socialjust-ish:

poppypicklesticks:

merp-senpai:

iamtheun-weasel:

I’m sure you are, Kotaku.

and here I am, still with no knowledge of even what it is. Fancy that., 

Brianna Wu, the feminist gamer who referred to an autistic woman as “a gross little aspie”?

Boo fucking hoo. 

"We’re losing ad revenue but GamerGate isn’t losing steam, what do we do?!"

"Quick, just pretend it’s ending and hope reality warps itself to suit our article!"

Jonathan McIntosh went #FullMcIntosh and declared #GamerGate dead. Nek Minut….

BMW claims they are removing their ads from Gawker.

They can’t kill #GamerGate. We’ll just keep respawning. Go on twitter for half an hour and you’ll see how scared they are. Not because of doxxes or death threats that don’t actually exist. But because they see how badly they’re losing and they are doing everything to end this because they lose everything.

It’s too late.

yayforkayla2:

Feminists who get upset when women don’t identify as feminists:
image

(Source: spookykayla2)

marauders4evr:


It’s just a flesh wound.

The single greatest scene in cinematic history.
marauders4evr:


It’s just a flesh wound.

The single greatest scene in cinematic history.
marauders4evr:


It’s just a flesh wound.

The single greatest scene in cinematic history.
marauders4evr:


It’s just a flesh wound.

The single greatest scene in cinematic history.
marauders4evr:


It’s just a flesh wound.

The single greatest scene in cinematic history.
marauders4evr:


It’s just a flesh wound.

The single greatest scene in cinematic history.
marauders4evr:


It’s just a flesh wound.

The single greatest scene in cinematic history.

marauders4evr:

It’s just a flesh wound.

The single greatest scene in cinematic history.

QuestionI looked at those "receipts" and only the child abuse one is bad, really. He's spot on about pronouns: he, she, or they that's how it works. The child abuse does make me really mad though. Answer

socialjust-ish:

hemorrhagingheart:

socialjust-ish:

hemorrhagingheart:

socialjust-ish:

outingpoppy:

socialjust-ish:

outingpoppy:

Well, I’m glad you’ve acknowledged one thing he’s done, but how is shaming a rape victim or trivializing sexual harassment not a bad thing? 

He’s not shaming a rape victim (assuming you’re talking about the mattress one), he’s calling out how an alleged rape victim is getting attention without having had a trial, or any definitive proof she’s not doing this as a stunt. A stunt to say, get on the cover of magazines.

Emma has reported her rape and the school has dismissed it. Trying to bring attention to her school’s lack of interest in protecting sexual assault victims is not a bad thing. To imply that she’s lying about her rape because she’s bringing attention to it is disgusting. 

Not implying she’s lying, implying there’s not enough evidence to assume this rape actually occurred. 

It’s a “he said, she said” scenario. That’s not evidence. There’s not even a record of what ‘he’ and ‘she’ said. There’s just her words in an article on a website. (And a video, but I haven’t watched that because of computational limitations at this time)

To take her word at face value is at best naive, and blindingly stupid at worst.

She went to the university’s board, not the police. Rape is a crime that should be handled by the courts - as all crimes should - and until proven guilty in a court of law, making assumptions and taking her word as true is ridiculous. She has no witnesses, no other evidence, and the other party claims a wildly different story. We have no reason to take her word as more credible than the other parties. She also doesn’t name the two ‘other women’ who were allegedly raped, and so until we know those two actually filed complaints, we still only have her word.

She also makes it sound like her hearing took place long after the incident because it is the board’s fault. “During my hearing, which didn’t take place until seven months after the incident”. However, she at no point says how long she waited to report the incident, only that she “didn’t report it at first." If she waited six months to report it, that’s a fairly timely response for a big university. Her story lacks a lot of details, and even the details she gives are only personal testimony without any evidence.

What Poppy is saying is that people are listening to her viewpoint without any real evidence. That is a bad thing. He then concludes that if people are using the logic of “Listen to victims!” then he could, hypothetically fake being a victim and get people into trouble. 

You need to understand the fundamental difference between a claim and a fact, and this whole story is based on an unproven claim. Not a fact. That’s the problem.

"Not implying she’s lying, implying there’s not enough evidence to assume this rape actually occurred.” ah how it refreshes my soul. -_-

All there is is personal testimony.

That’s it.

If that’s enough to convict someone of rape, the consequences are dramatic.

I could say you raped me, you could say I raped you, we’d both be in prison.

There needs to be due process, and there needs to be evidence enough to warrant they’re guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

That’s all.

Yes, other women have said they were victims, their evidence amounts to more personal testimony, in separate cases. At most, this means we also have character witnesses.

