The 2nd amendment is the most important and most powerful of all the amendments. Every single right and amendment could taken away, and we could regain them all with that one. And I’m not the only one who recognizes the importance of the 2nd.And it definitely terrifies Beijing.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t have to justify an amount of guns to you any more than I have to justify how many video games or coffee cups I have.

xphilosoraptorx: unlimited-shitpost-works: siryouarebeingmocked: 8lastrat8: american–support: kasaron: allriot-political-tshirts: A...

Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano @Alyssa_Milano Follow Ns NEWS MARIJU 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018 MAKEMAT 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes 主与玉丰丰 -- libertarirynn: vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt. At least I have a good argument. And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker. We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit. A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. Your counterargument is…insults. You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.  If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug. Another person who just insults and doesnt read. The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. “I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. “maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now? Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution. What she said ^ Also forcing people into legal slavery by arresting and imprisoning them for victimless crimes sure as shit sounds like persecution to me.
Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano
 @Alyssa_Milano
 Follow
 Ns
 NEWS
 MARIJU
 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018
 MAKEMAT
 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes
 主与玉丰丰
 --
libertarirynn:

vaporwavevocap:

cheshireinthemiddle:
napoleonbonerfarte:


cheshireinthemiddle:

pseudopupil:


cheshireinthemiddle:

hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:


hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:
But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. 
You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt.


At least I have a good argument. 
And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. 


A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker.
We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit.


A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. 
Your counterargument is…insults. 
You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. 
If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). 
And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. 

You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.
 If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug.


Another person who just insults and doesnt read. 
The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. 
If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. 
You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. 
The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. 
“I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. 

“maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now?


Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. 
There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. 
If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. 

It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution.

What she said ^

Also forcing people into legal slavery by arresting and imprisoning them for victimless crimes sure as shit sounds like persecution to me.

libertarirynn: vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardb...

Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano @Alyssa_Milano Follow Ns NEWS MARIJU 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018 MAKEMAT 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes 主与玉丰丰 -- vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt. At least I have a good argument. And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker. We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit. A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. Your counterargument is…insults. You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.  If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug. Another person who just insults and doesnt read. The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. “I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. “maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now? Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution. What she said ^
Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano
 @Alyssa_Milano
 Follow
 Ns
 NEWS
 MARIJU
 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018
 MAKEMAT
 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes
 主与玉丰丰
 --
vaporwavevocap:

cheshireinthemiddle:
napoleonbonerfarte:


cheshireinthemiddle:

pseudopupil:


cheshireinthemiddle:

hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:


hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:
But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. 
You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt.


At least I have a good argument. 
And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. 


A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker.
We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit.


A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. 
Your counterargument is…insults. 
You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. 
If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). 
And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. 

You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.
 If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug.


Another person who just insults and doesnt read. 
The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. 
If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. 
You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. 
The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. 
“I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. 

“maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now?


Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. 
There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. 
If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. 

It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution.

What she said ^

vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: c...

