Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

October 16 2017

jean-paul-fartre:

jean-paul-fartre:

can you imagine a reworking of The Cask of Amontillado except featuring two fratbros at a heavily Greek-life-oriented university in the south

the thousand injuries of Brad I had borne as best I could, but when he ventured upon insulting my salmon-colored vineyard vines summer breaker shorts I vowed revenge

Me at 3AM

ruinedchildhood:

Me: *wakes up*

My dick: “Oh God! No plea…”

Fidget spinners are OUT. The hip new fad among teens?

glumshoe:

lapis-pip:

glumshoe:

walpurgisak:

glumshoe:

jadajarhead:

pattythenest:

glumshoe:

bog mummies

…..what

No really what?

get your very own BOG MUMMIES we got BOG MUMMIES, right here right now, surprise your friends with BOG MUMMIES

it’s back to school season and you know what that means: BOG MUMMIES now with extra PEAT

Can i become a bog mummy

the only thing better than collecting BOG MUMMIES is BECOMING one

it’s NATURAL, it’s ORGANIC, and it’s COMPLETELY FREE OF CHARGE!!!

simply GO HIKING with your best BOG BUDDIES and relax into the SOFT AND WELCOMING expanse of SPHAGNUM MOSS and submit to the PICKLING PROCESS while you STRIKE A POSE

What the FUCK

it’s the FREE and ORGANIC way to KEEP YOUR LOOKS for 3,000 YEARS! Even your CLOTHING can be PERFECTLY PRESERVED!

0506 f92c

October 15 2017

8592 f77c 500

skeptic42:

liloloveyou024:

j7eternal:

THIS!!!!!!!

I think Bo Burnham put it best

(From God’s Perspective (x))

Yes, but it’s hard not to when you want to and god will forgive you, because that’s all that matters.  Absolution from crime and sin makes it all okay.

And just maybe the rape is all part of god’s plan, to punish her because she did something wrong.

can you go live on an island all by yourself so society is safe from you?

October 14 2017

8593 76aa 500

reverendmoss:

abilify:

adam driver enlisted in the US Marines to “get even” against the evil brown people after 9/11 because “it seemed like a badass thing to do”, don’t forget it

GQ interview source / NPR interview source

He doesn’t mention evil brown people? He just sounds like a scared, pissed-off, and confused kid with no clear outlet for it all. If you can’t relate to that, you probably weren’t around in the aftermath of that day.

I was 100% around in the aftermath of that day and so was my older brother and cousins who could enlist and yet they didn’t run off and join an organization that killed more innocent people than the terrorist did.

8595 01b4 500

morethandestined:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

morethandestined:

robert-the-asshole:

scary-morgue-bat:

clkit:

darkwingatlarge:

nevaehtyler:

America, where nazis still have a platform

ridiculous

I truly don’t understand why Nazism is being given a platform… there was a war about this and most of the world was involved. So much so it was called World War II. Like why the fuck is this a debate!? How is this a debate!?

Quite simply because freedom of speech is a universal right. You can’t take away someone’s rights just because they support something you disagree with and yes that includes downright disgusting collectivist ideologies such as Nazism, fascism and communism.

I’m still awaiting evidence that Spencer is a Nazi, or a Neo-Nazi. I’ve only seen accusations, and somehow, it’s become accepted that he is one.

Just because you morally disagree with someones opinions, you cant shut them down despite how wrong their views are. Thats America, the people can say whatever they want. People are trying to morally police others but guess what, morality is a fickle thing that changes over time.

If you are rejecting their freedom of speech then you should be okay when your speech is taken from you.

1. Freedom of speech refers to the government


2. So it’s fine that he’s all for ethnic cleansing then?? It’s going to be fine that he’s okay with ethnic cleansing?

1. The amendment does refer to free speech against govt etc but are you okay with being censored for your views then? If you denounce one then what is going to happen when they want to denounce yours? You cant cherry pick. Its either you get this benefit of expressing your views verbally (NOT physically) or you dont.

2. The more we let these wild people talk, the more we see how wild they are and people wont support that because by them sharing their ridiculous views, they are just making themselves look stupid.

He can think/express the stupid idea of “ethnic cleansing” but its not going to happen. Once ideas turn into action, there is a problem, but because thats not going to happen and everyone is freaking out about the “what ifs”. I may not agree with him but he can spout whatever nonsense he wants because thats his right. There is something called the market place of opinions, and his is low on that. Just because you disagree with their (wrong) idea doesnt mean they cant say it. Are you going to start policing people on their views and religion too just because their views are the unpopular?

1. If my views are about ethnic genocide they need to be censored and not given a platform. Also freedom of speech is cherry picked so if the constitution can do it so can I and everyone else.



2. You have no grasp of how Nazism rose do you?


I’m sorry why do you think ethnic genocide isn’t going to happen? It’s happened in the past. Nazis are currently the what 3rd largest party in Germany.


If people’s views and religions have them calling for ethnic genocide then yes.

1694 2c91 500

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

unknown1858:

Be consistent, 66% of gun deaths are suicide

Blacks kill 95% of black in the US

Non Whites commit more murders than whites

Blacks are 13% of the population but commit 55% of the crimes

Blacks on average rape 1500 white women every year

Whites rape about 2 Black women a year

In homicide bombings it’s the bomber but in shootings it’s the gun

CRIMINALS ARE THE PROBLEM, TAKE AWAY THE CRIMINALS THE GUN PROBLEM GOES AWAY.

1. This is a conversation about mass shootings. Not bringing up suicides isn’t being inconsistent it’s staying on topic.


2. I don’t think that number is that high but I could be wrong. Also whites kill more whites. Most crime is intra racial.


3. Prove it


4. 55% of violent crimes. Not all crimes. Come on don’t misrepresent statistics.


5. Prove it


6. Prove it


7. We already regulate majority of components needed for bombs not all of them but there’s still regulation so of course when it comes to shootings where’s the little to no regulation it’s gonna be a conversation about the shooter AND the guns.


8. Crime is never going to go away you can’t get rid of it so you need to regulate other stuff.

You are 125 times more likely to die from an accidental fall than from being shot by a rifle in the US.

And why does japan have essentially no firearms but a greater suicide rate?

It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points but went in another direction.


Being more likely to die one way [a way you can’t possibly regulate what the fuck??] doesn’t mean nothing else should be regulated what kind of illogical nonsense??


How is Japan’s suicide rates relevant? Also their suicide rate is probably that high because of the structure of their society but again how is that relevant to a conversation about gun control??

“It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points…”

What point did you need me to prove.

Japan’s suicide rate is relevant because gun-grabberlike to throw those deaths into gun violence statistics claiming that they would drop with gun-control. Japan is proof there is no corellation.

They use a similar argument saying murders in the US Would drop with more gun-control.

Are you blind??? Do the words prove it mean nothing to you or…???? Everything you’ve said in this damn thread is devoid of sources and one of them I know it flat out wrong.


Also can you not read or something this is CLEARLY talking about gun violence as it relates to mass shootings. It’s right there in the first damn tweet. We are talking about a very specific type of gun violence here and you throwing suicide and shit around isn’t proving anything it’s getting off fucking topic and just shows you have no damn argument as to why we shouldn’t have gun control to curb MASS SHOOTINGS which is the topic at hand.


Japan is a perfect example of gun control minimizing MASS SHOOTINGS which is something we as a country need to work on.

Which one do you “know” to be a lie? I’ll show you the data? The 125x more likely to die from an accidental fall part?

According to the CDC there are 32,000 deaths from accidental falls per year.

According to the FBI there were 248 deaths from ALL rifles in 2014 (the last reported year).

What is 248 x 125, 31,000?

Oh! You were correct, I was wrong. Let me correct myself…

You are 129x’s more likely to die from an accidental fall than from a rifle in the US…

If you just count AR/Ak’s it’s more like 160x more likely to die from a fall.

Shit, you’re 170x’s more likely to die from poisoning in the us than die from a rifle…

If you need me to help you with any of this math just let me know.

Plus, it’s already been proven that guns save more lives than they take. Do you need me to show you the proof of that too?

@becauseithrewgasandamatchonher

I don’t know if you’re just a fucking moron or you’re doing this on purpose but do you recall the very first thing you posted on this post was a list of information.


I responded and told you to prove a number of your as it stands unsubstantiated opinions and the thing you are most definitely lying about is Black people committing 55% of crime. It’s violent crime. [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43]

Not crime overall. If you can’t back up your fucking opinions then stop fucking talking.


YES source your shit or shut the fuck up?? Your opinion doesn’t mean shit unless you source it!


Now let’s go off the premise that guns save more people than they hurt. [i feel like it could be both but thats a feeling not a fact] That’s great and all and would be relevant if I was arguing for a gun BAN and not gun CONTROL but as it stands something needs to be done about the mass shootings in America and as far as I’m concerned Japan’s done something great in regards to curbing MASS SHOOTINGS.


