Tucked
Tucked

Tucked

The Word
The Word

The Word

Imposses
Imposses

Imposses

bombs
 bombs

bombs

momentous
momentous

momentous

tuck
tuck

tuck

were
were

were

yours
yours

yours

matter
matter

matter

sexs
sexs

sexs

🔥 | Latest

Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 urben911: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. I’m pretty sure from the wording of the amendment it would be perfectly legal. If they ran as biden/Obama that would be legal because Obama isn’t being elected as president. If something happened to Biden where the vp would have to take over then you could have Obama in the white house legally. At least that’s what I get from the wording of the constitution. THANK YOU.It really isn’t that complicated.
Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama
 2020
 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase
 The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden
 to run as President and Barrack Obama as
 his VP.
 Just saying.
 Show this thread
 600
urben911:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:
coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice).

All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining.

12th amendment, guys:

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall 
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. 
Obama is an unconstitutional selection. 

Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57

All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!”

It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.

I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations.

You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.

I’m pretty sure from the wording of the amendment it would be perfectly legal. If they ran as biden/Obama that would be legal because Obama isn’t being elected as president. If something happened to Biden where the vp would have to take over then you could have Obama in the white house legally. At least that’s what I get from the wording of the constitution.

THANK YOU.It really isn’t that complicated.

urben911: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of ...

Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. Being elected is the default way to become president. I don’t doubt someone would argue it, but it’s a STUPID ARGUMENT. The rest of the argument in that article is ‘well there’s no law saying the parties can’t run a dog for election’ type of crap. “Being elected is the default way to become president” Yes but it’s not the only way. Teddy Roosevelt not initially get elected to the office, he became president when McKinley died. Whether or not it’s a stupid argument is beside the point. We’re talking about theoretical legality.
Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama
 2020
 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase
 The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden
 to run as President and Barrack Obama as
 his VP.
 Just saying.
 Show this thread
 600
hst3000:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:


libertarirynn:

coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice).

All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining.

12th amendment, guys:

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall 
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. 
Obama is an unconstitutional selection. 

Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57

All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!”

It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.

I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations.


You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.

Being elected is the default way to become president. I don’t doubt someone would argue it, but it’s a STUPID ARGUMENT. The rest of the argument in that article is ‘well there’s no law saying the parties can’t run a dog for election’ type of crap. 

“Being elected is the default way to become president” Yes but it’s not the only way. Teddy Roosevelt not initially get elected to the office, he became president when McKinley died. Whether or not it’s a stupid argument is beside the point. We’re talking about theoretical legality.

hst3000: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of...

Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.
Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama
 2020
 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase
 The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden
 to run as President and Barrack Obama as
 his VP.
 Just saying.
 Show this thread
 600
hst3000:

libertarirynn:
coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice).

All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining.

12th amendment, guys:

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall 
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. 
Obama is an unconstitutional selection. 

Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57

All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!”

It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.

I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations.

You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.

hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questi...

Abc, cnn.com, and Detroit: 548 FOX 29 News at Nine FOX 29 CURRENTS SAN ANTONIO 71° JESSICA HEAD LEY 71° KERRVILLE 69° TEXASAL CASE ARISING FROM THE DEATH OF A 10-YEAR-OLD BOY ON A WATE SPORTS NHL DETROIT 2 MONTREAL CARARIN SI gangster-computer-kebab: libertarirynn: fernandothefox: slatmes: skywalkingintheair: hello-kitty-senpai: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: pennamites: castle-engineer: diarrheaworldstarhiphop: This is one of those things that I already knew was true, but seeing it so blatantly displayed makes me feel like like I am finding out about it for the first time. CIA is getting lazy O.o “It’s just a script whats the problem lol” the problem is that Fox, CNN, CBS, and all the other channels repped here, despite claiming to be different companies with different viewpoints, all had the exact same script, word for word, to push the exact same viewpoint that smaller, independent news outlets are Fake News and “A Threat To Our Democracy.” The fact that they have scripts isn’t the problem. The problem is they all, each and every one, have the exact same script down to the letter and in some cases the fucking inflection, which basically reads “small news stations are untrustworthy and a Threat to your Way Of Life, only trust Us, We Are Verified.” Uh, that’s sort of the opposite of what’s going on here. All of the stations here are local stations which have been bought by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conservative group which has come under fire in the past for forcing news anchors on its stations to recite right-wing propaganda. So, yes, small news stations are under attack - but not from CNN and CBS (the stations in the video are local affiliates, not the national networks), from being taken over by Sinclair. Until recently the FCC wouldn’t allow this kind of broad ownership of the airwaves. There’s actually an active investigation into whether Ajit Pai changed rules to benefit Sinclair’s recent expansions (source: CNN, NYTimes). Is no one going to point out how a lot of them where Fox News??… Are you dense? These are local media stations owned by the same parent company, not the same as the Fox News network. And several of them were CBS and ABC. This has literally nothing to do with Fox News. When you follow the money trail, you realize there is literally no difference between so-called “liberal” and “conservative” media.  Of course there isn’t. They’re just there to sate the masses and keep them divided. Anybody who doesn’t know this by now is kidding themselves
Abc, cnn.com, and Detroit: 548
 FOX 29
 News at Nine
 FOX 29
 CURRENTS
 SAN ANTONIO
 71°
 JESSICA HEAD
 LEY
 71°
 KERRVILLE
 69°
 TEXASAL CASE ARISING FROM THE DEATH OF A 10-YEAR-OLD BOY ON A WATE
 SPORTS NHL DETROIT
 2
 MONTREAL
 CARARIN SI
gangster-computer-kebab:

libertarirynn:
fernandothefox:


slatmes:

skywalkingintheair:

hello-kitty-senpai:

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

pennamites:

castle-engineer:

diarrheaworldstarhiphop:



This is one of those things that I already knew was true, but seeing it so blatantly displayed makes me feel like like I am finding out about it for the first time.

