Path of Most Resistance

Fairly filtered blog considering my URL...

I dream of one day doing important enough stuff for my country that they have to blur my face any time a photo is taken.

shitshilarious:

iliveinmattsmithspants:

territorialcreep:

itseasytoremember:

whythefuckareyouromeo:


0ver-doze:

omg they are so offended if you lick them back. 

Fun fact! Dogs lick the mouths of those they consider higher in rank! So if you lick them back, they are not offended, they just don’t see themselves as higher than you and they are confused! The second dog must be a very loyal dog because he or she literally refuses to be licked back haha! I love dogs.

i started reading that expecting an angry rant and it turned out to be one of the nicest things ever.

I have reblogged this like ten times

My cat grooms me. What does that mean?

It means your cat thinks your style is wack and is trying to help

shitshilarious:

iliveinmattsmithspants:

territorialcreep:

itseasytoremember:

whythefuckareyouromeo:


0ver-doze
:

image

omg they are so offended if you lick them back. 

Fun fact! Dogs lick the mouths of those they consider higher in rank! So if you lick them back, they are not offended, they just don’t see themselves as higher than you and they are confused! The second dog must be a very loyal dog because he or she literally refuses to be licked back haha! I love dogs.

i started reading that expecting an angry rant and it turned out to be one of the nicest things ever.

I have reblogged this like ten times

My cat grooms me. What does that mean?

It means your cat thinks your style is wack and is trying to help

(Source: kingjrific)

mmmmspooky96:

cyanhyena:

vandigo:

newwavefeminism:

The automatic criminalization of black and brown bodies

Now hold on a sec I do INDEED have a problem with one picture but not the other.
In the TOP picture you can clearly see two hunting rifles and a mid-sized handgun, which are perfectly reasonable guns for a family to have, and it appears that all three people in the picture are legally old enough to at least have gone to a hunters safety course, which legally justifies the weapons being in their hands for certain purposes - hunting. Hand guns are carried by hunters to defend against bear attacks, should they happen, and by fishermen when fishing in lakes containing sturgeon … because the only way you’re killing a goddamned prehistoric dinosaur fish from hell is by shooting it (no joke).
Now the BOTTOM picture clearly contains only ONE child old enough to have gone through a hunters safety course … and not a single gun that is used for anything other than killing other human beings, and this I have a serious problem with. Guns that are intended ONLY for killing humans (the AR and AK series rifles, which are shown) with CHILDREN is a fucking problem.
Now, if they were hunting rifles in the bottom picture - you know, guns that are meant solely for the procurement of food - then I wouldn’t have an issue outside of the questionable ages of the children shown.

Really huge red flag on the bottom pic is the fact two of the kids clearly have their fingers ON THE TRIGGERS.
Its called trigger discipline. I’ve never been to any gun safety classes and I know that much.

> Guns that are intended ONLY for killing humans (the AR and AK series rifles, which are shown) with CHILDREN is a fucking problem.
Your fucking point? People have every right to own weapons like this for self defense what kind of high and mighty asshole are you that you get to decide what arbitrary limits are set on a persons firearm. 
Because of you fucks I’m stuck with ten round mags, a bullet button which inhibits my reloading time and, and a ten day waiting period on long guns and a moth waiting period on handguns which are much more effectively used for home defense than a fucking rifle.
Once again shove that fucking bullshit up your ass.

Who the fuck says you can’t hunt with an AR or AK variant?!

mmmmspooky96:

cyanhyena:

vandigo:

newwavefeminism:

The automatic criminalization of black and brown bodies

Now hold on a sec I do INDEED have a problem with one picture but not the other.

In the TOP picture you can clearly see two hunting rifles and a mid-sized handgun, which are perfectly reasonable guns for a family to have, and it appears that all three people in the picture are legally old enough to at least have gone to a hunters safety course, which legally justifies the weapons being in their hands for certain purposes - hunting. Hand guns are carried by hunters to defend against bear attacks, should they happen, and by fishermen when fishing in lakes containing sturgeon … because the only way you’re killing a goddamned prehistoric dinosaur fish from hell is by shooting it (no joke).

Now the BOTTOM picture clearly contains only ONE child old enough to have gone through a hunters safety course … and not a single gun that is used for anything other than killing other human beings, and this I have a serious problem with. Guns that are intended ONLY for killing humans (the AR and AK series rifles, which are shown) with CHILDREN is a fucking problem.

Now, if they were hunting rifles in the bottom picture - you know, guns that are meant solely for the procurement of food - then I wouldn’t have an issue outside of the questionable ages of the children shown.

Really huge red flag on the bottom pic is the fact two of the kids clearly have their fingers ON THE TRIGGERS.