The fact that you’re more likely to die from something else doesn’t suddenly mean shit should be left alone. I’m more likely to die in a car accident does that suddenly mean we should deregulate the safety regulations when it comes to building/flying planes? You keep thinking showing us what we are more likely to die from is proving something when it just shows you have a very shallow grasp on logic.

@pickupyourgun so I know what the problem is. I thought you were OP. I thought @unknown1858 was you so that’s where that’s come from. I’m sorry about that.


However that doesn’t change the more likely bit of this conversation or the source it or shut up part.

I sourced it. Those “underlined” words are links to the “internet” with sources…

I meant the thing you didn’t source. That guns help more than they hurt.


Also address the fact that your “you’re more likely…” argument doesn’t mean shit in this conversation. It doesn’t change anything. It’s off topic.

Oh, you mean obamas study on gun violence? Sure it’s right here, called:

PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE.

“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is an increasingly common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15


"A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim.“ Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.“


Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#16

Thanks for the sources. Still doesn’t address your absurd argument but I do enjoy sources to read. I’m in favor of gun control not gun bans and this info will help me hold my ground against people who wanna ban all guns. 

What controls would you impose that would have kept any mass shooting from happening?

No idea. I’m humble enough to admit that’s not my forte. Doesn’t mean others with more knowledge can’t work on it. Or take a leaf from other countries book *cough* Japan *cough* on how to fix it.

I recognize there’s a problem I just don’t knw how to fix it. Also I think it’s less about preventing and more about lowering the number. I don’t think mass shooting are 100% preventable.

If you’re striving to save lives why mass shootings? They account for roughly 1% of all murders…

I mean if they’re a problem aren’t those killed by knives 8 times the problem since knives kill at 8 times the rate of mass shootings, eight time more deaths yearly?

People killed by bare hands are killed at twice the rate of mass shootings…

Again you are 330 times more likely to die from a fall or poisoning than dying from a mass shooting.

I’ve never ever known anyone who’s died from a fall or poisioning, and I’ll bet you haven’t either. Yet clearly they are a bigger problem.

So why is “controlling guns” a solution when you’re much more likely to die from anything else, and Obama’s report clearly shows guns save many more lives than they take…

I mean if identifying problems and saving lives is your concern…

I’ll start talking about knife control when someone can kill 58 people and injure 100s more in about 15 minutes with a knife.


Again saying “don’t focus on this because you’re more likely for this to happen.” is a fucking ridiculous argument.

So it’s not about saving lives, it’s about controlling others…

So what you’re saying is finding some way to curb mass shootings doesn’t save lives?

Can you think of a form of murder that kills less people than mass shootings?

Knifing where there is one person involved.


Can you show me examples outside of mass shootings where large swaths of people have been murdered and injured in a quick succession of minutes?


Can you show me a falling incident, a poison incident or a knifing incident that has killed as many people and injured as many people as the mass shootings in America?

The Oklahoma City booming killed 168 and injured hundreds - much faster than a mass shooting

Here’s 48 pages of mass stabbings.

Yearly deaths from:

Knife: 1600 deaths

Accidental falls: 32,000 deaths

Bare hands: 700 deaths

Blunt objects: 400 deaths

All rifles (including AK/AR’s and grandpas single shot): 300 deaths

Shotgun: 300 deaths

Mass shootings: 200 deaths

Alright fine bombings are the exception but guess what ?? We actually try to regulate bombs and the items used to make them. Obviously can’t regulate everything because you can make a bomb out of a lot of shit but the same can’t be said for guns. And hey why don’t you tell me how more likely you are to get shot than be bombed since that’s your argument.


Also you apparently can’t answer my other question show me a poisoning, knifing or falling incident [As in one singular thing not a bunch of them combined] where they killed / injured large swaths of people in so many minutes?

1695 c9c7 500

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

unknown1858:

Be consistent, 66% of gun deaths are suicide

Blacks kill 95% of black in the US

Non Whites commit more murders than whites

Blacks are 13% of the population but commit 55% of the crimes

Blacks on average rape 1500 white women every year

Whites rape about 2 Black women a year

In homicide bombings it’s the bomber but in shootings it’s the gun

CRIMINALS ARE THE PROBLEM, TAKE AWAY THE CRIMINALS THE GUN PROBLEM GOES AWAY.

1. This is a conversation about mass shootings. Not bringing up suicides isn’t being inconsistent it’s staying on topic.


2. I don’t think that number is that high but I could be wrong. Also whites kill more whites. Most crime is intra racial.


3. Prove it


4. 55% of violent crimes. Not all crimes. Come on don’t misrepresent statistics.


5. Prove it


6. Prove it


7. We already regulate majority of components needed for bombs not all of them but there’s still regulation so of course when it comes to shootings where’s the little to no regulation it’s gonna be a conversation about the shooter AND the guns.


8. Crime is never going to go away you can’t get rid of it so you need to regulate other stuff.

You are 125 times more likely to die from an accidental fall than from being shot by a rifle in the US.

And why does japan have essentially no firearms but a greater suicide rate?

It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points but went in another direction.


Being more likely to die one way [a way you can’t possibly regulate what the fuck??] doesn’t mean nothing else should be regulated what kind of illogical nonsense??


How is Japan’s suicide rates relevant? Also their suicide rate is probably that high because of the structure of their society but again how is that relevant to a conversation about gun control??

“It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points…”

What point did you need me to prove.

Japan’s suicide rate is relevant because gun-grabberlike to throw those deaths into gun violence statistics claiming that they would drop with gun-control. Japan is proof there is no corellation.

They use a similar argument saying murders in the US Would drop with more gun-control.

Are you blind??? Do the words prove it mean nothing to you or…???? Everything you’ve said in this damn thread is devoid of sources and one of them I know it flat out wrong.


Also can you not read or something this is CLEARLY talking about gun violence as it relates to mass shootings. It’s right there in the first damn tweet. We are talking about a very specific type of gun violence here and you throwing suicide and shit around isn’t proving anything it’s getting off fucking topic and just shows you have no damn argument as to why we shouldn’t have gun control to curb MASS SHOOTINGS which is the topic at hand.


Japan is a perfect example of gun control minimizing MASS SHOOTINGS which is something we as a country need to work on.

Which one do you “know” to be a lie? I’ll show you the data? The 125x more likely to die from an accidental fall part?

According to the CDC there are 32,000 deaths from accidental falls per year.

According to the FBI there were 248 deaths from ALL rifles in 2014 (the last reported year).

What is 248 x 125, 31,000?

Oh! You were correct, I was wrong. Let me correct myself…

You are 129x’s more likely to die from an accidental fall than from a rifle in the US…

If you just count AR/Ak’s it’s more like 160x more likely to die from a fall.

Shit, you’re 170x’s more likely to die from poisoning in the us than die from a rifle…

If you need me to help you with any of this math just let me know.

Plus, it’s already been proven that guns save more lives than they take. Do you need me to show you the proof of that too?

@becauseithrewgasandamatchonher

I don’t know if you’re just a fucking moron or you’re doing this on purpose but do you recall the very first thing you posted on this post was a list of information.


I responded and told you to prove a number of your as it stands unsubstantiated opinions and the thing you are most definitely lying about is Black people committing 55% of crime. It’s violent crime. [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43]

Not crime overall. If you can’t back up your fucking opinions then stop fucking talking.


YES source your shit or shut the fuck up?? Your opinion doesn’t mean shit unless you source it!


Now let’s go off the premise that guns save more people than they hurt. [i feel like it could be both but thats a feeling not a fact] That’s great and all and would be relevant if I was arguing for a gun BAN and not gun CONTROL but as it stands something needs to be done about the mass shootings in America and as far as I’m concerned Japan’s done something great in regards to curbing MASS SHOOTINGS.


The fact that you’re more likely to die from something else doesn’t suddenly mean shit should be left alone. I’m more likely to die in a car accident does that suddenly mean we should deregulate the safety regulations when it comes to building/flying planes? You keep thinking showing us what we are more likely to die from is proving something when it just shows you have a very shallow grasp on logic.

@pickupyourgun so I know what the problem is. I thought you were OP. I thought @unknown1858 was you so that’s where that’s come from. I’m sorry about that.


However that doesn’t change the more likely bit of this conversation or the source it or shut up part.

I sourced it. Those “underlined” words are links to the “internet” with sources…

I meant the thing you didn’t source. That guns help more than they hurt.


Also address the fact that your “you’re more likely…” argument doesn’t mean shit in this conversation. It doesn’t change anything. It’s off topic.

Oh, you mean obamas study on gun violence? Sure it’s right here, called:

PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE.

