happen


                    
                    
                

                

                

            

        
    







            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    

                        


	

	
    
        

            

                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

         beans
        

            
             beans
        

    

    

         
 beans

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        momentous
        

            
            momentous
        

    

    

         
momentous

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        grounded
        

            
            grounded
        

    

    

         
grounded

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        were
        

            
            were
        

    

    

         
were

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        ifs
        

            
            ifs
        

    

    

         
ifs

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        actual
        

            
            actual
        

    

    

         
actual

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        yours
        

            
            yours
        

    

    

         
yours

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        ons
        

            
            ons
        

    

    

         
ons

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        ill
        

            
            ill
        

    

    

         
ill

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        loves
        

            
            loves
        

    

    

         
loves

    



                
            

        

    
    

        🔥 | Latest
    

    
    

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                




    Bad, College, and Driving: GOING To A PARTY
 WORST-CASE
 MGH, WHO INVITED
 BEST-CASE
 THAT SHIRTTHAI
 WAS A
 GOOD IDEA?
 WHAT'S MOST LIKELy TO HAPPEN
 I THINK IMIGHT
 HEAD HOME SOON
 NEAH
 ME TOO.
 College

 DRIVING
 WORST-CASE
 WHAT HAVE
 You DONE?
 BEST-CASE
 FREEDOMI
 WHAT'S MOST LIKELy TO HAPPEN
 UGH, I-65 TRAFFIC
 ALWAyS SUcKS
 AT THIS TIME
 AND uPAGAIN, THAT
 POP SONG YOU'RE
 INDIFFERENT TO!
 Colle

 GOING ON A FIRST DATE
 WORST-CASE
 BEST-CASE
 Well, hello there,
 Sabella Martinez
 who lives at 3b5
 Sunse+ Avenve
 BEFORE TONIGHT THOUGHT
 THE DEA OF A SOULMATE
 WAS A MYTH
 WHAT'S MOST LIKELy TO HAPPEN
 OH, yOU HAVE
 TWO SISTERS?
 EAH, THEY'RE
 FINE
 oleaelHumon

 GIVING A SPEECH
 WORST-CASE
 BEST-CASE
 TECHNICAL
 ERROR:
 ERY THING
 IS BAD
 WORLD
 PROBLEMS
 OLVED.
 NOU'RE A
 FRAUD
 HERE'S A
 B00k DEAL
 00! MANE My
 BABIES
 Ol
 WHAT'S MOST LIKELy TO HAPPEN
 IN CONCLUSION
 WE SHOULD CHANGE
 SOME THINGS, BUT
 NoT EVERYTHING.
 THAT SOUNDS
 REASONABLE.
 TIME
paperparachute:

castorochiaro:

pr1nceshawn:



Worst Case vs. Best Case Scenarios by Karina Farek.

This is a great joke, but it’s also a wonderful strategy for reducing anxiety that I learned about in therapy. If you’re ever nervous about something, just ask yourself: what’s the best thing that can happen? What’s the worst thing? What will most likely happen?
It does wonders for your nerves, really does.

My counsellor walks me through this all the time and it works??

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Bad, College, and Driving: GOING To A PARTY
 WORST-CASE
 MGH, WHO INVITED
 BEST-CASE
 THAT SHIRTTHAI
 WAS A
 GOOD IDEA?
 WHAT'S MOST LIKELy TO HAPPEN
 I THINK IMIGHT
 HEAD HOME SOON
 NEAH
 ME TOO.
 College

 DRIVING
 WORST-CASE
 WHAT HAVE
 You DONE?
 BEST-CASE
 FREEDOMI
 WHAT'S MOST LIKELy TO HAPPEN
 UGH, I-65 TRAFFIC
 ALWAyS SUcKS
 AT THIS TIME
 AND uPAGAIN, THAT
 POP SONG YOU'RE
 INDIFFERENT TO!
 Colle

 GOING ON A FIRST DATE
 WORST-CASE
 BEST-CASE
 Well, hello there,
 Sabella Martinez
 who lives at 3b5
 Sunse+ Avenve
 BEFORE TONIGHT THOUGHT
 THE DEA OF A SOULMATE
 WAS A MYTH
 WHAT'S MOST LIKELy TO HAPPEN
 OH, yOU HAVE
 TWO SISTERS?
 EAH, THEY'RE
 FINE
 oleaelHumon