Its called trigger discipline. I’ve never been to any gun safety classes and I know that much.

> Guns that are intended ONLY for killing humans (the AR and AK series rifles, which are shown) with CHILDREN is a fucking problem.

Your fucking point? People have every right to own weapons like this for self defense what kind of high and mighty asshole are you that you get to decide what arbitrary limits are set on a persons firearm. 

Because of you fucks I’m stuck with ten round mags, a bullet button which inhibits my reloading time and, and a ten day waiting period on long guns and a moth waiting period on handguns which are much more effectively used for home defense than a fucking rifle.

Once again shove that fucking bullshit up your ass.

Who the fuck says you can’t hunt with an AR or AK variant?!

(via militiamedic)

bombing:

instead of killing two birds with one stone how about you take the time to line up your shot and kill three or more with one bullet. this isn’t the 14th century you idiot. you barbaric rock using idiot

johanirae:

I reckon if more people understood this there would be a lot less victim blaming when it comes to rape.

johanirae:

I reckon if more people understood this there would be a lot less victim blaming when it comes to rape.

(via edrao)

Anonymous asked: You say you are "pro equality" but not a feminist, but those things are exactly the same, so what you are is a moron.

kittiezandtittiez:

And I a sure you are a very intelligent individual.

This is a very unpopular topic, and a lot of people are afraid of speaking out because the backlash they might suffer, but since I already get a bunch of hate mail, the worst that can happen for giving my opinion is a couple hundred unfollows and a few dozen hate messages.

I am pro equality because I am pro human rights not ONLY pro women’s rights.

The problem I see with most feminist is that you are either with them or you are against them. And if they think you are against them, if they could, they would drive 7 stakes through your heart in a blink of an eye. And if you are a girl and you say you don’t need feminism, they they tell you that you are the dumbest person in the world.

So if your opinion varies from theirs, they send you these kind of mesagges imagecalling you things that are simply not true.

Or if you try to give them your take on better (less angry ways) to get their message across, then they publish these kinds of posts.image

In my opinion, feminist is not for everybody and just because someone is not a feminist, doesn’t mean they are bad people and you need to hate them just because they disagree with you.

So I am gonna try to explain how being pro equality and being a feminist is not the same. You know, because of the “moron” thing.

Feminism v. Equality

Feminists often use the word “equality” in a puzzling manner which reverses the original meaning. To feminists, and social justice warriors, “real” equality requires biasing society to advantage some people over others based on their gender, race, or other claimed oppression group. This idea that equality can only be achieved by treating people unequally reaches a level of stupidity that only feminism can attain.

“Substantive equality,” like most feminist terms, can be quite confusing for those who don’t defer to debauched dictionaries or champion corrupted concepts.

While free societies count on justice being blind, feminists were unhappy with the results of impartiality in the courts – namely, women were being convicted of more crimes. Under the guise of promoting equality, radical feminism has succeeded in bringing bias back into the legal system by arguing that women are, in fact, not equal to men and should not be treated as such under the law.

Despite some opposition from rational thinkers, “substantive” has trumped “formal” in the legal applications of equality.

“Formal” equality is the name given to what most of us think of when we hear the word equality. It’s the classic and extremely popular idea that all people should be treated as equals. The legal intention is summarized by the phrase “ equality before and under the law.” Laws are meant to be applied equally to all people and all people are expected to answer to the law equally. This principle is often visually depicted as a blindfold adorning the statues of Lady Justice which are common to court houses across the globe.

The popular idea that all people are equal and should be treated as such was written into the constitutional legislation of most modern countries, and there was much rejoicing.

But not for long.

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) explains how the founding mothers of feminism discovered that, to their dismay, the “Supreme Court of Canada rulings were determining that women were the ‘same before the law’ meaning that one woman would be treated the same as another woman.” This was somehow troubling to them.

LEAF took up the cause of implementing and shaping the discourse on substantive equality to ensure that Canadian women would cease to be treated the same as men or, indeed, each other in a court of law. They have had much success.

Writing for the National Post in March, 1999, George Jonas deftly explains, to no avail, the purpose behind the feminist ploy of splitting equality into two types. His article is worth reading in its entirety but the brilliantly worded opening is sufficient here.

"Assume you’re a feminist. To further your political objective, which is to secure advantages for your group, you need to replace a liberal principle, namely equality, with an illiberal principle, to wit, inequality. It would be bad form for you to say so, of course, but that’s not all. In an essentially liberal society such as Canada, pushing inequality would be useless. It simply wouldn’t fly.