“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is an increasingly common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15


"A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim.“ Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.“


Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#16

Thanks for the sources. Still doesn’t address your absurd argument but I do enjoy sources to read. I’m in favor of gun control not gun bans and this info will help me hold my ground against people who wanna ban all guns. 

What controls would you impose that would have kept any mass shooting from happening?

No idea. I’m humble enough to admit that’s not my forte. Doesn’t mean others with more knowledge can’t work on it. Or take a leaf from other countries book *cough* Japan *cough* on how to fix it.

I recognize there’s a problem I just don’t knw how to fix it. Also I think it’s less about preventing and more about lowering the number. I don’t think mass shooting are 100% preventable.

If you’re striving to save lives why mass shootings? They account for roughly 1% of all murders…

I mean if they’re a problem aren’t those killed by knives 8 times the problem since knives kill at 8 times the rate of mass shootings, eight time more deaths yearly?

People killed by bare hands are killed at twice the rate of mass shootings…

Again you are 330 times more likely to die from a fall or poisoning than dying from a mass shooting.

I’ve never ever known anyone who’s died from a fall or poisioning, and I’ll bet you haven’t either. Yet clearly they are a bigger problem.

So why is “controlling guns” a solution when you’re much more likely to die from anything else, and Obama’s report clearly shows guns save many more lives than they take…

I mean if identifying problems and saving lives is your concern…

I’ll start talking about knife control when someone can kill 58 people and injure 100s more in about 15 minutes with a knife.


Again saying “don’t focus on this because you’re more likely for this to happen.” is a fucking ridiculous argument.

So it’s not about saving lives, it’s about controlling others…

So what you’re saying is finding some way to curb mass shootings doesn’t save lives?

Can you think of a form of murder that kills less people than mass shootings?

Knifing where there is one person involved.


Can you show me examples outside of mass shootings where large swaths of people have been murdered and injured in a quick succession of minutes?


Can you show me a falling incident, a poison incident or a knifing incident that has killed as many people and injured as many people as the mass shootings in America?

fandomshatepeopleofcolor:

So there has been a point in time where all of us have seen some tweet where a guy is like “I didn’t respect women until I had a daughter.” Or somewhere along those lines.


Had I known I was gonna have to give proof it happens I would have taken pictures but as it stands i didn’t and now apparently I’m not gonna be able to find it and I’m going to block this person and return to my “hugbox.” So if y'all don’t mind helping out while I also search?


mod v

1696 768d 500

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

unknown1858:

Be consistent, 66% of gun deaths are suicide

Blacks kill 95% of black in the US

Non Whites commit more murders than whites

Blacks are 13% of the population but commit 55% of the crimes

Blacks on average rape 1500 white women every year

Whites rape about 2 Black women a year

In homicide bombings it’s the bomber but in shootings it’s the gun

CRIMINALS ARE THE PROBLEM, TAKE AWAY THE CRIMINALS THE GUN PROBLEM GOES AWAY.

1. This is a conversation about mass shootings. Not bringing up suicides isn’t being inconsistent it’s staying on topic.


2. I don’t think that number is that high but I could be wrong. Also whites kill more whites. Most crime is intra racial.


3. Prove it


4. 55% of violent crimes. Not all crimes. Come on don’t misrepresent statistics.


5. Prove it


6. Prove it


7. We already regulate majority of components needed for bombs not all of them but there’s still regulation so of course when it comes to shootings where’s the little to no regulation it’s gonna be a conversation about the shooter AND the guns.


8. Crime is never going to go away you can’t get rid of it so you need to regulate other stuff.

You are 125 times more likely to die from an accidental fall than from being shot by a rifle in the US.

And why does japan have essentially no firearms but a greater suicide rate?

It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points but went in another direction.


Being more likely to die one way [a way you can’t possibly regulate what the fuck??] doesn’t mean nothing else should be regulated what kind of illogical nonsense??


How is Japan’s suicide rates relevant? Also their suicide rate is probably that high because of the structure of their society but again how is that relevant to a conversation about gun control??

“It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points…”

What point did you need me to prove.

Japan’s suicide rate is relevant because gun-grabberlike to throw those deaths into gun violence statistics claiming that they would drop with gun-control. Japan is proof there is no corellation.

They use a similar argument saying murders in the US Would drop with more gun-control.

Are you blind??? Do the words prove it mean nothing to you or…???? Everything you’ve said in this damn thread is devoid of sources and one of them I know it flat out wrong.


Also can you not read or something this is CLEARLY talking about gun violence as it relates to mass shootings. It’s right there in the first damn tweet. We are talking about a very specific type of gun violence here and you throwing suicide and shit around isn’t proving anything it’s getting off fucking topic and just shows you have no damn argument as to why we shouldn’t have gun control to curb MASS SHOOTINGS which is the topic at hand.


Japan is a perfect example of gun control minimizing MASS SHOOTINGS which is something we as a country need to work on.

Which one do you “know” to be a lie? I’ll show you the data? The 125x more likely to die from an accidental fall part?

According to the CDC there are 32,000 deaths from accidental falls per year.

According to the FBI there were 248 deaths from ALL rifles in 2014 (the last reported year).

What is 248 x 125, 31,000?

Oh! You were correct, I was wrong. Let me correct myself…

You are 129x’s more likely to die from an accidental fall than from a rifle in the US…

If you just count AR/Ak’s it’s more like 160x more likely to die from a fall.

Shit, you’re 170x’s more likely to die from poisoning in the us than die from a rifle…

If you need me to help you with any of this math just let me know.

Plus, it’s already been proven that guns save more lives than they take. Do you need me to show you the proof of that too?

@becauseithrewgasandamatchonher

I don’t know if you’re just a fucking moron or you’re doing this on purpose but do you recall the very first thing you posted on this post was a list of information.


I responded and told you to prove a number of your as it stands unsubstantiated opinions and the thing you are most definitely lying about is Black people committing 55% of crime. It’s violent crime. [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43]

Not crime overall. If you can’t back up your fucking opinions then stop fucking talking.


YES source your shit or shut the fuck up?? Your opinion doesn’t mean shit unless you source it!


Now let’s go off the premise that guns save more people than they hurt. [i feel like it could be both but thats a feeling not a fact] That’s great and all and would be relevant if I was arguing for a gun BAN and not gun CONTROL but as it stands something needs to be done about the mass shootings in America and as far as I’m concerned Japan’s done something great in regards to curbing MASS SHOOTINGS.


The fact that you’re more likely to die from something else doesn’t suddenly mean shit should be left alone. I’m more likely to die in a car accident does that suddenly mean we should deregulate the safety regulations when it comes to building/flying planes? You keep thinking showing us what we are more likely to die from is proving something when it just shows you have a very shallow grasp on logic.

@pickupyourgun so I know what the problem is. I thought you were OP. I thought @unknown1858 was you so that’s where that’s come from. I’m sorry about that.


However that doesn’t change the more likely bit of this conversation or the source it or shut up part.

I sourced it. Those “underlined” words are links to the “internet” with sources…

I meant the thing you didn’t source. That guns help more than they hurt.


Also address the fact that your “you’re more likely…” argument doesn’t mean shit in this conversation. It doesn’t change anything. It’s off topic.

Oh, you mean obamas study on gun violence? Sure it’s right here, called:

PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE.

“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is an increasingly common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15


"A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim.“ Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.“


Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#16

Thanks for the sources. Still doesn’t address your absurd argument but I do enjoy sources to read. I’m in favor of gun control not gun bans and this info will help me hold my ground against people who wanna ban all guns. 

What controls would you impose that would have kept any mass shooting from happening?

No idea. I’m humble enough to admit that’s not my forte. Doesn’t mean others with more knowledge can’t work on it. Or take a leaf from other countries book *cough* Japan *cough* on how to fix it.

I recognize there’s a problem I just don’t knw how to fix it. Also I think it’s less about preventing and more about lowering the number. I don’t think mass shooting are 100% preventable.

If you’re striving to save lives why mass shootings? They account for roughly 1% of all murders…

I mean if they’re a problem aren’t those killed by knives 8 times the problem since knives kill at 8 times the rate of mass shootings, eight time more deaths yearly?

People killed by bare hands are killed at twice the rate of mass shootings…

Again you are 330 times more likely to die from a fall or poisoning than dying from a mass shooting.

I’ve never ever known anyone who’s died from a fall or poisioning, and I’ll bet you haven’t either. Yet clearly they are a bigger problem.

So why is “controlling guns” a solution when you’re much more likely to die from anything else, and Obama’s report clearly shows guns save many more lives than they take…

I mean if identifying problems and saving lives is your concern…

I’ll start talking about knife control when someone can kill 58 people and injure 100s more in about 15 minutes with a knife.