CIA is getting lazy

O.o

“It’s just a script whats the problem lol” the problem is that Fox, CNN, CBS, and all the other channels repped here, despite claiming to be different companies with different viewpoints, all had the exact same script, word for word, to push the exact same viewpoint that smaller, independent news outlets are Fake News and “A Threat To Our Democracy.” The fact that they have scripts isn’t the problem. The problem is they all, each and every one, have the exact same script down to the letter and in some cases the fucking inflection, which basically reads “small news stations are untrustworthy and a Threat to your Way Of Life, only trust Us, We Are Verified.”

Uh, that’s sort of the opposite of what’s going on here. All of the stations here are local stations which have been bought by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conservative group which has come under fire in the past for forcing news anchors on its stations to recite right-wing propaganda. So, yes, small news stations are under attack - but not from CNN and CBS (the stations in the video are local affiliates, not the national networks), from being taken over by Sinclair.

Until recently the FCC wouldn’t allow this kind of broad ownership of the airwaves. There’s actually an active investigation into whether Ajit Pai changed rules to benefit Sinclair’s recent expansions (source: CNN, NYTimes). 


Is no one going to point out how a lot of them where Fox News??…


Are you dense? These are local media stations owned by the same parent company, not the same as the Fox News network. And several of them were CBS and ABC. This has literally nothing to do with Fox News.

When you follow the money trail, you realize there is literally no difference between so-called “liberal” and “conservative” media.  

Of course there isn’t. They’re just there to sate the masses and keep them divided. Anybody who doesn’t know this by now is kidding themselves

gangster-computer-kebab: libertarirynn: fernandothefox: slatmes: skywalkingintheair: hello-kitty-senpai: friendly-neighborhood-patriar...

Abc, cnn.com, and Detroit: 548 FOX 29 News at Nine FOX 29 CURRENTS SAN ANTONIO 71° JESSICA HEAD LEY 71° KERRVILLE 69° TEXASAL CASE ARISING FROM THE DEATH OF A 10-YEAR-OLD BOY ON A WATE SPORTS NHL DETROIT 2 MONTREAL CARARIN SI fernandothefox: slatmes: skywalkingintheair: hello-kitty-senpai: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: pennamites: castle-engineer: diarrheaworldstarhiphop: This is one of those things that I already knew was true, but seeing it so blatantly displayed makes me feel like like I am finding out about it for the first time. CIA is getting lazy O.o “It’s just a script whats the problem lol” the problem is that Fox, CNN, CBS, and all the other channels repped here, despite claiming to be different companies with different viewpoints, all had the exact same script, word for word, to push the exact same viewpoint that smaller, independent news outlets are Fake News and “A Threat To Our Democracy.” The fact that they have scripts isn’t the problem. The problem is they all, each and every one, have the exact same script down to the letter and in some cases the fucking inflection, which basically reads “small news stations are untrustworthy and a Threat to your Way Of Life, only trust Us, We Are Verified.” Uh, that’s sort of the opposite of what’s going on here. All of the stations here are local stations which have been bought by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conservative group which has come under fire in the past for forcing news anchors on its stations to recite right-wing propaganda. So, yes, small news stations are under attack - but not from CNN and CBS (the stations in the video are local affiliates, not the national networks), from being taken over by Sinclair. Until recently the FCC wouldn’t allow this kind of broad ownership of the airwaves. There’s actually an active investigation into whether Ajit Pai changed rules to benefit Sinclair’s recent expansions (source: CNN, NYTimes). Is no one going to point out how a lot of them where Fox News??… Are you dense? These are local media stations owned by the same parent company, not the same as the Fox News network. And several of them were CBS and ABC. This has literally nothing to do with Fox News.
Abc, cnn.com, and Detroit: 548
 FOX 29
 News at Nine
 FOX 29
 CURRENTS
 SAN ANTONIO
 71°
 JESSICA HEAD
 LEY
 71°
 KERRVILLE
 69°
 TEXASAL CASE ARISING FROM THE DEATH OF A 10-YEAR-OLD BOY ON A WATE
 SPORTS NHL DETROIT
 2
 MONTREAL
 CARARIN SI
fernandothefox:

slatmes:
skywalkingintheair:

hello-kitty-senpai:

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

pennamites:

castle-engineer:

diarrheaworldstarhiphop:



This is one of those things that I already knew was true, but seeing it so blatantly displayed makes me feel like like I am finding out about it for the first time.

CIA is getting lazy

O.o

“It’s just a script whats the problem lol” the problem is that Fox, CNN, CBS, and all the other channels repped here, despite claiming to be different companies with different viewpoints, all had the exact same script, word for word, to push the exact same viewpoint that smaller, independent news outlets are Fake News and “A Threat To Our Democracy.” The fact that they have scripts isn’t the problem. The problem is they all, each and every one, have the exact same script down to the letter and in some cases the fucking inflection, which basically reads “small news stations are untrustworthy and a Threat to your Way Of Life, only trust Us, We Are Verified.”