But what if you stuck an adjective — say, “formal” — in front of the word “equality”? Then you could contrast “formal equality” with a newly minted concept for inequality that sounded better — say, “substantive equality.” Now you’re on track. While you couldn’t sell the idea of replacing equality with inequality, replacing “formal equality” with “substantive equality” might have legs.

Presto, the feminist party line.

This corruption of equality “before and under the law” is not exclusive to Canada. The International Women’s Rights Action Watch outlines the agenda of the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, more conveniently called CEDAW.

"The concept of equality is traditionally understood to mean “the right to be equal to men”. This becomes problematic when it is extended to the understanding that women must be treated exactly like men if they are to gain equality with men. It implies that women must be treated according to male standards, obscuring the ways in which women are different from men and how they will be disadvantaged because of these differences.

What are these “male standards” which are so problematic? A standard of excellence, perhaps?

Feminists insist that women are innately flawed in a way which handicaps them. They argue that women can not be held equally accountable both before and under the law by claiming a meaningful difference between the words “before” and “under”. If you get lost in the semantic debate here, you are not alone. Their argument attempts to win the debate by spinning in nonsensical circles for long enough that opponents get dizzy and stumble away.

With their usual abuse of the English language, feminism has adopted an “equality” theory (“substantive equality”) that remains controversial and which is certainly not accepted as either practical or attainable. Given that the construction of stable, sustainable communities is typically accomplished by men, feminists have thus far not needed to bother themselves with such details. They fight for what they want and let everyone else worry about how to make it work without destroying society.

Failing to explain how courts can be “patriarchal” while consistently and historically depicting Justice in the form of a woman since ancient Egypt’s Maat, feminists again fall flat in the face of equality when they claim that jails are not appropriate places for women.

In February of 2011, the APPG (All Party Parliamentary Group for women in the penal system) wrote a heartfelt letter to the UK’s Ministry of Justice stating that women “have greater needs than the adult male prison population.” They made recommendations for how to treat women differently than men claiming that “the biggest single improvement government could make would entail a change of ethos.”

“Change of ethos” is just a fancy way of saying that the legal system should stop sending female criminals to jail as if they have equal responsibility before and under the law. Apparently, unlike men, going to jail makes women depressed.

No single group has fought longer or harder than feminists have to ensure women cease to be treated as equals within society. The same feminists who have so effectively stripped women of legal equality quickly accuse others of bigotry or misogyny whenever they are challenged. This silencing of reasoned voices has created a bizarre gynocentric tyranny in which some are more equal than others by virtue of their inequality.

It is, in fact, a truly cunning stunt of history.

edrao:

unfilteredjunk:

edrao:

outofmymind-justintime:

princess-hijabi:

#muslimapologies

Trueeee

Because all (and only) white people were affected by 9/11Jk we’re on tumblr, we hate white people among other things
Wait… Is now a good time to mention the massive amounts of European slaves, genocide and resource wars in Africa? I can’t say that though because it’s racist.

edrao
when did Africa colonize and maraud Europe?

Not since the Punic Wars, but I never said anything about Africa colonizing and/or marauding Europe. My main counterpoints were directed at slavery and genocide, namely examples such as the Barbary Slave Trade and the Rwandan Genocide.

edrao Barbary is a legit one, but the 1-1.25 million slaves that were taken by Africans can’t compare to the horrors of the Atlantic Slave Trade (12 million) which has had an immense impact on the socioeconomic conditions of blacks to this day.

Don’t be a tard, colonialism set up the conditions that allowed the Rwandan Genocide to happen.

White guilt is bullshit but don’t try to make what happened OK or imply that we’re where we are because we’re better people.

edrao:

unfilteredjunk:

edrao:

outofmymind-justintime:

princess-hijabi:

#muslimapologies

Trueeee

Because all (and only) white people were affected by 9/11
Jk we’re on tumblr, we hate white people among other things

Wait… Is now a good time to mention the massive amounts of European slaves, genocide and resource wars in Africa? I can’t say that though because it’s racist.
edrao
when did Africa colonize and maraud Europe?

Not since the Punic Wars, but I never said anything about Africa colonizing and/or marauding Europe. My main counterpoints were directed at slavery and genocide, namely examples such as the Barbary Slave Trade and the Rwandan Genocide.

edrao Barbary is a legit one, but the 1-1.25 million slaves that were taken by Africans can’t compare to the horrors of the Atlantic Slave Trade (12 million) which has had an immense impact on the socioeconomic conditions of blacks to this day. Don’t be a tard, colonialism set up the conditions that allowed the Rwandan Genocide to happen. White guilt is bullshit but don’t try to make what happened OK or imply that we’re where we are because we’re better people.