Again saying “don’t focus on this because you’re more likely for this to happen.” is a fucking ridiculous argument.

So it’s not about saving lives, it’s about controlling others…

So what you’re saying is finding some way to curb mass shootings doesn’t save lives?

1697 9cc7 500

morethandestined:

robert-the-asshole:

scary-morgue-bat:

clkit:

darkwingatlarge:

nevaehtyler:

America, where nazis still have a platform

ridiculous

I truly don’t understand why Nazism is being given a platform… there was a war about this and most of the world was involved. So much so it was called World War II. Like why the fuck is this a debate!? How is this a debate!?

Quite simply because freedom of speech is a universal right. You can’t take away someone’s rights just because they support something you disagree with and yes that includes downright disgusting collectivist ideologies such as Nazism, fascism and communism.

I’m still awaiting evidence that Spencer is a Nazi, or a Neo-Nazi. I’ve only seen accusations, and somehow, it’s become accepted that he is one.

Just because you morally disagree with someones opinions, you cant shut them down despite how wrong their views are. Thats America, the people can say whatever they want. People are trying to morally police others but guess what, morality is a fickle thing that changes over time.

If you are rejecting their freedom of speech then you should be okay when your speech is taken from you.

1. Freedom of speech refers to the government


2. So it’s fine that he’s all for ethnic cleansing then?? It’s going to be fine that he’s okay with ethnic cleansing?

1698 089d 500

seapandaftw:

This is the trash and bullshit 3rd wave feminism produces. 3rd wave western Feminism= cancer and misandry.

Are you fucking kidding me??? It’s a joke about how men say this shit in the opposite ALL THE TIME.


Oh my god you people wanna be mad and rally against something so much you’re willing to look like fuckwits

1699 deb5 500

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

unknown1858:

Be consistent, 66% of gun deaths are suicide

Blacks kill 95% of black in the US

Non Whites commit more murders than whites

Blacks are 13% of the population but commit 55% of the crimes

Blacks on average rape 1500 white women every year

Whites rape about 2 Black women a year

In homicide bombings it’s the bomber but in shootings it’s the gun

CRIMINALS ARE THE PROBLEM, TAKE AWAY THE CRIMINALS THE GUN PROBLEM GOES AWAY.

1. This is a conversation about mass shootings. Not bringing up suicides isn’t being inconsistent it’s staying on topic.


2. I don’t think that number is that high but I could be wrong. Also whites kill more whites. Most crime is intra racial.


3. Prove it


4. 55% of violent crimes. Not all crimes. Come on don’t misrepresent statistics.


5. Prove it


6. Prove it


7. We already regulate majority of components needed for bombs not all of them but there’s still regulation so of course when it comes to shootings where’s the little to no regulation it’s gonna be a conversation about the shooter AND the guns.


8. Crime is never going to go away you can’t get rid of it so you need to regulate other stuff.

You are 125 times more likely to die from an accidental fall than from being shot by a rifle in the US.

And why does japan have essentially no firearms but a greater suicide rate?

It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points but went in another direction.


Being more likely to die one way [a way you can’t possibly regulate what the fuck??] doesn’t mean nothing else should be regulated what kind of illogical nonsense??


How is Japan’s suicide rates relevant? Also their suicide rate is probably that high because of the structure of their society but again how is that relevant to a conversation about gun control??

“It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points…”

What point did you need me to prove.

Japan’s suicide rate is relevant because gun-grabberlike to throw those deaths into gun violence statistics claiming that they would drop with gun-control. Japan is proof there is no corellation.

They use a similar argument saying murders in the US Would drop with more gun-control.

Are you blind??? Do the words prove it mean nothing to you or…???? Everything you’ve said in this damn thread is devoid of sources and one of them I know it flat out wrong.


Also can you not read or something this is CLEARLY talking about gun violence as it relates to mass shootings. It’s right there in the first damn tweet. We are talking about a very specific type of gun violence here and you throwing suicide and shit around isn’t proving anything it’s getting off fucking topic and just shows you have no damn argument as to why we shouldn’t have gun control to curb MASS SHOOTINGS which is the topic at hand.


Japan is a perfect example of gun control minimizing MASS SHOOTINGS which is something we as a country need to work on.

Which one do you “know” to be a lie? I’ll show you the data? The 125x more likely to die from an accidental fall part?

According to the CDC there are 32,000 deaths from accidental falls per year.

According to the FBI there were 248 deaths from ALL rifles in 2014 (the last reported year).

What is 248 x 125, 31,000?

Oh! You were correct, I was wrong. Let me correct myself…

You are 129x’s more likely to die from an accidental fall than from a rifle in the US…

If you just count AR/Ak’s it’s more like 160x more likely to die from a fall.

Shit, you’re 170x’s more likely to die from poisoning in the us than die from a rifle…

If you need me to help you with any of this math just let me know.

Plus, it’s already been proven that guns save more lives than they take. Do you need me to show you the proof of that too?

@becauseithrewgasandamatchonher

I don’t know if you’re just a fucking moron or you’re doing this on purpose but do you recall the very first thing you posted on this post was a list of information.


I responded and told you to prove a number of your as it stands unsubstantiated opinions and the thing you are most definitely lying about is Black people committing 55% of crime. It’s violent crime. [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43]

Not crime overall. If you can’t back up your fucking opinions then stop fucking talking.


YES source your shit or shut the fuck up?? Your opinion doesn’t mean shit unless you source it!


Now let’s go off the premise that guns save more people than they hurt. [i feel like it could be both but thats a feeling not a fact] That’s great and all and would be relevant if I was arguing for a gun BAN and not gun CONTROL but as it stands something needs to be done about the mass shootings in America and as far as I’m concerned Japan’s done something great in regards to curbing MASS SHOOTINGS.


The fact that you’re more likely to die from something else doesn’t suddenly mean shit should be left alone. I’m more likely to die in a car accident does that suddenly mean we should deregulate the safety regulations when it comes to building/flying planes? You keep thinking showing us what we are more likely to die from is proving something when it just shows you have a very shallow grasp on logic.

@pickupyourgun so I know what the problem is. I thought you were OP. I thought @unknown1858 was you so that’s where that’s come from. I’m sorry about that.


However that doesn’t change the more likely bit of this conversation or the source it or shut up part.

I sourced it. Those “underlined” words are links to the “internet” with sources…

I meant the thing you didn’t source. That guns help more than they hurt.


Also address the fact that your “you’re more likely…” argument doesn’t mean shit in this conversation. It doesn’t change anything. It’s off topic.

Oh, you mean obamas study on gun violence? Sure it’s right here, called:

PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE.

“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is an increasingly common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15


"A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim.“ Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.“


Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#16

Thanks for the sources. Still doesn’t address your absurd argument but I do enjoy sources to read. I’m in favor of gun control not gun bans and this info will help me hold my ground against people who wanna ban all guns. 

What controls would you impose that would have kept any mass shooting from happening?

No idea. I’m humble enough to admit that’s not my forte. Doesn’t mean others with more knowledge can’t work on it. Or take a leaf from other countries book *cough* Japan *cough* on how to fix it.

I recognize there’s a problem I just don’t knw how to fix it. Also I think it’s less about preventing and more about lowering the number. I don’t think mass shooting are 100% preventable.

If you’re striving to save lives why mass shootings? They account for roughly 1% of all murders…

I mean if they’re a problem aren’t those killed by knives 8 times the problem since knives kill at 8 times the rate of mass shootings, eight time more deaths yearly?

People killed by bare hands are killed at twice the rate of mass shootings…

Again you are 330 times more likely to die from a fall or poisoning than dying from a mass shooting.

I’ve never ever known anyone who’s died from a fall or poisioning, and I’ll bet you haven’t either. Yet clearly they are a bigger problem.

So why is “controlling guns” a solution when you’re much more likely to die from anything else, and Obama’s report clearly shows guns save many more lives than they take…

I mean if identifying problems and saving lives is your concern…

I’ll start talking about knife control when someone can kill 58 people and injure 100s more in about 15 minutes with a knife.


Again saying “don’t focus on this because you’re more likely for this to happen.” is a fucking ridiculous argument.

October 13 2017

1700 8914

morrivar:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

morrivar:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

morrivar:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

morrivar:

spacemonkeyg78:

morrivar:

siryouarebeingmocked:

dicktator-cain:

allhellforabasement:

more-equal:

texnessa:

mediamattersforamerica:

WOW. Watch these 3 minutes from Dallas sportscaster Dale Hansen talking about what Trump doesn’t understand about the national anthem and the right to protest. Compare this to any right-wing media whining and that’s why this is one to remember.

Dale Hansen is a fucking treasure.  He admitted he was a childhood victim of sexual abuse in the hopes that it would encourage others to come forward and seek help. He has been an ardent supporter of scholar-athletes and of gay players in the NFL and of trans athletes.