That’s still not proof.

lmao yeah okay. not arguing this because by that logic i can rape anyone and get away with it if nobody saw… that’s disturbing. get help.

That’s how it works, and it’s unfortunate. But that’s why our society is based on the idea of “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It’s a fundamental basis of our society. It’s important. 

Seriously, do you not understand the basic structure of the criminal justice system?

What happens if someone murders someone and no one sees? They get away with it.

What happens if someone pickpockets someone and no one sees? They get away with it.

What happens if someone breaks into your house and steals your TV and no one sees? They get away with it.

If someone rapes someone else, and they only evidence we have is “He raped me” “No I didn’t”, then unfortunately we’re at a standstill.

Is this a good thing? No, bad people sometimes get away with doing awful things. Do we have to accept it if we want the basic tenets of society to hold up? Unfortunately, yes. 

Usually there’s other evidence involved, things like DNA, injuries, other witnesses, a lack of alibi, etc. Because she waited a year and a half to report it, all of that is gone, and that sucks. But because of it, we cannot definitively say whether or not it happened. And we can’t just go “Oh well it might have happened, so into jail they go” because that’s what they did in the fucking dark ages. The fucking Magna Carta is from 1215 CE and even back then they fucking knew a fair trial was important.

Are you legitimately saying that we should just take people’s word for what happened? Go out into the real world for just a little bit and see why that’s a bad idea. 

notallfeminists:

LOOK WHAT THE FUCK JOSS WHEDON SAID! 

(Anyone wanna buy some DVDs?)

affabulous:

sithempire:

officialcrow:

drugattack:

thetonicswine:

The notes on this shit. Some are like ‘that’s cute, that’s thoughtful’ etc., some say ‘am I the only one seeing the blood?’ And then, THEN, there’s people like ‘lol eww that’s so disgusting’. And most of them are women. No, sorry, I’ll rephrase, silly little girls.

Sorry, are periods unnatural to you? Is a perfectly normal bodily function so alien to you that you have to publically shame others for it? This picture is meant to be a statement.

Sorry if the subject of period blood is too fucking taboo for you, kiddos. Women bleed, get over it.

and if a guy ever makes you feel uncomfortable about it, feel free to throw him in the trash can. 

yall really wanna deny the fact that its literally bodily waste and a biohazard like lemme piss in the bed to while we at it

Bodily waste, yes. Biohazard? Not necessarily in the context of the above picture or what it’s trying to convey.

Yea sure, but when you bleed all over your sheets at summer camp they collect it in a biohazard bag and treat it as one. That might not be the intention of this picture but as soon as you subject someone else to your blood or feces, it becomes a biohazard. Intentional Free bleeding is a health risk and is as disgusting as purposefully pissing or shitting yourself around others. 

Besides the obvious health risks. Maybe not all guys are disgusted by period blood, but the only ones that don’t have a problem with you bleeding all over them are level 80 white knights with not enough self esteem to stand up and say “yeah I’d prefer if you didn’t” or fucking psychos who get off on it.

Surely it’s not too much to ask that we really don’t want blood from your womanly bits on us.

(Source: thecharminginnocence)

check-your-privilege-feminists:

4gottendaughter:

thethirdharris:

priceofliberty:

wetmattos:

pokemoneggs:

THIS IS HOW THE BRITISH PRESS RESPONDS TO THE KILLINGS OF DISABLED CHILDREN. All of these extracts were taken from UK news websites. the final tweet is in response to a now-deleted tweet from politician Sandy Kaylan, who praised a mother for ‘euthanising’ her infant children
tania Clarence, 43, admitted to smothering three of her children, all of whom suffered from physical disabilities. Regardless of the circumstances that led to their tragic deaths, these methods of reporting are unethical and go against the British editors code of practice - which states that, once proceedings are active, the press cannot publish any material that could create substantial risk of prejudice in court. The language used in these articles (“tragic mum”, “the unbearable burden of care”, putting the word murder in scare quotes, etc) does exactly that. Reading these articles, it is clear who we are meant to “side” with.
that these rules on court proceedings are apparently not applicable to cases involving the killing of disabled children shows how little the British press (and by extension, the public) cares about the welfare of disabled people in this country. Calling these children burdens and implying they deserved to die reinforces ableism and makes the world a more dangerous place for disabled people. Yet the press does not count it as encouraging prejudice. maybe it’s because we believe the unlawful killing of disabled infants does not “count” as a real crime

This is abhorrent.

source

The utopia of britain

this is how the media responds to women that murder their children

I’m speechless.
check-your-privilege-feminists:

4gottendaughter:

thethirdharris:

priceofliberty:

wetmattos:

pokemoneggs:

THIS IS HOW THE BRITISH PRESS RESPONDS TO THE KILLINGS OF DISABLED CHILDREN. All of these extracts were taken from UK news websites. the final tweet is in response to a now-deleted tweet from politician Sandy Kaylan, who praised a mother for ‘euthanising’ her infant children
tania Clarence, 43, admitted to smothering three of her children, all of whom suffered from physical disabilities. Regardless of the circumstances that led to their tragic deaths, these methods of reporting are unethical and go against the British editors code of practice - which states that, once proceedings are active, the press cannot publish any material that could create substantial risk of prejudice in court. The language used in these articles (“tragic mum”, “the unbearable burden of care”, putting the word murder in scare quotes, etc) does exactly that. Reading these articles, it is clear who we are meant to “side” with.
that these rules on court proceedings are apparently not applicable to cases involving the killing of disabled children shows how little the British press (and by extension, the public) cares about the welfare of disabled people in this country. Calling these children burdens and implying they deserved to die reinforces ableism and makes the world a more dangerous place for disabled people. Yet the press does not count it as encouraging prejudice. maybe it’s because we believe the unlawful killing of disabled infants does not “count” as a real crime

This is abhorrent.

source

The utopia of britain

this is how the media responds to women that murder their children

I’m speechless.
check-your-privilege-feminists:

4gottendaughter:

thethirdharris:

priceofliberty:

wetmattos:

pokemoneggs:

THIS IS HOW THE BRITISH PRESS RESPONDS TO THE KILLINGS OF DISABLED CHILDREN. All of these extracts were taken from UK news websites. the final tweet is in response to a now-deleted tweet from politician Sandy Kaylan, who praised a mother for ‘euthanising’ her infant children
tania Clarence, 43, admitted to smothering three of her children, all of whom suffered from physical disabilities. Regardless of the circumstances that led to their tragic deaths, these methods of reporting are unethical and go against the British editors code of practice - which states that, once proceedings are active, the press cannot publish any material that could create substantial risk of prejudice in court. The language used in these articles (“tragic mum”, “the unbearable burden of care”, putting the word murder in scare quotes, etc) does exactly that. Reading these articles, it is clear who we are meant to “side” with.
that these rules on court proceedings are apparently not applicable to cases involving the killing of disabled children shows how little the British press (and by extension, the public) cares about the welfare of disabled people in this country. Calling these children burdens and implying they deserved to die reinforces ableism and makes the world a more dangerous place for disabled people. Yet the press does not count it as encouraging prejudice. maybe it’s because we believe the unlawful killing of disabled infants does not “count” as a real crime

This is abhorrent.

source

The utopia of britain

this is how the media responds to women that murder their children

I’m speechless.
check-your-privilege-feminists:

4gottendaughter:

thethirdharris:

priceofliberty:

wetmattos:

pokemoneggs:

THIS IS HOW THE BRITISH PRESS RESPONDS TO THE KILLINGS OF DISABLED CHILDREN. All of these extracts were taken from UK news websites. the final tweet is in response to a now-deleted tweet from politician Sandy Kaylan, who praised a mother for ‘euthanising’ her infant children
tania Clarence, 43, admitted to smothering three of her children, all of whom suffered from physical disabilities. Regardless of the circumstances that led to their tragic deaths, these methods of reporting are unethical and go against the British editors code of practice - which states that, once proceedings are active, the press cannot publish any material that could create substantial risk of prejudice in court. The language used in these articles (“tragic mum”, “the unbearable burden of care”, putting the word murder in scare quotes, etc) does exactly that. Reading these articles, it is clear who we are meant to “side” with.
that these rules on court proceedings are apparently not applicable to cases involving the killing of disabled children shows how little the British press (and by extension, the public) cares about the welfare of disabled people in this country. Calling these children burdens and implying they deserved to die reinforces ableism and makes the world a more dangerous place for disabled people. Yet the press does not count it as encouraging prejudice. maybe it’s because we believe the unlawful killing of disabled infants does not “count” as a real crime

This is abhorrent.

source

The utopia of britain

this is how the media responds to women that murder their children

I’m speechless.
check-your-privilege-feminists:

4gottendaughter:

thethirdharris:

priceofliberty:

wetmattos:

pokemoneggs:

THIS IS HOW THE BRITISH PRESS RESPONDS TO THE KILLINGS OF DISABLED CHILDREN. All of these extracts were taken from UK news websites. the final tweet is in response to a now-deleted tweet from politician Sandy Kaylan, who praised a mother for ‘euthanising’ her infant children
tania Clarence, 43, admitted to smothering three of her children, all of whom suffered from physical disabilities. Regardless of the circumstances that led to their tragic deaths, these methods of reporting are unethical and go against the British editors code of practice - which states that, once proceedings are active, the press cannot publish any material that could create substantial risk of prejudice in court. The language used in these articles (“tragic mum”, “the unbearable burden of care”, putting the word murder in scare quotes, etc) does exactly that. Reading these articles, it is clear who we are meant to “side” with.
that these rules on court proceedings are apparently not applicable to cases involving the killing of disabled children shows how little the British press (and by extension, the public) cares about the welfare of disabled people in this country. Calling these children burdens and implying they deserved to die reinforces ableism and makes the world a more dangerous place for disabled people. Yet the press does not count it as encouraging prejudice. maybe it’s because we believe the unlawful killing of disabled infants does not “count” as a real crime

This is abhorrent.

source

The utopia of britain

this is how the media responds to women that murder their children

I’m speechless.

check-your-privilege-feminists:

4gottendaughter:

thethirdharris:

priceofliberty:

wetmattos:

pokemoneggs:

THIS IS HOW THE BRITISH PRESS RESPONDS TO THE KILLINGS OF DISABLED CHILDREN. All of these extracts were taken from UK news websites. the final tweet is in response to a now-deleted tweet from politician Sandy Kaylan, who praised a mother for ‘euthanising’ her infant children

tania Clarence, 43, admitted to smothering three of her children, all of whom suffered from physical disabilities. Regardless of the circumstances that led to their tragic deaths, these methods of reporting are unethical and go against the British editors code of practice - which states that, once proceedings are active, the press cannot publish any material that could create substantial risk of prejudice in court. The language used in these articles (“tragic mum”, “the unbearable burden of care”, putting the word murder in scare quotes, etc) does exactly that. Reading these articles, it is clear who we are meant to “side” with.

that these rules on court proceedings are apparently not applicable to cases involving the killing of disabled children shows how little the British press (and by extension, the public) cares about the welfare of disabled people in this country. Calling these children burdens and implying they deserved to die reinforces ableism and makes the world a more dangerous place for disabled people. Yet the press does not count it as encouraging prejudice. maybe it’s because we believe the unlawful killing of disabled infants does not “count” as a real crime

This is abhorrent.

source

The utopia of britain

this is how the media responds to women that murder their children

I’m speechless.

quartermaster-past:

spookyprincestrider:

sirenlovesong:

summer-tryst:

rightfulqueenofwesteros:

summer-tryst:

White people will literally tattoo ANYTHING on their bodies. ABSOLUTELY. ANYTHING.

why is she tattooing tea on her? did tea save her life? 

I have this feeling that she doesn’t even know what chai means. Probably thought it was spiritual or something. I’m patiently waiting for her response lmao

CHAI IS THE HEBREW WORD FOR LIFE HOLY SHIT LOOK AT THE PICTURE IT SAYS #Hebrew THE WRITING IS IN HEBREW YA’LL ARE BEING PURPOSEFULLY IGNORANT TO SHAME A “WHITE” GIRL WHO ISN’T EVEN WHITE

AYYYY Jew stepping in here.  Chai (chet-Yud) translates to “Life”. Which is what we say out of respect to the familes of those who die. But most importantly it is a symbol of the jewish religion, this being from the saying “Am Yisrael Chai” translating to “The children of Israel are alive”.  Do you know how awesome it is to see someone embracing my culture? I’ve grown up scared to even mention that i’m jewish to people in fear of being attacked or killed. So to see someone tattoo it on themselves is awesome! I mean yeah the Torah forbids it, but it also forbids most medicines so fuck that. All you SJWs go on about “appropriating other people cultures”. But did any of you think to actually ask a Jew?  No.  You all assumed she had “Tea” tattooed on her because saying you’re open minded is completely different to actually having an open mind.

Here’s a little saying for you by Hillel.

"he who refuses to learn deserves extinction.

And you didn’t even try to learn.  

Your Anti-Semitism disgusts me and i hope you learnt a lesson here.

ps summer-tryst You have embarassed the hell out of yourself. Enjoy eating your own words since Chai “Isnt even spiritual”.  nahh. it just represents the religion that all monotheistic faiths are built upon.  totally not religious.

Owned.

(Source: autumn-tryst)

Anonymous Asked
Questionidk what the hell is going on with your avatar but it makes me laugh every time i see it haha Answer

You may think it’s funny. But anime-horsehead-penisgirl comes to me in my sleep. And anime-horsehead-penisgirl likes tight butts.