Birthday, Douchebag, and Dude: dex ORIGINAL NOV Windex the Bean 15 726. 2113 Paint the Bean black so they can't Windex it NOV 13 726. 2113 Paint Thinner Pour Paint Thinner On The Bean After They Paint It Black So We Can Windex NOV 13 debthestoner: rrdcooc: addakax: mysticalalleycat: politicalcdnmama: theresagooseinthemainframe: 0-memento-mori-0: justaplate: claydart: starlitskyes: frosttrix: extremedistressorstellarblowjob: queen-of-heck: brightoncemore: todayiwrotenothing: gay-jesus-probably: solongstarbird: akamine-chan: phantomofthebookstore: dragonastra: jasperzilla: moose-shampoo: if you’ve ever wondered what it’s like to live in the midwest, this is it.  You missed some of the best ones the best part about it is that the art installation isn’t actually called the Bean. It’s called Cloud Gate, and artist Anish Kapoor (yes, THAT Anish Kapoor) hates that we call it the Bean. But i mean, look at it. It’s a bean. How could you forget this one though I HAD NO FUCKING IDEA THAT THE BEAN WAS CREATED BY ANISH KAPOOR. someone help me why is anish kapoor important what did he do? Alright sit down for some Art World Drama bcause this is what I live for. So, sometime last year (?) science invented Vantablack, which is the darkest possible shade of black. Art world got incredibly excited. But as it needs to be very carefully made in a lab, it’s hard to get a hold of, and is extremely expensive. Enter Anish Kapoor, aka FuckFace McGee. Anish Kapoor buys the rights to Vantablack. He is the only human being on the planet that can legally use it, and he’s kind of a prick about it. Art world is not thrilled with that. Enter Stuart Semple. Stuart Semple is an artist, and also makes pigments to sell in his free time. Stuart Semple is astoundingly pissed about this Vantablack nonsense, and Anish Kapoor’s dickery. Stuart Semple makes a new pigment, the brightest shade of pink ever, called Pinkest Pink, and puts it for sale on the internet. To be bought by everybody except Anish Kapoor. Literally, to purchase, you need to confirm that you are not Anish Kapoor, do not associate with him, and will not sell or give the pigment to Anish Kapoor or his associates. Art world has a good laugh, everyone buys Pinkest Pink because it’s awesome, and damn it we deserve something. Anish Kapoor however is a penis, and will not take this lying down, because HOW DARE he not have literally everything. Anish Kapoor gets his London associates to buy him a thing of Pinkest Pink, and being such a classy human being, posts a picture to instagram of him with his middle finger covered in Pinkest Pink, captioned with “Up yours. #pink” Everyone flips shit, because. Y’know. Fuck that guy. Especially Stuart Semple. For context here, Anish Kapoor is one of the richest artists on the planet, and has repeatedly been referred to as everything wrong with the art world, and the epitome of the art worlds elitism problem. He’s a giant douchebag. Meanwhile Stuart Semple makes pigments just to get them out there. He turns 0 profit from his now enourmously popular pigments. Stuart Semple launches an investigation as to who the fuck leaked Pinkest Pink, and plans to strike back. He does so by releasing two new products. First is Diamond Dust, which is a glitter made from glass, so that a painting is still visible after it’s applied, but glitters like a mofo. It’s the most reflective glitter out there, and is available to everyone who isn’t Anish Kapoor. And it being made of glass, if you stick your finger in there, it’s going to hurt quite a bit, so that was Stuart Semple’s way of saying “shove your middle finger in this, asshole, see