 GIVING A SPEECH
 WORST-CASE
 BEST-CASE
 TECHNICAL
 ERROR:
 ERY THING
 IS BAD
 WORLD
 PROBLEMS
 OLVED.
 NOU'RE A
 FRAUD
 HERE'S A
 B00k DEAL
 00! MANE My
 BABIES
 Ol
 WHAT'S MOST LIKELy TO HAPPEN
 IN CONCLUSION
 WE SHOULD CHANGE
 SOME THINGS, BUT
 NoT EVERYTHING.
 THAT SOUNDS
 REASONABLE.
 TIME
paperparachute:

castorochiaro:

pr1nceshawn:



Worst Case vs. Best Case Scenarios by Karina Farek.

This is a great joke, but it’s also a wonderful strategy for reducing anxiety that I learned about in therapy. If you’re ever nervous about something, just ask yourself: what’s the best thing that can happen? What’s the worst thing? What will most likely happen?
It does wonders for your nerves, really does.

My counsellor walks me through this all the time and it works??

                
            

            
            
paperparachute:

castorochiaro:

pr1nceshawn:



Worst Case vs. Best Case Scenarios by Karina Farek.

This is a great joke, but it’s also a ...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                




    Being Alone, Children, and Friends: Tweet
 t1 DickMonger Retweeted
 Slim Dollars
 @SlimDollars
 some people wasnt raised. they was
 tolerated.. sat in front of a tv and given
 chicken nuggets and capri suns they
 whole childhood... we gotta really be
 mindful of that
 4/2/18, 7:59 AM
 2,085 Retweets 3,100 Likes
smitethepatriarchy:

bpdcalvinfischoeder:

zakbaganses:

jazzisback:


sauvamente:
Okay but how is this our problem? What’s the context?
Thank you, like what does this have to do with me? I’m supposed to be considerate of what here, a lack of socialization?


You’re supposed to be aware that some people were raised to be tolerated and that transfers into their adult life. Always being alone as a child doesn’t help you grow into a social adult. It leads you to be friends with people you believe are your friends but are only tolerating you. It leads you to believe that the people who love you and are around you are only tolerating you because you’re around. It feels scary to ask people for anything because you’re afraid they’ll give you what you want only to get you away from them. It makes you feel unlovable, unsocial, and intolerable to the people you love and should know, love you.


This is also something that tends to happen to children of resentment; kids who were born to parents who had kids because they were expected to, or any other reason besides wanting kids unconditionally. 
It’s a very lonely, loveless childhood. It’s a childhood full of you trying to tell your parents about problems and they brush you off, or wanting to talk about something you like and you get “thats nice honey but could you -insert excuse to get you away from them-”
You constantly second guess peoples motives. You don’t believe anyone could genuinely want to help you. You see yourself as a bother. You don’t trust people when they do nice things for you because you think theyre just trying to placate you and make you go away. Everyone is only doing nice things for you to be polite, not because theyre a nice person or they care about you.
And usually this kind of childhood is accompanied by emotional abuse. Your parents tolerate you, but they would really rather you not be around. And kids aren’t stupid. They know. And it hurts them. It hurt me so much. 

You grow up believing no one would ever actually love you.


Some people really just don’t give a fuck about anyone but themselves to the point that they get offended when you ask them to be aware that many individuals had shitty childhoods. 

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Being Alone, Children, and Friends: Tweet
 t1 DickMonger Retweeted
 Slim Dollars
 @SlimDollars
 some people wasnt raised. they was
 tolerated.. sat in front of a tv and given
 chicken nuggets and capri suns they
 whole childhood... we gotta really be
 mindful of that
 4/2/18, 7:59 AM
 2,085 Retweets 3,100 Likes
smitethepatriarchy:

bpdcalvinfischoeder:

zakbaganses:

jazzisback:


sauvamente:
Okay but how is this our problem? What’s the context?
Thank you, like what does this have to do with me? I’m supposed to be considerate of what here, a lack of socialization?


You’re supposed to be aware that some people were raised to be tolerated and that transfers into their adult life. Always being alone as a child doesn’t help you grow into a social adult. It leads you to be friends with people you believe are your friends but are only tolerating you. It leads you to believe that the people who love you and are around you are only tolerating you because you’re around. It feels scary to ask people for anything because you’re afraid they’ll give you what you want only to get you away from them. It makes you feel unlovable, unsocial, and intolerable to the people you love and should know, love you.