Uh, that’s sort of the opposite of what’s going on here. All of the stations here are local stations which have been bought by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conservative group which has come under fire in the past for forcing news anchors on its stations to recite right-wing propaganda. So, yes, small news stations are under attack - but not from CNN and CBS (the stations in the video are local affiliates, not the national networks), from being taken over by Sinclair.

Until recently the FCC wouldn’t allow this kind of broad ownership of the airwaves. There’s actually an active investigation into whether Ajit Pai changed rules to benefit Sinclair’s recent expansions (source: CNN, NYTimes). 


Is no one going to point out how a lot of them where Fox News??…

Are you dense? These are local media stations owned by the same parent company, not the same as the Fox News network. And several of them were CBS and ABC. This has literally nothing to do with Fox News.

fernandothefox: slatmes: skywalkingintheair: hello-kitty-senpai: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: pennamites: castle-engineer: diarrhe...

Adam Driver, Anaconda, and Apparently: Sean T. Collins Follow @theseantcollins weird that the person they went after from Ghostbusters was Leslie Jones. weird that the person they went after from Star Wars was Kelly Marie Tran. what on earth could explain this 5:29 AM 5 Jun 2018 7,482 Retweets 31,087 Likes rockyrz: libertarirynn: siryouarebeingmocked: grumpy-goompa: siryouarebeingmocked: skeleton-jack: cookingwithroxy: siryouarebeingmocked: derpomatic: siryouarebeingmocked: theunnamedstranger: siryouarebeingmocked: theindependentconservative: siryouarebeingmocked: friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt: triggeredmedia: Bad acting and bad characters? other actors in those movies/franchises got shit from trolls too. melissa mccarthy. hayden christiansen. jake lloyd. laura dern. the difference is that all these media outlets didnt declare it a public crises keep reporting on it months after it was news.  in fact, jake lloyd probably got it worse than anyone, being an actual child at the time being traumatized for years because of bullying, but no one cared at the time now it only gets brought up as a tacked on example when talking about those awful modern star wars fans. hes a straight white man. what on earth could explain this? in leslie jones case, she turned it into an internet slap fight drew much more attention to her when before that she was getting no more shit than the other leads. look, we should always separate the actor from their role people who attack an actor personally for a role are scumbags, but stop injecting racism sexism into everything then using it as a shield against actual valid criticism. Not to mention Adam Driver. He’s still getting crapped on. People complained that he was playing a Jewish guy infiltrating the Klan in a historical Spike Lee movie, even though he isn’t Jewish, which is apparently Not Allowed. These are popular franchises. If a fraction of a percent of their fans are knob-ends who harass people, that would seem overwhelming to the person on the receiving end. Not to mention Rey’s a Mary Sure now and everyone called it. You do remember that I disagree with the majority opinion, right? Also, people were calling her a Mary Sue from the first movie. Sometimes based on things that literally didn’t happen, like “being a better pilot than Han”. On a ship she had literally never seen before in her life until she could pilot it BETTER than someone who’s had it forever.That’s bullshit. On a ship she had literally never seen before in her life You mean the ship that she explicitly called “junk”? The one she says she advised against certain modifications for? The one owned by the Quarter Portion guy, who used to be her guardian, as we see in the flashback? How does Rey fly the ship better than Han? Please, I haven’t seen a single piece of evidence for this in over two and a half years, but it’s treated as gospel.  Heck, he didn’t even “have it forever”, he lost it years, maybe decades ago. Better than Han is less important than outflying two Ties on her first attempt. Only due to home ground advantage, vs. two fighters designed mainly for space combat with horrible aerodynamics, and even then, she got Finn’s turret shot. Also, she’s all-but-explicitly shown to be using The Force. The dialogue draws attention to the fact that she’s flying better than she expects. ‘somebody did a thing that is entirely understandable given the context of the prior movies and the actual text of the movie at hand. But for some reason I missed these obvious things so yarrr!’ No I fully accept the explanations for it. I still think it was poorly done and added to Rey’s perception as a Mary Sue who faces no real challenges and succeeds at everything. That there’s an explanation for what she’s doing and how she’s doing it doesn’t change that I and many people think she shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. So, shedloads of people apparently ignored or missed the clear on-screen evidence to complain about this aspect of the movie, but it’s still the movie’s fault that they’re wrong, even when they’re making claims which they could not have reasonably arrived at (EG Rey’s a better pilot than Han.), and the only possible explanation is “fandom misconceptions”? just because she succeeded (lived) doesn’t mean Rey herself experienced these things as ‘easy’. how many movies out there does the hero do something unexpectedly and benefit from the results? like maybe all of them? movies would be boring if characters are powerless the entire time until the exact one moment they need to win. they need to succeed and stumble a little bit along the way. little wins and little losses until the end. if she got her arm cut off, would that remove people’s mary sue label? Thing is, people ignore the actual struggles she went through just because they have a Narrative. She didn’t just beat Kylo, he knocked her out pretty much instantly, and then Fin bought her time, and then she temporarily forced Ben back (IIRC, the book says she tapped into the Dark Side). We don’t even know if he would’ve been able to win if he got up, or even if he could get up. And this was while Kylo was bleeding out from a high-powered weapon, which the movie takes pain to remind us of. But the fanbase acts like Rey apparently beat Ben with one hand tied behind her back, wearing a blindfold, while suffering from some hideous space-combination of Avian Flu and Ebola Zaire. I’m so glad I’m not crazy. I thought I was the only one in the more conservative camp that doesn’t agree that Rey is a Mary Sue. There is lots of in-text explanation for why she excels at certain things as well as the time honored “because the Force“ answer which has applied to a lot of characters besides her. And she absolutely does have struggles even if they are primarily in emotional conflict and wrestling with her untapped strength and insecurities about her origins. These are what make the character. Calling the whole character a Mary Sue because “she fight too good“ is kind of asinine. And don’t get me started on how they bitch about her beating Kylo and forget that he was mortally wounded at the time, and bitch about her knowing something about the Millennium Falcon and mechanical engineering despite the fact that she was A PROFESSIONAL JUNKER and the ship had been on her planet probably most of her life giving her plenty of time to explore it. But yeah pretending that only the minority actors/actresses get harrassed is bullshit. Rey is 100% a Mary Sue. No training yet managed to beat Kylo Ren, flew a ship across space despite no experience, etc. @rockyrz did you read literally one word from the post above you or are you just gonna keep shouting “she’s a Mary Sue!“ and ignore all evidence to the contrary?“Managed to beat Kylo Ren”BECAUSE HE WAS FUCKING MORTALLY WOUNDED.“flew a ship across space”BECAUSE SHE HAD JUST STATED SHE WAS A PILOT.Like seriously it’s fine if you don’t like the movie but you seem kind of dumb if you just straight up ignore the evidence even it’s right in front of your face so you can keep saying the same thing over and over.
Adam Driver, Anaconda, and Apparently: Sean T. Collins
 Follow
 @theseantcollins
 weird that the person they went after
 from Ghostbusters was Leslie Jones.
 weird that the person they went after
 from Star Wars was Kelly Marie Tran.
 what on earth could explain this
 5:29 AM 5 Jun 2018
 7,482 Retweets 31,087 Likes
rockyrz:
libertarirynn:


siryouarebeingmocked:

grumpy-goompa:

siryouarebeingmocked:

skeleton-jack:

cookingwithroxy:

siryouarebeingmocked:

derpomatic:

siryouarebeingmocked:

theunnamedstranger:

siryouarebeingmocked:

theindependentconservative:

siryouarebeingmocked:

friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt:

triggeredmedia:
Bad acting and bad characters?
other actors in those movies/franchises got shit from trolls too.
melissa mccarthy. hayden christiansen. jake lloyd. laura dern.
the difference is that all these media outlets didnt declare it a public crises  keep reporting on it months after it was news.
 in fact, jake lloyd probably got it worse than anyone, being an actual child at the time  being traumatized for years because of bullying, but no one cared at the time  now it only gets brought up as a tacked on example when talking about those awful modern star wars fans.  hes a straight white man. what on earth could explain this?
 in leslie jones case, she turned it into an internet slap fight  drew much more attention to her when before that she was getting no more shit than the other leads.
look, we should always separate the actor from their role  people who attack an actor personally for a role are scumbags, but stop injecting racism  sexism into everything  then using it as a shield against actual valid criticism.

Not to mention Adam Driver. He’s still getting crapped on. People complained that he was playing a Jewish guy infiltrating the Klan in a historical Spike Lee movie, even though he isn’t Jewish, which is apparently Not Allowed.
These are popular franchises. If a fraction of a percent of their fans are knob-ends who harass people, that would seem overwhelming to the person on the receiving end.

Not to mention Rey’s a Mary Sure now and everyone called it.

You do remember that I disagree with the majority opinion, right?
Also, people were calling her a Mary Sue from the first movie. Sometimes based on things that literally didn’t happen, like “being a better pilot than Han”.

On a ship she had literally never seen before in her life until she could pilot it BETTER than someone who’s had it forever.That’s bullshit.



On a ship she had literally never seen before in her life 


You mean the ship that she explicitly called “junk”? The one she says she advised against certain modifications for? The one owned by the Quarter Portion guy, who used to be her guardian, as we see in the flashback?
How does Rey fly the ship better than Han? Please, I haven’t seen a single piece of evidence for this in over two and a half years, but it’s treated as gospel. 
Heck, he didn’t even “have it forever”, he lost it years, maybe decades ago.

Better than Han is less important than outflying two Ties on her first attempt.

Only due to home ground advantage, vs. two fighters designed mainly for space combat with horrible aerodynamics, and even then, she got Finn’s turret shot.
Also, she’s all-but-explicitly shown to be using The Force. The dialogue draws attention to the fact that she’s flying better than she expects.

‘somebody did a thing that is entirely understandable given the context of the prior movies and the actual text of the movie at hand. But for some reason I missed these obvious things so yarrr!’


No I fully accept the explanations for it. I still think it was poorly done and added to Rey’s perception as a Mary Sue who faces no real challenges and succeeds at everything.
That there’s an explanation for what she’s doing and how she’s doing it doesn’t change that I and many people think she shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.

So, shedloads of people apparently ignored or missed the clear on-screen evidence to complain about this aspect of the movie, but it’s still the movie’s fault that they’re wrong, even when they’re making claims which they could not have reasonably arrived at (EG Rey’s a better pilot than Han.), and the only possible explanation is “fandom misconceptions”?

just because she succeeded (lived) doesn’t mean Rey herself experienced these things as ‘easy’. how many movies out there does the hero do something unexpectedly and benefit from the results? like maybe all of them? movies would be boring if characters are powerless the entire time until the exact one moment they need to win. they need to succeed and stumble a little bit along the way. little wins and little losses until the end. if she got her arm cut off, would that remove people’s mary sue label?