what happens”. Except without saying that, because he can get an insult across while still being fucking classy. He also releases Black 2.0, created with the help of over a thousand artists worldwide. Black 2.0 is the answer to Vantablack. Black 2.0 is a slightly less black black, but looks functionally the same to the human eye. It’s completely safe, smells like cherries, and costs four pounds. Vantablack is highly toxic, potentially explosive, needs to be applied in a special laboratory and sealed properly, can’t be moved across borders, can reach 300 degrees celsius if you’re not extremely careful, and costs thousands of dollars. Anish Kapoor is the only human being who can use Vantablack. He is the only human being who cannot use Black 2.0. So I think we can guess who got the better deal. And thus the feud ends, Kapoor defeated. …But not quite. Kapoor, in this entire afair, has made exactly two comments to the public. The first being his charming message about aquiring Pinkest Pink, the second being claiming to Buzzfeed that he and his small army of lawyers will be suing Semple, an extremely poor artist who cannot afford a lawyer. No lawsuit has been made yet, fyi. The point is, Kapoor is a prick, and doesn’t like talking to the lower classes. So one day in July 2017, he decides he needs another floor on his London studio apartment, and starts making arrangements to have it built. His neighbors are fucking pissed, because this will ruin the light of their apartments. They call to Semple to save them, or at the very least piss Kapoor off some more. Semple answers to the call, and releases two new paints, Phaze and Shift, as always, banned to Kapoor. They change colours, Phaze with temperature, and Shift is just iridescent. Shift needs to be painted over Black 2.0 to work, and Phaze just works on its own. So that’s been the art world for the last two years. Basically, get fucked Anish Kapoor your bean sucks and so does your vantablack. Stuart Semple is organising a bean-kissing event for Anish Kapoor’s birthday. Reblogging for “By attending this event you confirm that you are not Anish Kapoor, you are in no way affiliated with Anish Kapoor, you are not attending on behalf of Anish Kapoor or an associate of Anish Kapoor. To the best of your knowledge, information, and belief this event will not be attended by Anish Kapoor.” ALSO HE JUST POSTED THIS!!!!!! LIGHTEST LIGHT! I know this isn’t my art blog but this entire post gives me life im sorry is that man holding a real actual miniature star in his hands Y’all missed the best part about the lightest light, called aptly ‘Lit’. This is from their product page: Two things: 1. “Anish Kapoor is however a penis” is the best line in this post. 2. I wish to be half as petty and half as awesome as Stuart Semple I hope Stuart Semple is making a lot of money. What a good person. Go support him the paint’s are pretty cheap and you get the added bonus of being one of many to help piss off Anish Kapoor He is my fucking role model for pettiness oh my god It got better! I’m also excited because he just released biodegradable glitter in non plastic containers! How amazing is that?! Stuart Semple, good guy for the planet and artists, fighter against the rich elite artist like asshole Kapoor. An older project, but he also did this: (x) oh dude hes metal as fuck  Every addition to this post is better than the last. Me, being gay and having my blood drawn: so…what do you need my blood for again? Stuart Semple: gonna make an anti-government t-shirt with it. Me: Me: :)
Birthday, Douchebag, and Dude: dex
 ORIGINAL
 NOV
 Windex the Bean
 15

