Valentine's Day
Valentine's Day

Valentine's Day

pics
pics

pics

2018
2018

2018

cat
cat

cat

said
 said

said

Tall Enough
Tall Enough

Tall Enough

Quotes
Quotes

Quotes

Animal
Animal

Animal

humor
humor

humor

Pictures
Pictures

Pictures

🔥 | 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 ...

Amazon, Drunk, and Internet: old man bangers @FindusPancake My mum was teaching first holy communion class, and a kid asked her "How many communions do vou have to do before you've eaten a whole Jesus?" 24/3/18, 8:48 am 10K Retweets 35.1K Likes sindri42: xanderbot13: gannayev: spiletta42: ragnell: danbensen: exxos-von-steamboldt: ralfmaximus: moogloogle: ralfmaximus: tobaeus: ralfmaximus: nyxetoile: antibutch: thats a valid question A communion wafer, according to the internet, is about .25g. Jesus was a healthy young man, who worked manual labor and walked everywhere. The average male in Biblical times was 5′1″ and about 110 pounds so call it 50kg or 50,000 grams. So 200,000 wafers to make up a whole Jesus. At one wafer a week that’s 3846 to eat a whole Jesus at weekly communion. If you went to Mass daily you could do it in under 550 years. 1000 communion wafers from Amazon costs $15, so acquiring a Jesus load would set you back about $3000 But that’s just the body. Jesus also bade his followers to drink his blood. How much of that Jesus communion wafer supply needs to be replaced with communion wine to account for his blood, and how much of that would need to be consumed to have drunk all his blood as well? The human body contains roughly 5 liters of blood. Communion wine costs about $66 for a case of 12 x 750 ml bottles (9000 ml). So half a case is 4500 ml, or close enough if Jesus was on the small side which is reasonable given what we know of the times. Thus, Jesus’ blood would be about 6 bottles of communion wine, costing $33. How much of his weight was his blood, now? We can bring down the wafer count. Osnap what an excellent question. Water has a specific gravity of 1.0 and weighs 1kg/liter. Wine has a specific gravity if 1.5 thus weighs 1.5kg per liter. 4.5L of wine would weigh 6.75kg or about 15 pounds. Reducing the wafer load by 6.75kg yields 43.25kg so call it 161,000 wafers or $2450 and change. @danbensen Full Metal Eucharist The Unholy Union of Catholic Tumblr and Math Tumblr This is one of those posts I will absolutely email to every pastor I know. @garpfloyd If you just buy a sack of wafers, that’s just bread. To get the transubstatntiation going you need to have a priest perform the full ritual over them. By which I mean an entire Mass for every like, plateful? If you cut out the songs and use pretty short readings you could probably get one churned out every half-hour or so…
Amazon, Drunk, and Internet: old man bangers
 @FindusPancake
 My mum was teaching first holy
 communion class, and a kid asked her
 "How many communions do vou have
 to do before you've eaten a whole
 Jesus?"
 24/3/18, 8:48 am
 10K Retweets 35.1K Likes
sindri42:
xanderbot13:

gannayev:


spiletta42:

ragnell:

danbensen:

exxos-von-steamboldt:


ralfmaximus:

moogloogle:

ralfmaximus:


tobaeus:


ralfmaximus:

nyxetoile:


antibutch:
thats a valid question
A communion wafer, according to the internet, is about .25g. Jesus was a healthy young man, who worked manual labor and walked everywhere. The average male in Biblical times was 5′1″ and about 110 pounds so call it 50kg or 50,000 grams. So 200,000 wafers to make up a whole Jesus. At one wafer a week that’s 3846 to eat a whole Jesus at weekly communion. If you went to Mass daily you could do it in under 550 years.


1000 communion wafers from Amazon costs $15, so acquiring a Jesus load would set you back about $3000

But that’s just the body. Jesus also bade his followers to drink his blood. How much of that Jesus communion wafer supply needs to be replaced with communion wine to account for his blood, and how much of that would need to be consumed to have drunk all his blood as well?


The human body contains roughly 5 liters of blood.
Communion wine costs about $66 for a case of 12 x 750 ml bottles (9000 ml).
So half a case is 4500 ml, or close enough if Jesus was on the small side which is reasonable given what we know of the times.
Thus, Jesus’ blood would be about 6 bottles of communion wine, costing $33.


How much of his weight was his blood, now? We can bring down the wafer count. 

Osnap what an excellent question.
Water has a specific gravity of 1.0 and weighs 1kg/liter. Wine has a specific gravity if 1.5 thus weighs 1.5kg per liter.
4.5L of wine would weigh 6.75kg or about 15 pounds.
Reducing the wafer load by 6.75kg yields 43.25kg so call it 161,000 wafers or $2450 and change.

@danbensen


Full Metal Eucharist

The Unholy Union of Catholic Tumblr and Math Tumblr
This is one of those posts I will absolutely email to every pastor I know.