Thing is, people ignore the actual struggles she went through just because they have a Narrative. She didn’t just beat Kylo, he knocked her out pretty much instantly, and then Fin bought her time, and then she temporarily forced Ben back (IIRC, the book says she tapped into the Dark Side). We don’t even know if he would’ve been able to win if he got up, or even if he could get up. And this was while Kylo was bleeding out from a high-powered weapon, which the movie takes pain to remind us of.
But the fanbase acts like Rey apparently beat Ben with one hand tied behind her back, wearing a blindfold, while suffering from some hideous space-combination of Avian Flu and Ebola Zaire.

I’m so glad I’m not crazy. I thought I was the only one in the more conservative camp that doesn’t agree that Rey is a Mary Sue. There is lots of in-text explanation for why she excels at certain things as well as the time honored “because the Force“ answer which has applied to a lot of characters besides her. And she absolutely does have struggles even if they are primarily in emotional conflict and wrestling with her untapped strength and insecurities about her origins. These are what make the character. Calling the whole character a Mary Sue because “she fight too good“ is kind of asinine. And don’t get me started on how they bitch about her beating Kylo and forget that he was mortally wounded at the time, and bitch about her knowing something about the Millennium Falcon and mechanical engineering despite the fact that she was A PROFESSIONAL JUNKER and the ship had been on her planet probably most of her life giving her plenty of time to explore it.
But yeah pretending that only the minority actors/actresses get harrassed is bullshit.


Rey is 100% a Mary Sue. No training yet managed to beat Kylo Ren, flew a ship across space despite no experience, etc.
@rockyrz did you read literally one word from the post above you or are you just gonna keep shouting “she’s a Mary Sue!“ and ignore all evidence to the contrary?“Managed to beat Kylo Ren”BECAUSE HE WAS FUCKING MORTALLY WOUNDED.“flew a ship across space”BECAUSE SHE HAD JUST STATED SHE WAS A PILOT.Like seriously it’s fine if you don’t like the movie but you seem kind of dumb if you just straight up ignore the evidence even it’s right in front of your face so you can keep saying the same thing over and over.

rockyrz: libertarirynn: siryouarebeingmocked: grumpy-goompa: siryouarebeingmocked: skeleton-jack: cookingwithroxy: siryouarebeingmock...