 726.
 2113
 Paint the Bean black so they can't Windex it
 NOV
 13

 726.
 2113
 Paint
 Thinner
 Pour Paint Thinner On The Bean After They
 Paint It Black So We Can Windex
 NOV
 13
debthestoner:

rrdcooc:

addakax:

mysticalalleycat:

politicalcdnmama:

theresagooseinthemainframe:

0-memento-mori-0:

justaplate:

claydart:

starlitskyes:

frosttrix:

extremedistressorstellarblowjob:

queen-of-heck:


brightoncemore:

todayiwrotenothing:

gay-jesus-probably:

solongstarbird:

akamine-chan:

phantomofthebookstore:

dragonastra:

jasperzilla:

moose-shampoo:
if you’ve ever wondered what it’s like to live in the midwest, this is it. 

You missed some of the best ones 

the best part about it is that the art installation isn’t actually called the Bean. It’s called Cloud Gate, and artist Anish Kapoor (yes, THAT Anish Kapoor) hates that we call it the Bean.
But i mean, look at it. It’s a bean.


How could you forget this one though


I HAD NO FUCKING IDEA THAT THE BEAN WAS CREATED BY ANISH KAPOOR.

someone help me why is anish kapoor important what did he do?

Alright sit down for some Art World Drama bcause this is what I live for.
So, sometime last year (?) science invented Vantablack, which is the darkest possible shade of black. Art world got incredibly excited. But as it needs to be very carefully made in a lab, it’s hard to get a hold of, and is extremely expensive. Enter Anish Kapoor, aka FuckFace McGee. Anish Kapoor buys the rights to Vantablack. He is the only human being on the planet that can legally use it, and he’s kind of a prick about it.
Art world is not thrilled with that.
Enter Stuart Semple.
Stuart Semple is an artist, and also makes pigments to sell in his free time. Stuart Semple is astoundingly pissed about this Vantablack nonsense, and Anish Kapoor’s dickery. Stuart Semple makes a new pigment, the brightest shade of pink ever, called Pinkest Pink, and puts it for sale on the internet. To be bought by everybody except Anish Kapoor. Literally, to purchase, you need to confirm that you are not Anish Kapoor, do not associate with him, and will not sell or give the pigment to Anish Kapoor or his associates. Art world has a good laugh, everyone buys Pinkest Pink because it’s awesome, and damn it we deserve something.
Anish Kapoor however is a penis, and will not take this lying down, because HOW DARE he not have literally everything.
Anish Kapoor gets his London associates to buy him a thing of Pinkest Pink, and being such a classy human being, posts a picture to instagram of him with his middle finger covered in Pinkest Pink, captioned with “Up yours. #pink”
Everyone flips shit, because. Y’know. Fuck that guy. Especially Stuart Semple. For context here, Anish Kapoor is one of the richest artists on the planet, and has repeatedly been referred to as everything wrong with the art world, and the epitome of the art worlds elitism problem. He’s a giant douchebag. Meanwhile Stuart Semple makes pigments just to get them out there. He turns 0 profit from his now enourmously popular pigments.
Stuart Semple launches an investigation as to who the fuck leaked Pinkest Pink, and plans to strike back. He does so by releasing two new products. First is Diamond Dust, which is a glitter made from glass, so that a painting is still visible after it’s applied, but glitters like a mofo. It’s the most reflective glitter out there, and is available to everyone who isn’t Anish Kapoor. And it being made of glass, if you stick your finger in there, it’s going to hurt quite a bit, so that was Stuart Semple’s way of saying “shove your middle finger in this, asshole, see what happens”. Except without saying that, because he can get an insult across while still being fucking classy.
He also releases Black 2.0, created with the help of over a thousand artists worldwide.
Black 2.0 is the answer to Vantablack. Black 2.0 is a slightly less black black, but looks functionally the same to the human eye. It’s completely safe, smells like cherries, and costs four pounds. Vantablack is highly toxic, potentially explosive, needs to be applied in a special laboratory and sealed properly, can’t be moved across borders, can reach 300 degrees celsius if you’re not extremely careful, and costs thousands of dollars. Anish Kapoor is the only human being who can use Vantablack. He is the only human being who cannot use Black 2.0.
So I think we can guess who got the better deal.
And thus the feud ends, Kapoor defeated.
…But not quite.
Kapoor, in this entire afair, has made exactly two comments to the public. The first being his charming message about aquiring Pinkest Pink, the second being claiming to Buzzfeed that he and his small army of lawyers will be suing Semple, an extremely poor artist who cannot afford a lawyer.
No lawsuit has been made yet, fyi.
The point is, Kapoor is a prick, and doesn’t like talking to the lower classes. So one day in July 2017, he decides he needs another floor on his London studio apartment, and starts making arrangements to have it built. His neighbors are fucking pissed, because this will ruin the light of their apartments. They call to Semple to save them, or at the very least piss Kapoor off some more.
Semple answers to the call, and releases two new paints, Phaze and Shift, as always, banned to Kapoor. They change colours, Phaze with temperature, and Shift is just iridescent. Shift needs to be painted over Black 2.0 to work, and Phaze just works on its own.
So that’s been the art world for the last two years.
Basically, get fucked Anish Kapoor your bean sucks and so does your vantablack.

Stuart Semple is organising a bean-kissing event for Anish Kapoor’s birthday.


Reblogging for “By attending this event you confirm that you are not Anish Kapoor, you are in no way affiliated with Anish Kapoor, you are not attending on behalf of Anish Kapoor or an associate of Anish Kapoor. To the best of your knowledge, information, and belief this event will not be attended by Anish Kapoor.”


ALSO HE JUST POSTED THIS!!!!!! LIGHTEST LIGHT!


I know this isn’t my art blog but this entire post gives me life 

im sorry is that man holding a real actual miniature star in his hands

Y’all missed the best part about the lightest light, called aptly ‘Lit’. This is from their product page:

Two things:
1. “Anish Kapoor is however a penis” is the best line in this post.
2. I wish to be half as petty and half as awesome as Stuart Semple


I hope Stuart Semple is making a lot of money. What a good person.