“I’m not always comfortable when a man tells me he is gay; I don’t understand his world. But I do understand that he is part of mine.”

I’ve seen people try to counter this by saying Kaepernick was fired because he played poorly it’s like, okay, I don’t get football and maybe that’s the case and that’s all fine and dandy but that doesn’t change the fact Trump is literally saying people should be fired for enacting their freedom of speech. The people care more about “disrespecting the flag” than what it actually is supposed to represent…which is freedom.
Like, it’s just terrifying that Americans are being told they are worth less if they protest things, that they have to religiously honor a piece of fabric, it’s something out of a dystopian novel.

How many were fired?

I did see a three tour vet forced to apologize for standing for the flag and his country today, without any support for his decision from his team or organization. How many athletes have been forced to apologize for kneeling? None.

What’s terrifying is that, according to both parties, their side should have the right to speak and the other side should have their lives destroyed for disagreeing, yet both sides claim the other side is the worst. The whole thing is disgusting.

Also the claim of Kaepernick being fired is false. He opted out of his contract with the 49ers to become a “free agent” of his own volition.  Which may have something to do with the fact he was moved to be the second string quarterback.  

Don’t get me wrong. I think anyone has the right to kneel, stand, or demonstrate how they wish. Regardless of whether I agree with their message. However, I also fully support the rights of a business to terminate employment or bring punishment against an individual who is going against established company policy as well. But even considering that? Kaepernick wasn’t fired. He quit.

It’s a fucked up and messy situation. It also further highlights how invasive tribalism in politics has become.


I don’t think firing a millionaire player would destroy their lives, allhellforabasement, who I can’t @.

And the anti-kneeling folks say the kneeling is disruptive, disrespectful to America - by Colin’s own statement - and most of the audience doesn’t want to see it, while the pro-kneeling folks say the anti-kneeling folks are censurious, racist white bigots.

Also, Colin was in talks with another team, and his girlfriend called his potential new boss a slave owner. The talks fell through. Though some rumors say the boss wasn’t all that hot on him anyway.

For the billionth time, it’s not a free speech issue. You have no free speech right that guarantees your employment. These guys even have off-the-field behavioral expectations. The Left wants every “racist” fired for their beliefs, but how dare anybody want this protest to stop.


Should Trump have called for the firing of a private individual? No. Should he call people names? No.


But he was right to speak out against it. Unfortunately with Trump that means you often get a good 20% more than is “Presidential”.

The “left” wanted people fired for supporting Nazi ideology that believes certain people need to be exterminated.

The “right” wanted people fired for brining attention to black people being extrajudicially exterminated by the state.

Demanding player pledge allegiance is against our constitution. If you don’t like their protest, then tune out the first few minutes of the game and then you won’t see it. If you don’t know that kneeling is done to honor soldiers but not the flag that doesn’t symbolize equality the. You need to research more.

Do you people hear your false equivalence or does your ignorance translate to all things?

The Left wants people fired for privately held beliefs that do not effect their jobs in any way. Such as being against gay marriage, or being conservative in general. Or even being racist, which is vile but not related to most people’s jobs.

The Right wants these NFL players punished, including potentially getting fired as appropriate, for breaking NFL rules. Players are required to stand on the sideline quietly at attention with their helmets in their left hands.

One relates to job performance, one doesn’t.

Are you sure you want to talk about false equivalents with me?

So what you’re saying is that people being racist and homophobic isn’t gonna affect their job performance if they are dealing with LGBTQ people and the races they are racist against?


Why am I asking of course that’s what you’re saying and that’s absolute bullshit.

What I’m saying is, if it DOES affect their performance, THEN you can talk about whether they deserve their job.

What I’m also saying is that if the thought police get to determine who gets to stay employed, then nobody’s job is safe. It’s only a matter of time until one of your opinions is considered too unpopular to allow.

Last thing I’m saying is that the Left has a pretty wide definition of what constitutes racism from white people, yet very narrow one from black people. Because of this a witch hunt against racists ends up often just being a witch hunt against white people they simply don’t like.

If a plumber is bigot who treats trans customers like shit, then yes fire that asshole.

If, however, he’s a good plumber who treats every customer with respect, but holds the personal belief that trans people should follow the same bathroom rules as the rest of us, which the Left would call transphobic and worthy of getting fired, then keep your grubby hands off his hard earned employment.

If he’s a computer engineer who simply posts a memo stating that men and women are different and treating them the same doesn’t work, leave that man alone.

If he’s a baker who is happy to serve gay couple, but is not willing to personally cater a gay wedding, fuck off and find another bakery.

If he’s a scientist who wears a tacky shirt that was given as a gift to an interview, which of course had no bearing on his ability to do sciency things, mind your God damned business you moral busy bodies.

Okay but the chances that said people are perfectly even with everyone even the ones that they have bigoted prejudices against is pretty slim. Why should people who are trying to pay for a service be subjected to an individual like that probably unwittingly?


Of course you’re defending that fuckwad from Google like are you kidding me. Did you consider that his words created a hostile work environment but hey fuck it he’s fine leave him alone let him keep his job.


I really hate the use of thought police since no one would be complaining if they kept their bigotry to themselves in their own head and didn’t let it affect how they treated others.


Anyway at the end of the day it’s the companies deciding they don’t wanna be associated with these people. People aren’t forcing the companies to let people go they make that decision on their own.


Not to mention there’s something you’re forgetting here. Even if these people don’t let their opinions bleed into their work let’s not act like their actions and beliefs outside of work don’t contribute to systems of oppression. I would vehemently argue that if we are supposed to better as a society we need to teach people regardless of race their beliefs aren’t acceptable and if need be impose consequences so they become better human beings [unless you think racists and homophobes are good people]


Finally I’m not gonna get in trouble the way these people have while yes there are going to be people that don’t like what I say since my career is focused on social activism the organizations I’m going to be working for aren’t gonna drop me because people are mad about my work and if they do I don’t need to be working for them. Now if I do something fucked up sure I’ll might lose my job but guess what?? It’ll teach me not to do that shit again.

Okay but the chances that said people are perfectly even with everyone even the ones that they have bigoted prejudices against is pretty slim. Why should people who are trying to pay for a service be subjected to an individual like that probably unwittingly?

What are you basing these chances on? In other posts you sure love to insist on sources, so source your claim. Even if that’s true, it’s the uneven treatment that warrants discipline, NOT THE BELIEFS. It’s a pretty simple concept. 

Of course you’re defending that fuckwad from Google like are you kidding me. Did you consider that his words created a hostile work environment but hey fuck it he’s fine leave him alone let him keep his job.

Oh look, you didn’t read the memo. Damore clearly stated multiple times that no individual should be judged by the statistics that he listed, and posited many possible things Google could try to interest more women in the industry. His goal was the same as yours presumably is: more women in Silicon Valley. That’s the exact opposite of hostile environment. The people facing a hostile work environment are people who hold mainstream conservative beliefs, that can’t speak up for fear of being called “racist” or “sexist” and subsequently fired.

I really hate the use of thought police since no one would be complaining if they kept their bigotry to themselves in their own head and didn’t let it affect how they treated others.

The point is there’s a difference between expressing a view and mistreating others. You assume that anybody expressing a view that you would deem racist is in fact mistreating his/her customers/coworkers, but this is based entirely on your biased ass assumptions. Show me a trend of this happening or sit the fuck down.

Anyway at the end of the day it’s the companies deciding they don’t wanna be associated with these people. People aren’t forcing the companies to let people go they make that decision on their own.

Do you not know how the consumer-company relationship works? A large enough movement calling for the firing of an individual is DEFINITELY forcing companies to let people go. Even so, if you believe that it’s up to the company then why do you care if they DON’T fire someone for their beliefs? It’s their decision so fuck off. 

Not to mention there’s something you’re forgetting here. Even if these people don’t let their opinions bleed into their work let’s not act like their actions and beliefs outside of work don’t contribute to systems of oppression. 

Actions outside of work, in which you do not represent your company in some way and no crime has been committed, are not a valid reason to fire someone. Period. This part is really illuminating in regards to your mindset:

I would vehemently argue that if we are supposed to better as a society we need to teach people regardless of race their beliefs aren’t acceptable and if need be impose consequences…

That is literally thought policing. Your opinion is of no value to me, so fuck you thinking you can impose it on me forcefully.

so they become better human beings [unless you think racists and homophobes are good people]

No I don’t, but they have the same rights as you and I. Also, there are MANY people you would call racist or homophobic who are absolutely wonderful people, because you bandy those labels around without concern for the validity of the claims.