Being Alone, Ass, and Assassination: HI... I'M I'M VERY GLAD FRANKLIN.. TO KNOW yOU I ) OPNTS <p><a href="https://atomicsalmon.tumblr.com/post/176535484178/brett-caton-atomicsalmon-brett-caton" class="tumblr_blog">atomicsalmon</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://brett-caton.tumblr.com/post/176509323667/atomicsalmon-brett-caton-atomicsalmon" class="tumblr_blog">brett-caton</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://atomicsalmon.tumblr.com/post/176489965878/brett-caton-atomicsalmon-brett-caton" class="tumblr_blog">atomicsalmon</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://brett-caton.tumblr.com/post/176488525882/atomicsalmon-brett-caton-libertarirynn" class="tumblr_blog">brett-caton</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://atomicsalmon.tumblr.com/post/176487882003/brett-caton-libertarirynn-on-july-31-1968" class="tumblr_blog">atomicsalmon</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://brett-caton.tumblr.com/post/176468087807/libertarirynn-on-july-31-1968-a-young-black" class="tumblr_blog">brett-caton</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/176420298534/on-july-31-1968-a-young-black-man-was-reading" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>“On July 31, 1968, a young, black man was reading the newspaper when he saw something that he had never seen before. With tears in his eyes, he started running and screaming throughout the house, calling for his mom. He would show his mom, and, she would gasp, seeing something she thought she would never see in her lifetime. Throughout the nation, there were similar reactions.</p> <p>What they saw was Franklin Armstrong’s first appearance on the iconic comic strip “Peanuts.” Franklin would be 50 years old this year.</p> <p>Franklin was “born” after a school teacher, Harriet Glickman, had written a letter to creator Charles M. Schulz after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot to death outside his Memphis hotel room. </p> <p>Glickman, who had kids of her own and having worked with kids, was especially aware of the power of comics among the young. “And my feeling at the time was that I realized that black kids and white kids never saw themselves [depicted] together in the classroom,” she would say. </p> <p>She would write, “Since the death of Martin Luther King, ‘I’ve been asking myself what I can do to help change those conditions in our society which led to the assassination and which contribute to the vast sea of misunderstanding, hate, fear and violence.‘”</p> <p>Glickman asked Schulz if he could consider adding a black character to his popular comic strip, which she hoped would bring the country together and show people of color that they are not excluded from American society. </p> <p>She had written to others as well, but the others feared it was too soon, that it may be costly to their careers, that the syndicate would drop them if they dared do something like that.</p> <p>Charles Schulz did not have to respond to her letter, he could have just completely ignored it, and everyone would have forgotten about it. But, Schulz did take the time to respond, saying he was intrigued with the idea, but wasn’t sure whether it would be right, coming from him, he didn’t want to make matters worse, he felt that it may sound condescending to people of color.</p> <p>Glickman did not give up, and continued communicating with Schulz, with Schulz surprisingly responding each time. She would even have black friends write to Schulz and explain to him what it would mean to them and gave him some suggestions on how to introduce such a character without offending anyone. This conversation would continue until one day, Schulz would tell Glickman to check her newspaper on July 31, 1968.</p> <p>On that date, the cartoon, as created by Schulz, shows Charlie Brown meeting a new character, named Franklin. Other than his color, Franklin was just an ordinary kid who befriends and helps Charlie Brown. Franklin also mentions that his father was “over at Vietnam.” At the end of the series, which lasted three strips, Charlie invites Franklin to spend the night one day so they can continue their friendship.</p> <p>There was no big announcement, there was no big deal, it was just a natural conversation between two kids, whose obvious differences did not matter to them. And, the fact that Franklin’s father was fighting for this country was also a very strong statement by Schulz.</p> <p>Although Schulz never made a big deal over the inclusion of Franklin, there were many fans, especially in the South, who were very upset by it and that made national news. One Southern editor even said, “I don’t mind you having a black character, but please don’t show them in school together.”</p> <p>It would eventually lead to a conversation between Schulz and the president of the comic’s distribution company, who was concerned about the introduction of Franklin and how it might affect Schulz’ popularity. Many newspapers during that time had threatened to cut the strip.</p> <p>Schulz’ response: “I remember telling Larry at the time about Franklin – he wanted me to change it, and we talked about it for a long while on the phone, and I finally sighed and said, “Well, Larry, let’s put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it or I quit. How’s that?”</p> <p>Eventually, Franklin became a regular character in the comic strips, and, despite complaints, Franklin would be shown sitting in front of Peppermint Patty at school and playing center field on her baseball team. </p> <p>More recently, Franklin is brought up on social media around Thanksgiving time, when the animated 1973 special “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” appears. Some people have blamed Schulz for showing Franklin sitting alone on the Thanksgiving table, while the other characters sit across him. But, Schulz did not have the same control over the animated cartoon on a television network that he did on his own comic strip in the newspapers.</p> <p>But, he did have control over his own comic strip, and, he courageously decided to make a statement because of one brave school teacher who decided to ask a simple question.</p> <p>Glickman would explain later that her parents were “concerned about others, and the values that they instilled in us about caring for and appreciating everyone of all colors and backgrounds — this is what we knew when we were growing up, that you cared about other people … And so, during the years, we were very aware of the issues of racism and civil rights in this country [when] black people had to sit at the back of the bus, black people couldn’t sit in the same seats in the restaurants that you could sit … Every day I would see, or read, about black children trying to get into school and seeing crowds of white people standing around spitting at them or yelling at them … and the beatings and the dogs and the hosings and the courage of so many people in that time.”</p> <p>Because of Glickman, because of Schulz, people around the world were introduced to a little boy named Franklin.” (Source: The Jon S. Randal Peace Page, Facebook)</p> </blockquote> <p>Of course, nowadays one of the characters would suddenly be black, another would be transexual, and all the girls would be quasi lesbians at least. :P</p> </blockquote> <p>Diversity isn’t bad, but using an outdated term for transgender people is. </p> <p>Please do NOT use transsexual. </p> </blockquote> <p>“ using an outdated term for transgender people is “<br/><br/>Who appointed you to the language police?<br/><br/>Trans <b>gender</b> doesn’t make sense, since gender is the psychological depiction of biological sex. A transsexual is someone whose brain doesn’t align with the body. They experience gender dysphoria, they don’t flip genders because it’s Thursday.<br/><br/>“ Diversity isn’t bad “<br/><br/>Bullshit. <i>Diversity </i>as it is used now is the opposite of what it used to <i>be</i>. Every story has to be the <b>same </b>because <i>diversity?</i> That’s some Animal Farm levels of crap. <br/><br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrlzSqLSGj8GIOeT5jrQsJA/videos">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrlzSqLSGj8GIOeT5jrQsJA/videos</a><br/><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>1. Trans people themselves would rather people use transgender, regardless of whether or not it makes sense.</p> <p>2. Kek, I never said every story has to be the same because of diversity, you’re just pulling shit out of your ass.</p> <p>Diversity isn’t bad. It’s not going to kill you if there’s a story featuring someone that is gay, trans, disabled, of color, or anything else outside of what people usually choose to depict.</p> <p>It’s not that hard a concept to understand. If you get heated over there being diversity then you need to check yourself and your beliefs.</p> <p>Forced diversity is understandable to dislike, but I wasn’t even talking about that in the first place. I said a general statement. </p> </blockquote> <p>“ Trans people themselves would rather people use transgender “<br/><br/>And your proof is.. your opinion. Dismissed as easily. I’ve known transsexuals all my life, they used the word, that is where i heard it, I don’t care that your little group of 0.0001% of the english speakers want to control how english is spoken, any more than I care how scientologists want it to be spoken.<br/><br/>Authoritarians try to control minds by controlling words. It’s very revealing to read books like 1984. SocJus fits in perfectly to that world.<br/><br/>“ I never said every story has to be the same because of diversity “<br/><br/>And I never said you did. God, strawmannery already? I said ‘diversity’ makes every story the same. You have to have the trans, you have to have the black person, the gay, blah blah blah. Art has to serve the needs of the ideology, not the audience, in the SocJus worldview.<br/><br/><br/></p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1078" data-orig-width="881"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4d0465e9b6c0eee84fa8ff9bf3e14229/tumblr_inline_pcrreh11Tt1qj6ut1_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1078" data-orig-width="881"/></figure><p><a href="http://brettcaton.blogspot.com/2018/04/has-squirrel-girl-acquired-downs.html">Which results in… that.</a><br/><br/>“ Diversity isn’t bad. “<br/><br/>By that same logic, having every story push communism or fascism isn’t bad. I disagree.<br/><br/>“ It’s not going to kill you “<br/><br/>Bullshit. But even by that same bar, neither is pushing stories that talk about pushing transsexuals into gas chambers. Is that really the standard of morality you ascribe to? Something is acceptable if it won’t kill<i> you?</i><br/><br/>“ It’s not that hard a concept to understand. “<br/><br/>I understand it perfectly, just as I understand the claims of all sorts of religions and ideologies.<br/><br/><br/></p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="546" data-orig-width="728"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ec0315ffbc32535d8b176e33bc0a4599/tumblr_inline_pcrrlfOi931qj6ut1_540.jpg" data-orig-height="546" data-orig-width="728"/></figure><p>There is something you - along with so many other fanatics do not comprehend. There are people who do not believe the same things you do, despite understanding your arguments. You cannot comprehend the idea that you may be…<br/><br/><br/></p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="2592" data-orig-width="3888"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/287067269a75c067af2f0325ca17e5e7/tumblr_inline_pcrrnh1mG01qj6ut1_540.jpg" data-orig-height="2592" data-orig-width="3888"/></figure></blockquote> <p>Lol have you ever tried to chill? You should try it sometime, you look like you’re desperate for it. </p></blockquote> <p>Why in the hell did a post about Peanuts turn into this shitshow?</p>
Being Alone, Ass, and Assassination: HI... I'M I'M VERY GLAD
 FRANKLIN.. TO KNOW yOU
 I )
 OPNTS
<p><a href="https://atomicsalmon.tumblr.com/post/176535484178/brett-caton-atomicsalmon-brett-caton" class="tumblr_blog">atomicsalmon</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://brett-caton.tumblr.com/post/176509323667/atomicsalmon-brett-caton-atomicsalmon" class="tumblr_blog">brett-caton</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://atomicsalmon.tumblr.com/post/176489965878/brett-caton-atomicsalmon-brett-caton" class="tumblr_blog">atomicsalmon</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="http://brett-caton.tumblr.com/post/176488525882/atomicsalmon-brett-caton-libertarirynn" class="tumblr_blog">brett-caton</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://atomicsalmon.tumblr.com/post/176487882003/brett-caton-libertarirynn-on-july-31-1968" class="tumblr_blog">atomicsalmon</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://brett-caton.tumblr.com/post/176468087807/libertarirynn-on-july-31-1968-a-young-black" class="tumblr_blog">brett-caton</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/176420298534/on-july-31-1968-a-young-black-man-was-reading" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“On July 31, 1968, a young, black man was reading the newspaper when he saw something that he had never seen before. With tears in his eyes, he started running and screaming throughout the house, calling for his mom. He would show his mom, and, she would gasp, seeing something she thought she would never see in her lifetime. Throughout the nation, there were similar reactions.</p>