This is also something that tends to happen to children of resentment; kids who were born to parents who had kids because they were expected to, or any other reason besides wanting kids unconditionally. 
It’s a very lonely, loveless childhood. It’s a childhood full of you trying to tell your parents about problems and they brush you off, or wanting to talk about something you like and you get “thats nice honey but could you -insert excuse to get you away from them-”
You constantly second guess peoples motives. You don’t believe anyone could genuinely want to help you. You see yourself as a bother. You don’t trust people when they do nice things for you because you think theyre just trying to placate you and make you go away. Everyone is only doing nice things for you to be polite, not because theyre a nice person or they care about you.
And usually this kind of childhood is accompanied by emotional abuse. Your parents tolerate you, but they would really rather you not be around. And kids aren’t stupid. They know. And it hurts them. It hurt me so much. 

You grow up believing no one would ever actually love you.


Some people really just don’t give a fuck about anyone but themselves to the point that they get offended when you ask them to be aware that many individuals had shitty childhoods. 

                
            

            
            
smitethepatriarchy:

bpdcalvinfischoeder:

zakbaganses:

jazzisback:


sauvamente:
Okay but how is this our problem? What’s the context?
Tha...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                




    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:

...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                




    80s, Apparently, and Books: ladylisa:
gemfyre:

lauralandons:

thereadersmuse:

jehovahhthickness:

lightning-st0rm:

pearlmito:

smootymormonhelldream:

stripedsilverfeline:

anti-clerical:

ramirezbundydahmer:

When the Nazi concentration camps were liberated by the Allies, it was a time of great jubilation for the tens of thousands of people incarcerated in them. But an often forgotten fact of this time is that prisoners who happened to be wearing the pink triangle (the Nazis’ way of marking and identifying homosexuals) were forced to serve out the rest of their sentence. This was due to a part of German law simply known as “Paragraph 175” which criminalized homosexuality. The law wasn’t repealed until 1969.

This should be required learning, internationally. 

You need to know this. You need to remember this. This is not something to swept under the carpet nor be forgotten. 
Never. Too many have died for the way they have loved. That needs stop now. 
Make it stop? 

I did a report on this in my World History class my sophomore year of high school. It was incredibly unsettling.

My teacher shown the class this. Mostly everyone in the class felt uncomfortable. 

I have reblogged this in the past, but it is so ironic that it comes across my dash right now. I a currently working as a docent at my city’s Holocaust Education Center (( I say currently because I’ve also done research and translation for them )) and out current exhibit is one on loan from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ((USHMM)). This is a little known historical fact that Paragraph 175 was not repealed after the war and those convicted under Nazi laws as a danger to society because they were gay were not released because they had be convicted in a court of law. There was no liberation or justice for them as they weren’t considered criminals, or even victims for that matter. They were criminals who remained persecuted and ostracized and kept on the fringes of society for decades after the war had been won. Paragraph175 wasn’t actually repealed until 1994. And it was only in May 2002, that the German parliament completed legislation to pardon all homosexuals convicted under Paragraph175 during the Nazi era. History has forgotten about these men and women — please educate yourselves so this does not happen again. Remember this history. Remember them.

@mindlesshumor ok how the fuck did I miss this when I’ve studied The Holocaust like nobody’s business??? wtf

Because the history we have left regarding it is literally the contents of this first hand account.
It is a thin little book.
When I first opened it, I wondered why it was so thin.
Why there wasn’t other books like it.
Other first hand accounts.
By the time I finished it, I didn’t wonder anymore.

Further reading:
I, Pierre Seel, Deported Homosexual: A Memoir of Nazi Terror by Pierre Seel
An Underground Life: Memoirs of a Gay Jew in Nazi Berlin by Gad Beck
The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals by Richard Plant
Branded By The Pink Triangle by Ken Setterington
Bent by Martin Sherman (fiction; however, it’s often credited with bringing attention to gay Holocaust victims for the first time since the war ended)

This is one of the memorial sculptures in Dachau.  It was erected in the early 60s and is missing the pink triangles.  Because in the early 60s, homosexuality was still a crime in most of the world.Our tour guide explained why the pink triangles have not been added later - if they were, then folks would assume that they had always been there.  This way people ask “why aren’t there pink triangles?” and somebody can explain why - because in some ways, the rest of the world was as bass-ackwards as Nazi Germany.