Finally I’m not gonna get in trouble the way these people have while yes there are going to be people that don’t like what I say since my career is focused on social activism the organizations I’m going to be working for aren’t gonna drop me because people are mad about my work and if they do I don’t need to be working for them. Now if I do something fucked up sure I’ll might lose my job but guess what?? It’ll teach me not to do that shit again.

So you can’t imagine a situation in which public opinion turns against you and your org has to shut down due to lack of funds? And then you have to find a real job? And that job is run by ultraconservatives who decide to fire you for your left-wing ideals? Or what if your organization’s ideals shift so far left that even you end up too right-wing for them? It’s happened to others, you’re not immune. Christina Hoff-Sommers was basically kicked out of feminism for daring to criticize radfems. 

It must be so boring in your tiny mind.

What are you basing these chances on? In other posts you sure love to insist on sources, so source your claim. Even if that’s true, it’s the uneven treatment that warrants discipline, NOT THE BELIEFS. It’s a pretty simple concept. 

I mean it’s kind of common sense the way you feel about something is the way you are going to behave around it [degrees may vary] but sure fine let’s act like that’s not the case. I disagree with the beliefs part. If you believe x race is inferior to x race you deserve discipline so you stop thinking as such. Sure maybe other steps should be taken first but if you don’t shape up then there needs to be further action.

Keep reading

I disagree with the beliefs part. If you believe x race is inferior to x race you deserve discipline so you stop thinking as such.

This is all anybody needs to know about you. You dislike the term “thought police” and yet literally call for people to be punished for beliefs “so [they] stop thinking as such”.

Fuck you. 

@siryouarebeingmocked @cheshireinthemiddle may have some more words for you if you want a real debate, but I’m done with the moral absolutes coming off of you.

Behaving based on their thoughts but lie if you want.


Also why am I not surprised you follow/call Cheshire. Man.

1701 6a85 500

morrivar:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

morrivar:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

unknown1858:

Be consistent, 66% of gun deaths are suicide

Blacks kill 95% of black in the US

Non Whites commit more murders than whites

Blacks are 13% of the population but commit 55% of the crimes

Blacks on average rape 1500 white women every year

Whites rape about 2 Black women a year

In homicide bombings it’s the bomber but in shootings it’s the gun

CRIMINALS ARE THE PROBLEM, TAKE AWAY THE CRIMINALS THE GUN PROBLEM GOES AWAY.

1. This is a conversation about mass shootings. Not bringing up suicides isn’t being inconsistent it’s staying on topic.


2. I don’t think that number is that high but I could be wrong. Also whites kill more whites. Most crime is intra racial.


3. Prove it


4. 55% of violent crimes. Not all crimes. Come on don’t misrepresent statistics.


5. Prove it


6. Prove it


7. We already regulate majority of components needed for bombs not all of them but there’s still regulation so of course when it comes to shootings where’s the little to no regulation it’s gonna be a conversation about the shooter AND the guns.


8. Crime is never going to go away you can’t get rid of it so you need to regulate other stuff.

You are 125 times more likely to die from an accidental fall than from being shot by a rifle in the US.

And why does japan have essentially no firearms but a greater suicide rate?

It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points but went in another direction.


Being more likely to die one way [a way you can’t possibly regulate what the fuck??] doesn’t mean nothing else should be regulated what kind of illogical nonsense??


How is Japan’s suicide rates relevant? Also their suicide rate is probably that high because of the structure of their society but again how is that relevant to a conversation about gun control??

“It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points…”

What point did you need me to prove.

Japan’s suicide rate is relevant because gun-grabberlike to throw those deaths into gun violence statistics claiming that they would drop with gun-control. Japan is proof there is no corellation.

They use a similar argument saying murders in the US Would drop with more gun-control.

Are you blind??? Do the words prove it mean nothing to you or…???? Everything you’ve said in this damn thread is devoid of sources and one of them I know it flat out wrong.


Also can you not read or something this is CLEARLY talking about gun violence as it relates to mass shootings. It’s right there in the first damn tweet. We are talking about a very specific type of gun violence here and you throwing suicide and shit around isn’t proving anything it’s getting off fucking topic and just shows you have no damn argument as to why we shouldn’t have gun control to curb MASS SHOOTINGS which is the topic at hand.


Japan is a perfect example of gun control minimizing MASS SHOOTINGS which is something we as a country need to work on.

You want proof? Okay.

1. No, this conversation is about gun control FOCUSED on mass shootings, which is ridiculous since  these shootings account for less than one percent of the U.S. homicide rate.

2. In 2013 blacks were the murderers for over 90% of all blacks killed. Also, blacks killed 2,245 blacks, compared to 2,509 whites killed by other whites. Since there are over three times as many whites as blacks, this is an astonishing statistic.

3. African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and “Other” 2.2%.

4. Okay, he mispoke. Nice “gotcha”. Now how about addressing the correct statistic?

5-6. I don’t see stats for that, so not gonna comment. May be wrong, idk.

7. Bombs are incredibly easy to make with many things that cannot reasonably be regulated, but I’m not sure what your point is anyway. Nobody blames bombs or “bomb culture” when someone blows shit up. It’s always about the bomber, AS IT SHOULD BE. We regulate many aspects of guns too, but it’s still not the gun’s fault when someone gets shot. It’s the shooter’s.

8. The fact that crime is never going to go away is the reason why guns are necessary. I can’t protect myself from a gang of burly men with my fists or a knife. A handgun absolutely can even that playing field.

Here’s the important question though: What legislation not already in effect would have stopped Vegas? Or Pulse? Or Sandy Hook?

1. Thank you for reiterating my point this is a conversation about mass shootings and not suicides and it doesn’t really matter it’s only 1% this is the topic of the conversation. If you wanna talk about all the other stuff make your own post don’t derail the conversation with something that isn’t relevant.


2. That’s an FBI table. You do realize they update those right? There’s definitely something more recent that you should try using outdated info doesn’t help your argument it hurts it.


But let’s act like the numbers are the same. Two things. One that doesn’t disprove my point majority of crime is intra racial. Two that has nothing to do with the topic of mass shootings?? It’s so far off topic.


3. Cool way to source it.


4. NO you aren’t about to play this game where you say “he mispoke.” because that’s bullshit time and time again people say that over and over not because they are misspeaking but because they genuinely believe that.


AND did you miss the 55% is violent crime? Are you blind or you just like defending probably racist assholes? Funny enough though my statistics are wrong as well. Black people committed 26% of all crimes and 36% of violent crimes [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43]


5-6. I know it’s a fucking lie which is why I think the person is a fucking racist.


7. We still regulate stuff that can be used to make it. My point is the reason it’s a conversation about the bombers themselves is because we already try to regulate to cut back on the building of bombs. We could do more in regards to the people who bomb stuff. We aren’t doing shit about people who commit mass shootings or the accessibility of guns that can mow down large swaths of people in minutes.


I 100% agree guns don’t kill people there has to be human interaction BUT my point is we aren’t doing anything to regulate the accessibility of guns that cut down swaths of people in minutes.


8. I’m not arguing for a gun BAN what the fuck??? I’m planning on owning a damn gun. A judge revolver to be specific. I’m not asking for everyone to turn in their guns and never use them again or not have the ability to buy any gun ever. What is wrong with you people jumping to such hysterical extremes when it was not brought up in the argument?? I don’t care if others have said it if I haven’t said don’t put it on me.


I don’t know what kind of legislation could have been put in place because creating legislations aren’t my forte but that doesn’t mean I can argue that our legislators and shit shouldn’t do it???

1. The topic is gun control. Period. The twitter user was using mass shootings to justify his views, and the guy you were berating was using suicides to justify his own views. This is how debates work. You take a stance, and then use related information to support that stance. 

2. Fine, you find the newer tables. Until then, my sources are the only ones presented. 4 years is very recent. FBI does update their tables, but they don’t release them very quickly.

Also, I don’t refute that most crime is intraracial. I’m making an additional point that even considering that, the numbers are still not comparable.

3. Thanks

4. I am absolutely going to say he mispoke, because it’s far more likely he simply had the stat wrong or did legitimately mispeak than that he’s racist. Racists are actually pretty rare. I’m not saying he’s definitely not racist, but unlike you I don’t jump to that conclusion. I’m also not in the habit of attributing intent. And you wonder why I don’t want you in control of policing people’s thoughts.

5-6 You can dismiss the claim for lack of a source, but you say you “know it’s a fucking lie”. You’re now the one making the claim. You’ve taken the burden of evidence on yourself now to not only show that the original claim is wrong, but that @unknown1858 knew it was wrong and intentionally lied about it. Good job proving that.

7. “ We aren’t doing shit about people who commit mass shootings or the accessibility of guns that can mow down large swaths of people in minutes.” Are you fucking stupid? Automatic rifles have been illegal since the 80s. There’s already a federal background check. This is some seriously far off base stuff here.