<p>What they saw was Franklin Armstrong’s first appearance on the iconic comic strip “Peanuts.” Franklin would be 50 years old this year.</p>

<p>Franklin was “born” after a school teacher, Harriet Glickman, had written a letter to creator Charles M. Schulz after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot to death outside his Memphis hotel room. </p>

<p>Glickman, who had kids of her own and having worked with kids, was especially aware of the power of comics among the young. “And my feeling at the time was that I realized that black kids and white kids never saw themselves [depicted] together in the classroom,” she would say. </p>

<p>She would write, “Since the death of Martin Luther King, ‘I’ve been asking myself what I can do to help change those conditions in our society which led to the assassination and which contribute to the vast sea of misunderstanding, hate, fear and violence.‘”</p>

<p>Glickman asked Schulz if he could consider adding a black character to his popular comic strip, which she hoped would bring the country together and show people of color that they are not excluded from American society. </p>

<p>She had written to others as well, but the others feared it was too soon, that it may be costly to their careers, that the syndicate would drop them if they dared do something like that.</p>

<p>Charles Schulz did not have to respond to her letter, he could have just completely ignored it, and everyone would have forgotten about it. But, Schulz did take the time to respond, saying he was intrigued with the idea, but wasn’t sure whether it would be right, coming from him, he didn’t want to make matters worse, he felt that it may sound condescending to people of color.</p>

<p>Glickman did not give up, and continued communicating with Schulz, with Schulz surprisingly responding each time. She would even have black friends write to Schulz and explain to him what it would mean to them and gave him some suggestions on how to introduce such a character without offending anyone. This conversation would continue until one day, Schulz would tell Glickman to check her newspaper on July 31, 1968.</p>

<p>On that date, the cartoon, as created by Schulz, shows Charlie Brown meeting a new character, named Franklin. Other than his color, Franklin was just an ordinary kid who befriends and helps Charlie Brown. Franklin also mentions that his father was “over at Vietnam.” At the end of the series, which lasted three strips, Charlie invites Franklin to spend the night one day so they can continue their friendship.</p>

<p>There was no big announcement, there was no big deal, it was just a natural conversation between two kids, whose obvious differences did not matter to them. And, the fact that Franklin’s father was fighting for this country was also a very strong statement by Schulz.</p>

<p>Although Schulz never made a big deal over the inclusion of Franklin, there were many fans, especially in the South, who were very upset by it and that made national news. One Southern editor even said, “I don’t mind you having a black character, but please don’t show them in school together.”</p>

<p>It would eventually lead to a conversation between Schulz and the president of the comic’s distribution company, who was concerned about the introduction of Franklin and how it might affect Schulz’ popularity. Many newspapers during that time had threatened to cut the strip.</p>

<p>Schulz’ response: “I remember telling Larry at the time about Franklin – he wanted me to change it, and we talked about it for a long while on the phone, and I finally sighed and said, “Well, Larry, let’s put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it or I quit. How’s that?”</p>

<p>Eventually, Franklin became a regular character in the comic strips, and, despite complaints, Franklin would be shown sitting in front of Peppermint Patty at school and playing center field on her baseball team. </p>