Apparently, this wasnt taught in schools in the 70s-80s, cuz when I mentioned it to my mom, she had no idea that gays were held in concentration camps. She thought it was just jewish people. 

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                80s, Apparently, and Books: ladylisa:
gemfyre:

lauralandons:

thereadersmuse:

jehovahhthickness:

lightning-st0rm:

pearlmito:

smootymormonhelldream:

stripedsilverfeline:

anti-clerical:

ramirezbundydahmer:

When the Nazi concentration camps were liberated by the Allies, it was a time of great jubilation for the tens of thousands of people incarcerated in them. But an often forgotten fact of this time is that prisoners who happened to be wearing the pink triangle (the Nazis’ way of marking and identifying homosexuals) were forced to serve out the rest of their sentence. This was due to a part of German law simply known as “Paragraph 175” which criminalized homosexuality. The law wasn’t repealed until 1969.

This should be required learning, internationally. 

You need to know this. You need to remember this. This is not something to swept under the carpet nor be forgotten. 
Never. Too many have died for the way they have loved. That needs stop now. 
Make it stop? 

I did a report on this in my World History class my sophomore year of high school. It was incredibly unsettling.

My teacher shown the class this. Mostly everyone in the class felt uncomfortable. 

I have reblogged this in the past, but it is so ironic that it comes across my dash right now. I a currently working as a docent at my city’s Holocaust Education Center (( I say currently because I’ve also done research and translation for them )) and out current exhibit is one on loan from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ((USHMM)). This is a little known historical fact that Paragraph 175 was not repealed after the war and those convicted under Nazi laws as a danger to society because they were gay were not released because they had be convicted in a court of law. There was no liberation or justice for them as they weren’t considered criminals, or even victims for that matter. They were criminals who remained persecuted and ostracized and kept on the fringes of society for decades after the war had been won. Paragraph175 wasn’t actually repealed until 1994. And it was only in May 2002, that the German parliament completed legislation to pardon all homosexuals convicted under Paragraph175 during the Nazi era. History has forgotten about these men and women — please educate yourselves so this does not happen again. Remember this history. Remember them.

@mindlesshumor ok how the fuck did I miss this when I’ve studied The Holocaust like nobody’s business??? wtf

Because the history we have left regarding it is literally the contents of this first hand account.
It is a thin little book.
When I first opened it, I wondered why it was so thin.
Why there wasn’t other books like it.
Other first hand accounts.
By the time I finished it, I didn’t wonder anymore.

Further reading:
I, Pierre Seel, Deported Homosexual: A Memoir of Nazi Terror by Pierre Seel
An Underground Life: Memoirs of a Gay Jew in Nazi Berlin by Gad Beck
The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals by Richard Plant
Branded By The Pink Triangle by Ken Setterington
Bent by Martin Sherman (fiction; however, it’s often credited with bringing attention to gay Holocaust victims for the first time since the war ended)

This is one of the memorial sculptures in Dachau.  It was erected in the early 60s and is missing the pink triangles.  Because in the early 60s, homosexuality was still a crime in most of the world.Our tour guide explained why the pink triangles have not been added later - if they were, then folks would assume that they had always been there.  This way people ask “why aren’t there pink triangles?” and somebody can explain why - because in some ways, the rest of the world was as bass-ackwards as Nazi Germany.


Apparently, this wasnt taught in schools in the 70s-80s, cuz when I mentioned it to my mom, she had no idea that gays were held in concentration camps. She thought it was just jewish people. 

                
            

            
            
ladylisa:
gemfyre:

lauralandons:

thereadersmuse:

jehovahhthickness:

lightning-st0rm:

pearlmito:

smootymormonhelldream:

stripedsilverf...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                




    Target, Tumblr, and Blog: madamelotus:

yall know this was gonna happen at some pointref 
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Target, Tumblr, and Blog: madamelotus:

yall know this was gonna happen at some pointref 
                
            

            
            
madamelotus:

yall know this was gonna happen at some pointref 

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        

            

                




    Target, Tumblr, and Blog: daisy-pooh:

it would happen sooner or later
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Target, Tumblr, and Blog: daisy-pooh:

it would happen sooner or later
                
            

            
            
daisy-pooh:

it would happen sooner or later