@garpfloyd 

If you just buy a sack of wafers, that’s just bread. To get the transubstatntiation going you need to have a priest perform the full ritual over them. By which I mean an entire Mass for every like, plateful? If you cut out the songs and use pretty short readings you could probably get one churned out every half-hour or so…

sindri42: xanderbot13: gannayev: spiletta42: ragnell: danbensen: exxos-von-steamboldt: ralfmaximus: moogloogle: ralfmaximus: tob...

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: ...

Anaconda, Betty White, and Chris Evans: bundibird: wrangletangle: stevenrogered: Chris Evans helps Regina King up the stairs to the stage after her Oscars win Okay listen up, all you dudes out there! It’s time for some life lessons from Chris Evans. Wonder why women are fine with this when he does it, but they find you opening a car door or offering to carry stuff for them annoying? Well, wonder no more! It works like this: A large number of women have had to learn how to dodge and swerve and sometimes even slap away men’s hands from the time they hit puberty - and sometimes before. Ladies, cis and trans both, are unfortunately experienced at being groped, poked, prodded, “helped”, and otherwise humiliated and threatened by men. Then also there’s the condescending attitude that of course we need a man’s help, and we should be grateful he offered it. No thanks. Chris is doing something very different here, and you’ll see it in similar video clips of him at other events. You can read his mental process in his body language. He starts with just clapping and congratulating. He offers nothing until there is a need, which doesn’t happen here until Regina’s shoe gets caught on her dress. Since women have literally tripped up the stairs at this ceremony several times over the years (because the shoe and clothing requirements are ridiculous), it is reasonable at this stage to think that my-shoe-caught-on-my-dress is a problem that actually needs to be addressed. This is when Chris offers. How he offers matters. He starts with an open hand toward her, but this is a big no-no. Open hands are a red flag. Open hands grope and grab and shove. He quickly corrects by flipping his arm over and offering his forearm instead. This makes it her choice whether to grab on or ignore him. She doesn’t have to contend with a potentially threatening hand while she’s also contending with her dress. He also bends down a bit to do this. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Chris is kind of a tall, beefy guy. Guys like that can be a bit intimidating without meaning to be, at least when they’re up close. Also, his arm is a bit too high to be useful to her if he stays at his full height. So he bends down. This is even more visible in the video from him doing this for Betty White at the 2015 Oscars, because she’s shorter than Regina, I guess. He offers his arm for exactly as long as she leans on it. When she lets go, he steps back. This is a guy who isn’t interested in showing off how much she needs his help. He’s just interested in helping, and when he’s not needed, he’s done. He goes back to sit down. He doesn’t hover. Also, Regina King knows who Chris Evans is. His behavior at work thus far has certainly made it into the rumor mill, thus factoring into whether she accepts help from him. Is he a dudebro or jerk to women at work? That doesn’t appear to be the case. Women are not helpless. Compared to men, our clothes are more often obstacles to getting where we need to go safely and with our dignity intact, but conversely, we’ve also learned to deal with that better than most men have. It’s not that we never need or want help; like all people, we do sometimes need a hand. It’s just that “some kinds of help are the kinds of help we all could do without.” If you are offering help to a woman, first make sure she actually appears to be struggling. Second, make yourself as unthreatening as possible and let her do any touching, not the other way around. Third, make sure she can refuse without any consequences. And fourth, back off as soon as she doesn’t need you anymore and let the moment go. I hadn’t even registered why exactly it was that he was so unthreatening in this and the Betty White assistance incidents, but you’re right. It’s all in the way he helps. It’s not that this is unthreatening behaviour “because he’s Chris Evans” – its because his body language is genuinely unthreatening and merely helpful. A+ analysis – I hadn’t even registered the details of why and how this behaviour was 100% ok, while from another man (who probably would have gone about it differentky) it might not have been
Anaconda, Betty White, and Chris Evans: bundibird:

wrangletangle:

stevenrogered:
Chris Evans helps Regina King up the stairs to the stage after her Oscars win
Okay listen up, all you dudes out there! It’s time for some life lessons from Chris Evans.
Wonder why women are fine with this when he does it, but they find you opening a car door or offering to carry stuff for them annoying? Well, wonder no more! It works like this:
A large number of women have had to learn how to dodge and swerve and sometimes even slap away men’s hands from the time they hit puberty - and sometimes before. Ladies, cis and trans both, are unfortunately experienced at being groped, poked, prodded, “helped”, and otherwise humiliated and threatened by men. Then also there’s the condescending attitude that of course we need a man’s help, and we should be grateful he offered it. 
No thanks.
Chris is doing something very different here, and you’ll see it in similar video clips of him at other events. You can read his mental process in his body language. He starts with just clapping and congratulating. He offers nothing until there is a need, which doesn’t happen here until Regina’s shoe gets caught on her dress. Since women have literally tripped up the stairs at this ceremony several times over the years (because the shoe and clothing requirements are ridiculous), it is reasonable at this stage to think that my-shoe-caught-on-my-dress is a problem that actually needs to be addressed. This is when Chris offers.
How he offers matters. He starts with an open hand toward her, but this is a big no-no. Open hands are a red flag. Open hands grope and grab and shove. He quickly corrects by flipping his arm over and offering his forearm instead. This makes it her choice whether to grab on or ignore him. She doesn’t have to contend with a potentially threatening hand while she’s also contending with her dress. 
He also bends down a bit to do this. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Chris is kind of a tall, beefy guy. Guys like that can be a bit intimidating without meaning to be, at least when they’re up close. Also, his arm is a bit too high to be useful to her if he stays at his full height. So he bends down. This is even more visible in the video from him doing this for Betty White at the 2015 Oscars, because she’s shorter than Regina, I guess.
He offers his arm for exactly as long as she leans on it. When she lets go, he steps back. This is a guy who isn’t interested in showing off how much she needs his help. He’s just interested in helping, and when he’s not needed, he’s done. He goes back to sit down. He doesn’t hover.
Also, Regina King knows who Chris Evans is. His behavior at work thus far has certainly made it into the rumor mill, thus factoring into whether she accepts help from him. Is he a dudebro or jerk to women at work? That doesn’t appear to be the case.
Women are not helpless. Compared to men, our clothes are more often obstacles to getting where we need to go safely and with our dignity intact, but conversely, we’ve also learned to deal with that better than most men have. It’s not that we never need or want help; like all people, we do sometimes need a hand. It’s just that “some kinds of help are the kinds of help we all could do without.”
If you are offering help to a woman, first make sure she actually appears to be struggling. Second, make yourself as unthreatening as possible and let her do any touching, not the other way around. Third, make sure she can refuse without any consequences. And fourth, back off as soon as she doesn’t need you anymore and let the moment go.


I hadn’t even registered why exactly it was that he was so unthreatening in this and the Betty White assistance incidents, but you’re right. It’s all in the way he helps. It’s not that this is unthreatening behaviour “because he’s Chris Evans” – its because his body language is genuinely unthreatening and merely helpful. 
A+ analysis – I hadn’t even registered the details of why and how this behaviour was 100% ok, while from another man (who probably would have gone about it differentky) it might not have been

bundibird: wrangletangle: stevenrogered: Chris Evans helps Regina King up the stairs to the stage after her Oscars win Okay listen up, all...

Arguing, News, and Tumblr: 1082 10 vaccines given to US. babies autism rate 1 in 10,000 36 vaccines given to U.S. babies 400 autism rate 1 in 150 2 46 vaccines given to U.S. babies autism rate 1in 88 Natural News.com America's truth news bureau, read by 7 million and growing anti-vaxxers-are-child-abusers: realnaturalnews: Autism rates are rising just as the amount of vaccinations are increasing… No correlation!  Autism “rates” are not what’s rising; Autism diagnosis rates are, and the reason for that is because we have gotten better at diagnosing it. That’s also on top of the fact that autism is more widely reported in the modern day because, unlike back in the old days, we don’t lock autistic people up in institutions or try to hide their existence. And as you’ve probably heard a million times but continue to plug your ears when told — the one “scientific” paper written that argued that vaccines cause autism was proven to be bunk, several other scientists involved in the “research” asked to have their names removed from the paper and admitted that it was bunk, and the main researcher involved (Andrew Wakefield), had his medical license revoked. TL;DR there is no science supporting “vaccines cause autism”, and the “data” anti-vaxxers try to use to argue in favor of it are false correlations of things that have nothing to do with each other.
Arguing, News, and Tumblr: 1082 10 vaccines given to US. babies
 autism rate 1 in 10,000
 36 vaccines given to U.S. babies
 400 autism rate 1 in 150
 2
 46 vaccines given to U.S. babies
 autism rate 1in 88
 Natural News.com
 America's truth news bureau, read by 7 million and growing
anti-vaxxers-are-child-abusers:
realnaturalnews:
Autism rates are rising just as the amount of vaccinations are increasing…
No correlation! 
Autism “rates” are not what’s rising; Autism diagnosis rates are, and the reason for that is because we have gotten better at diagnosing it. That’s also on top of the fact that autism is more widely reported in the modern day because, unlike back in the old days, we don’t lock autistic people up in institutions or try to hide their existence.
And as you’ve probably heard a million times but continue to plug your ears when told — the one “scientific” paper written that argued that vaccines cause autism was proven to be bunk, several other scientists involved in the “research” asked to have their names removed from the paper and admitted that it was bunk, and the main researcher involved (Andrew Wakefield), had his medical license revoked.
TL;DR there is no science supporting “vaccines cause autism”, and the “data” anti-vaxxers try to use to argue in favor of it are false correlations of things that have nothing to do with each other.

anti-vaxxers-are-child-abusers: realnaturalnews: Autism rates are rising just as the amount of vaccinations are increasing… No correlation! ...