<p>More recently, Franklin is brought up on social media around Thanksgiving time, when the animated 1973 special “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” appears. Some people have blamed Schulz for showing Franklin sitting alone on the Thanksgiving table, while the other characters sit across him. But, Schulz did not have the same control over the animated cartoon on a television network that he did on his own comic strip in the newspapers.</p>

<p>But, he did have control over his own comic strip, and, he courageously decided to make a statement because of one brave school teacher who decided to ask a simple question.</p>

<p>Glickman would explain later that her parents were “concerned about others, and the values that they instilled in us about caring for and appreciating everyone of all colors and backgrounds — this is what we knew when we were growing up, that you cared about other people … And so, during the years, we were very aware of the issues of racism and civil rights in this country [when] black people had to sit at the back of the bus, black people couldn’t sit in the same seats in the restaurants that you could sit … Every day I would see, or read, about black children trying to get into school and seeing crowds of white people standing around spitting at them or yelling at them … and the beatings and the dogs and the hosings and the courage of so many people in that time.”</p>

<p>Because of Glickman, because of Schulz, people around the world were introduced to a little boy named Franklin.” (Source: The Jon S. Randal Peace Page, Facebook)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course, nowadays one of the characters would suddenly be black, another would be transexual, and all the girls would be quasi lesbians at least. :P</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Diversity isn’t bad, but using an outdated term for transgender people is. </p>
<p>Please do NOT use transsexual. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>“
using an outdated term for transgender people is

“<br/><br/>Who appointed you to the language police?<br/><br/>Trans <b>gender</b> doesn’t make sense, since gender is the psychological depiction of biological sex. A transsexual is someone whose brain doesn’t align with the body. They experience gender dysphoria, they don’t flip genders because it’s Thursday.<br/><br/>“
Diversity isn’t bad

“<br/><br/>Bullshit. <i>Diversity </i>as it is used now is the opposite of what it used to <i>be</i>. Every story has to be the <b>same </b>because <i>diversity?</i> That’s some Animal Farm levels of crap. <br/><br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrlzSqLSGj8GIOeT5jrQsJA/videos">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrlzSqLSGj8GIOeT5jrQsJA/videos</a><br/><br/></p>
</blockquote>

<p>1. Trans people themselves would rather people use transgender, regardless of whether or not it makes sense.</p>
<p>2. Kek, I never said every story has to be the same because of diversity, you’re just pulling shit out of your ass.</p>
<p>Diversity isn’t bad. It’s not going to kill you if there’s a story featuring someone that is gay, trans, disabled, of color, or anything else outside of what people usually choose to depict.</p>
<p>It’s not that hard a concept to understand. If you get heated over there being diversity then you need to check yourself and your beliefs.</p>
<p>Forced diversity is understandable to dislike, but I wasn’t even talking about that in the first place. I said a general statement. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>“
Trans people themselves would rather people use transgender

“<br/><br/>And your proof is.. your opinion. Dismissed as easily. I’ve known transsexuals all my life, they used the word, that is where i heard it, I don’t care that your little group of 0.0001% of the english speakers want to control how english is spoken, any more than I care how scientologists want it to be spoken.<br/><br/>Authoritarians try to control minds by controlling words. It’s very revealing to read books like 1984. SocJus fits in perfectly to that world.<br/><br/>“
I never said every story has to be the same because of diversity

“<br/><br/>And I never said you did. God, strawmannery already? I said ‘diversity’ makes every story the same. You have to have the trans, you have to have the black person, the gay, blah blah blah. Art has to serve the needs of the ideology, not the audience, in the SocJus worldview.<br/><br/><br/></p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1078" data-orig-width="881"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4d0465e9b6c0eee84fa8ff9bf3e14229/tumblr_inline_pcrreh11Tt1qj6ut1_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1078" data-orig-width="881"/></figure><p><a href="http://brettcaton.blogspot.com/2018/04/has-squirrel-girl-acquired-downs.html">Which results in… that.</a><br/><br/>“
Diversity isn’t bad.

“<br/><br/>By that same logic, having every story push communism or fascism isn’t bad. I disagree.<br/><br/>“
 It’s not going to kill you

“<br/><br/>Bullshit. But even by that same bar, neither is pushing stories that talk about pushing transsexuals into gas chambers. Is that really the standard of morality you ascribe to? Something is acceptable if it won’t kill<i> you?</i><br/><br/>“
It’s not that hard a concept to understand. 

“<br/><br/>I understand it perfectly, just as I understand the claims of all sorts of religions and ideologies.<br/><br/><br/></p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="546" data-orig-width="728"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ec0315ffbc32535d8b176e33bc0a4599/tumblr_inline_pcrrlfOi931qj6ut1_540.jpg" data-orig-height="546" data-orig-width="728"/></figure><p>There is something you - along with so many other fanatics do not comprehend. There are people who do not believe the same things you do, despite understanding your arguments. You cannot comprehend the idea that you may be…<br/><br/><br/></p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="2592" data-orig-width="3888"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/287067269a75c067af2f0325ca17e5e7/tumblr_inline_pcrrnh1mG01qj6ut1_540.jpg" data-orig-height="2592" data-orig-width="3888"/></figure></blockquote>

<p>Lol have you ever tried to chill? You should try it sometime, you look like you’re desperate for it. </p></blockquote>

<p>Why in the hell did a post about Peanuts turn into this shitshow?</p>

<p><a href="https://atomicsalmon.tumblr.com/post/176535484178/brett-caton-atomicsalmon-brett-caton" class="tumblr_blog">atomicsalmon</a>:</p...