Go support him the paint’s are pretty cheap and you get the added bonus of being one of many to help piss off Anish Kapoor


He is my fucking role model for pettiness oh my god 


It got better! I’m also excited because he just released biodegradable glitter in non plastic containers! How amazing is that?! Stuart Semple, good guy for the planet and artists, fighter against the rich elite artist like asshole Kapoor.


An older project, but he also did this:
(x)

oh dude hes metal as fuck 

Every addition to this post is better than the last.


Me, being gay and having my blood drawn: so…what do you need my blood for again?
Stuart Semple: gonna make an anti-government t-shirt with it.
Me:
Me: :)

debthestoner: rrdcooc: addakax: mysticalalleycat: politicalcdnmama: theresagooseinthemainframe: 0-memento-mori-0: justaplate: clayda...

Drinking, Fire, and Gg: radfemfrommars "It's not safe at night." GG It's only not safe because there are men around. There's no safer place then being with 18 women in the woods drinking wine, making a fire and shooting guns. That's the safest l've ever felt. The only problem was the woman who wanted to bring her boyfriend nerdylilpeebee If there are 18 of you and you have guns.... why would one girl bringing her boyfriend make you less safe???? You have GUNS. The guy would be insane to try anything. Are you that deathly afraid of men that they terrify you even when they completely are outnumbered and outgunned?????? radfemfrommars One woman bringing her boyfriend would make us less safe. First, we didn't want him around because he didn't belong there. That wasn't the point of us all getting together. She wanted to bring her boyfriend, and 12 of us gave a hard "no", so he didn't get to come along. That's the end of it. I'm not leaving some man to roam around in the woods at night with us all spreading out every now and then. Say he tried something, and one of us beat him or shot him you think they'd believe us? Some whitebread yuppie beaten or shot by a bunch of "feminazis" in the woods doing witchy shit? I already see the news about how he had "so can much to give the world" and "he was a good kid, there's no way he would do that!" (despite him being 23 they're always kids in the eyes of the media) being afraid of men: I don't fear So as far as me an individual man, I fear the patriarchal system that would protect him, even in death #men are the problem #this is why lesbian separatism is a thing
Drinking, Fire, and Gg: radfemfrommars
 "It's not safe at night."
 GG
 It's only not safe because there are men
 around. There's no safer place then being with
 18 women in the woods drinking wine, making
 a
 fire and shooting guns. That's the safest l've
 ever felt. The only problem was the woman who
 wanted to bring her boyfriend
 nerdylilpeebee
 If there are 18 of you and you have guns.... why
 would one
 girl bringing her boyfriend make you
 less safe???? You have GUNS. The guy would be
 insane to try anything.
 Are you that deathly afraid of men that they
 terrify you even when they
 completely
 are
 outnumbered and outgunned??????
 radfemfrommars
 One woman bringing her boyfriend would make
 us less safe. First,
 we didn't want him around
 because he didn't belong there. That wasn't the
 point of us all getting together. She wanted to
 bring her boyfriend, and 12 of us gave a hard
 "no", so he didn't get to come
 along. That's the
 end of it. I'm not leaving
 some man to roam
 around in the woods at night with us all
 spreading out every now and then. Say he tried
 something, and one of us beat him or shot him
 you think they'd believe us? Some whitebread
 yuppie beaten or shot by a bunch of
 "feminazis" in the woods doing witchy shit? I
 already
 see the news about how he had "so
 can
 much to give the world" and "he was a
 good
 kid, there's no way he would do that!" (despite
 him being 23 they're always kids in the eyes of
 the media)
 being afraid of men: I don't fear
 So as far as me
 an individual man, I fear the patriarchal system
 that would protect him,
 even in death
 #men are the problem #this is why lesbian
 separatism is a
 thing