8. You’re not calling for a gun ban you say, so what are you calling for? You have no examples of something that we could do that’s not already being done. You just want us to do… something? That’s not helpful. Come back with examples because your gut feelings are completely irrelevant.

1. So what you’re saying is The topic of gun control isn’t being discussed because of a mass shooting? What you’re saying is people aren’t FOCUSING on mass shootings in regards to gun control? Is that what you’re saying because that’s a fucking lie. The topic of discussion right now on this thread and in the media is gun control and mass shootings. That’s an undeniable fact.


If you had any idea how an actual argument worked like an academic one you’d realize that when you are talking about a specific topic [mass shootings and gun control] you stay on topic. How is suicide on topic with mass shootings?


2. Oh no lol you find your own sources I don’t find your shit just because you used something from 4 years ago. In number 4 I link to FBI Table 43 from 2015. So still your argument as to why you haven’t used something more recent is garbage.


Who care if they are comparable that bit you added and this whole entire thing that the first person said isn’t even on topic.


4. Far more likely why is that? Why do you think that’s the case? I’ve said it’s the other way around because time and time again when the topic of Black criminality comes up people use that same statistic. He didn’t mislead. He might not think he’s lying but he didn’t mispeak.


5-6. I know he’s lying because there’s not single FBI crime analysis [like the stuff we’ve been using] that supports his statement not a single one and again I know this for a fact because I constantly have to discuss Black criminality.


I think he’s probably a racist [means there is a chance he’s not] because the people that use that statistic are typically racist themselves. Always also please please prove to me a racist is pretty rare. More than likely you think that because you don’t know what all racism encompasses.


7. Accessibility and legality aren’t synonyms champ. Something can be illegal and accessible and vice versa.


8. First off I don’t need to come up with a solution. I can say hey this is a problem it needs to be fixed. Just like I can say “hmmm…my car shouldn’t be smoking it’s a problem.” and let someone that knows how to fix it fix it.


Second we could always imitate Japan.

1702 12d9 500

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

unknown1858:

Be consistent, 66% of gun deaths are suicide

Blacks kill 95% of black in the US

Non Whites commit more murders than whites

Blacks are 13% of the population but commit 55% of the crimes

Blacks on average rape 1500 white women every year

Whites rape about 2 Black women a year

In homicide bombings it’s the bomber but in shootings it’s the gun

CRIMINALS ARE THE PROBLEM, TAKE AWAY THE CRIMINALS THE GUN PROBLEM GOES AWAY.

1. This is a conversation about mass shootings. Not bringing up suicides isn’t being inconsistent it’s staying on topic.


2. I don’t think that number is that high but I could be wrong. Also whites kill more whites. Most crime is intra racial.


3. Prove it


4. 55% of violent crimes. Not all crimes. Come on don’t misrepresent statistics.


5. Prove it


6. Prove it


7. We already regulate majority of components needed for bombs not all of them but there’s still regulation so of course when it comes to shootings where’s the little to no regulation it’s gonna be a conversation about the shooter AND the guns.


8. Crime is never going to go away you can’t get rid of it so you need to regulate other stuff.

You are 125 times more likely to die from an accidental fall than from being shot by a rifle in the US.

And why does japan have essentially no firearms but a greater suicide rate?

It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points but went in another direction.


Being more likely to die one way [a way you can’t possibly regulate what the fuck??] doesn’t mean nothing else should be regulated what kind of illogical nonsense??


How is Japan’s suicide rates relevant? Also their suicide rate is probably that high because of the structure of their society but again how is that relevant to a conversation about gun control??

“It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points…”

What point did you need me to prove.

Japan’s suicide rate is relevant because gun-grabberlike to throw those deaths into gun violence statistics claiming that they would drop with gun-control. Japan is proof there is no corellation.

They use a similar argument saying murders in the US Would drop with more gun-control.

Are you blind??? Do the words prove it mean nothing to you or…???? Everything you’ve said in this damn thread is devoid of sources and one of them I know it flat out wrong.


Also can you not read or something this is CLEARLY talking about gun violence as it relates to mass shootings. It’s right there in the first damn tweet. We are talking about a very specific type of gun violence here and you throwing suicide and shit around isn’t proving anything it’s getting off fucking topic and just shows you have no damn argument as to why we shouldn’t have gun control to curb MASS SHOOTINGS which is the topic at hand.


Japan is a perfect example of gun control minimizing MASS SHOOTINGS which is something we as a country need to work on.

Which one do you “know” to be a lie? I’ll show you the data? The 125x more likely to die from an accidental fall part?

According to the CDC there are 32,000 deaths from accidental falls per year.

According to the FBI there were 248 deaths from ALL rifles in 2014 (the last reported year).

What is 248 x 125, 31,000?

Oh! You were correct, I was wrong. Let me correct myself…

You are 129x’s more likely to die from an accidental fall than from a rifle in the US…

If you just count AR/Ak’s it’s more like 160x more likely to die from a fall.

Shit, you’re 170x’s more likely to die from poisoning in the us than die from a rifle…

If you need me to help you with any of this math just let me know.

Plus, it’s already been proven that guns save more lives than they take. Do you need me to show you the proof of that too?

@becauseithrewgasandamatchonher

I don’t know if you’re just a fucking moron or you’re doing this on purpose but do you recall the very first thing you posted on this post was a list of information.


I responded and told you to prove a number of your as it stands unsubstantiated opinions and the thing you are most definitely lying about is Black people committing 55% of crime. It’s violent crime. [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43]

Not crime overall. If you can’t back up your fucking opinions then stop fucking talking.


YES source your shit or shut the fuck up?? Your opinion doesn’t mean shit unless you source it!


Now let’s go off the premise that guns save more people than they hurt. [i feel like it could be both but thats a feeling not a fact] That’s great and all and would be relevant if I was arguing for a gun BAN and not gun CONTROL but as it stands something needs to be done about the mass shootings in America and as far as I’m concerned Japan’s done something great in regards to curbing MASS SHOOTINGS.


The fact that you’re more likely to die from something else doesn’t suddenly mean shit should be left alone. I’m more likely to die in a car accident does that suddenly mean we should deregulate the safety regulations when it comes to building/flying planes? You keep thinking showing us what we are more likely to die from is proving something when it just shows you have a very shallow grasp on logic.

@pickupyourgun so I know what the problem is. I thought you were OP. I thought @unknown1858 was you so that’s where that’s come from. I’m sorry about that.


However that doesn’t change the more likely bit of this conversation or the source it or shut up part.

I sourced it. Those “underlined” words are links to the “internet” with sources…

I meant the thing you didn’t source. That guns help more than they hurt.


Also address the fact that your “you’re more likely…” argument doesn’t mean shit in this conversation. It doesn’t change anything. It’s off topic.

Oh, you mean obamas study on gun violence? Sure it’s right here, called:

PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE.

“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is an increasingly common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15


"A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim.“ Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.“


Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#16

Thanks for the sources. Still doesn’t address your absurd argument but I do enjoy sources to read. I’m in favor of gun control not gun bans and this info will help me hold my ground against people who wanna ban all guns. 

What controls would you impose that would have kept any mass shooting from happening?

No idea. I’m humble enough to admit that’s not my forte. Doesn’t mean others with more knowledge can’t work on it. Or take a leaf from other countries book *cough* Japan *cough* on how to fix it.

I recognize there’s a problem I just don’t knw how to fix it. Also I think it’s less about preventing and more about lowering the number. I don’t think mass shooting are 100% preventable.

1703 b32e 500

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

unknown1858:

Be consistent, 66% of gun deaths are suicide

Blacks kill 95% of black in the US

Non Whites commit more murders than whites

Blacks are 13% of the population but commit 55% of the crimes

Blacks on average rape 1500 white women every year

Whites rape about 2 Black women a year

In homicide bombings it’s the bomber but in shootings it’s the gun

CRIMINALS ARE THE PROBLEM, TAKE AWAY THE CRIMINALS THE GUN PROBLEM GOES AWAY.

1. This is a conversation about mass shootings. Not bringing up suicides isn’t being inconsistent it’s staying on topic.


2. I don’t think that number is that high but I could be wrong. Also whites kill more whites. Most crime is intra racial.


3. Prove it


4. 55% of violent crimes. Not all crimes. Come on don’t misrepresent statistics.


5. Prove it


6. Prove it


7. We already regulate majority of components needed for bombs not all of them but there’s still regulation so of course when it comes to shootings where’s the little to no regulation it’s gonna be a conversation about the shooter AND the guns.


8. Crime is never going to go away you can’t get rid of it so you need to regulate other stuff.

You are 125 times more likely to die from an accidental fall than from being shot by a rifle in the US.

And why does japan have essentially no firearms but a greater suicide rate?

It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points but went in another direction.


Being more likely to die one way [a way you can’t possibly regulate what the fuck??] doesn’t mean nothing else should be regulated what kind of illogical nonsense??


How is Japan’s suicide rates relevant? Also their suicide rate is probably that high because of the structure of their society but again how is that relevant to a conversation about gun control??

“It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points…”

What point did you need me to prove.

Japan’s suicide rate is relevant because gun-grabberlike to throw those deaths into gun violence statistics claiming that they would drop with gun-control. Japan is proof there is no corellation.

They use a similar argument saying murders in the US Would drop with more gun-control.

Are you blind??? Do the words prove it mean nothing to you or…???? Everything you’ve said in this damn thread is devoid of sources and one of them I know it flat out wrong.


Also can you not read or something this is CLEARLY talking about gun violence as it relates to mass shootings. It’s right there in the first damn tweet. We are talking about a very specific type of gun violence here and you throwing suicide and shit around isn’t proving anything it’s getting off fucking topic and just shows you have no damn argument as to why we shouldn’t have gun control to curb MASS SHOOTINGS which is the topic at hand.


Japan is a perfect example of gun control minimizing MASS SHOOTINGS which is something we as a country need to work on.

Which one do you “know” to be a lie? I’ll show you the data? The 125x more likely to die from an accidental fall part?

According to the CDC there are 32,000 deaths from accidental falls per year.

According to the FBI there were 248 deaths from ALL rifles in 2014 (the last reported year).

What is 248 x 125, 31,000?

Oh! You were correct, I was wrong. Let me correct myself…

You are 129x’s more likely to die from an accidental fall than from a rifle in the US…

If you just count AR/Ak’s it’s more like 160x more likely to die from a fall.

Shit, you’re 170x’s more likely to die from poisoning in the us than die from a rifle…

If you need me to help you with any of this math just let me know.

Plus, it’s already been proven that guns save more lives than they take. Do you need me to show you the proof of that too?

@becauseithrewgasandamatchonher

I don’t know if you’re just a fucking moron or you’re doing this on purpose but do you recall the very first thing you posted on this post was a list of information.


I responded and told you to prove a number of your as it stands unsubstantiated opinions and the thing you are most definitely lying about is Black people committing 55% of crime. It’s violent crime. [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43]

Not crime overall. If you can’t back up your fucking opinions then stop fucking talking.


YES source your shit or shut the fuck up?? Your opinion doesn’t mean shit unless you source it!


Now let’s go off the premise that guns save more people than they hurt. [i feel like it could be both but thats a feeling not a fact] That’s great and all and would be relevant if I was arguing for a gun BAN and not gun CONTROL but as it stands something needs to be done about the mass shootings in America and as far as I’m concerned Japan’s done something great in regards to curbing MASS SHOOTINGS.


The fact that you’re more likely to die from something else doesn’t suddenly mean shit should be left alone. I’m more likely to die in a car accident does that suddenly mean we should deregulate the safety regulations when it comes to building/flying planes? You keep thinking showing us what we are more likely to die from is proving something when it just shows you have a very shallow grasp on logic.

@pickupyourgun so I know what the problem is. I thought you were OP. I thought @unknown1858 was you so that’s where that’s come from. I’m sorry about that.


However that doesn’t change the more likely bit of this conversation or the source it or shut up part.

I sourced it. Those “underlined” words are links to the “internet” with sources…

I meant the thing you didn’t source. That guns help more than they hurt.


Also address the fact that your “you’re more likely…” argument doesn’t mean shit in this conversation. It doesn’t change anything. It’s off topic.

Oh, you mean obamas study on gun violence? Sure it’s right here, called:

PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE.

“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is an increasingly common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15


"A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim.“ Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.“


Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#16

Thanks for the sources. Still doesn’t address your absurd argument but I do enjoy sources to read. I’m in favor of gun control not gun bans and this info will help me hold my ground against people who wanna ban all guns. 

1704 a66e

morrivar:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

morrivar:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

morrivar:

spacemonkeyg78:

morrivar:

siryouarebeingmocked:

dicktator-cain:

allhellforabasement:

more-equal:

texnessa:

mediamattersforamerica:

WOW. Watch these 3 minutes from Dallas sportscaster Dale Hansen talking about what Trump doesn’t understand about the national anthem and the right to protest. Compare this to any right-wing media whining and that’s why this is one to remember.

Dale Hansen is a fucking treasure.  He admitted he was a childhood victim of sexual abuse in the hopes that it would encourage others to come forward and seek help. He has been an ardent supporter of scholar-athletes and of gay players in the NFL and of trans athletes.

“I’m not always comfortable when a man tells me he is gay; I don’t understand his world. But I do understand that he is part of mine.”

I’ve seen people try to counter this by saying Kaepernick was fired because he played poorly it’s like, okay, I don’t get football and maybe that’s the case and that’s all fine and dandy but that doesn’t change the fact Trump is literally saying people should be fired for enacting their freedom of speech. The people care more about “disrespecting the flag” than what it actually is supposed to represent…which is freedom.
Like, it’s just terrifying that Americans are being told they are worth less if they protest things, that they have to religiously honor a piece of fabric, it’s something out of a dystopian novel.

How many were fired?

I did see a three tour vet forced to apologize for standing for the flag and his country today, without any support for his decision from his team or organization. How many athletes have been forced to apologize for kneeling? None.

What’s terrifying is that, according to both parties, their side should have the right to speak and the other side should have their lives destroyed for disagreeing, yet both sides claim the other side is the worst. The whole thing is disgusting.

Also the claim of Kaepernick being fired is false. He opted out of his contract with the 49ers to become a “free agent” of his own volition.  Which may have something to do with the fact he was moved to be the second string quarterback.  

Don’t get me wrong. I think anyone has the right to kneel, stand, or demonstrate how they wish. Regardless of whether I agree with their message. However, I also fully support the rights of a business to terminate employment or bring punishment against an individual who is going against established company policy as well. But even considering that? Kaepernick wasn’t fired. He quit.

It’s a fucked up and messy situation. It also further highlights how invasive tribalism in politics has become.


I don’t think firing a millionaire player would destroy their lives, allhellforabasement, who I can’t @.

And the anti-kneeling folks say the kneeling is disruptive, disrespectful to America - by Colin’s own statement - and most of the audience doesn’t want to see it, while the pro-kneeling folks say the anti-kneeling folks are censurious, racist white bigots.

Also, Colin was in talks with another team, and his girlfriend called his potential new boss a slave owner. The talks fell through. Though some rumors say the boss wasn’t all that hot on him anyway.

For the billionth time, it’s not a free speech issue. You have no free speech right that guarantees your employment. These guys even have off-the-field behavioral expectations. The Left wants every “racist” fired for their beliefs, but how dare anybody want this protest to stop.


Should Trump have called for the firing of a private individual? No. Should he call people names? No.


But he was right to speak out against it. Unfortunately with Trump that means you often get a good 20% more than is “Presidential”.

The “left” wanted people fired for supporting Nazi ideology that believes certain people need to be exterminated.

The “right” wanted people fired for brining attention to black people being extrajudicially exterminated by the state.

Demanding player pledge allegiance is against our constitution. If you don’t like their protest, then tune out the first few minutes of the game and then you won’t see it. If you don’t know that kneeling is done to honor soldiers but not the flag that doesn’t symbolize equality the. You need to research more.

Do you people hear your false equivalence or does your ignorance translate to all things?

The Left wants people fired for privately held beliefs that do not effect their jobs in any way. Such as being against gay marriage, or being conservative in general. Or even being racist, which is vile but not related to most people’s jobs.

The Right wants these NFL players punished, including potentially getting fired as appropriate, for breaking NFL rules. Players are required to stand on the sideline quietly at attention with their helmets in their left hands.

One relates to job performance, one doesn’t.

Are you sure you want to talk about false equivalents with me?

So what you’re saying is that people being racist and homophobic isn’t gonna affect their job performance if they are dealing with LGBTQ people and the races they are racist against?


Why am I asking of course that’s what you’re saying and that’s absolute bullshit.

What I’m saying is, if it DOES affect their performance, THEN you can talk about whether they deserve their job.

What I’m also saying is that if the thought police get to determine who gets to stay employed, then nobody’s job is safe. It’s only a matter of time until one of your opinions is considered too unpopular to allow.

Last thing I’m saying is that the Left has a pretty wide definition of what constitutes racism from white people, yet very narrow one from black people. Because of this a witch hunt against racists ends up often just being a witch hunt against white people they simply don’t like.

If a plumber is bigot who treats trans customers like shit, then yes fire that asshole.

If, however, he’s a good plumber who treats every customer with respect, but holds the personal belief that trans people should follow the same bathroom rules as the rest of us, which the Left would call transphobic and worthy of getting fired, then keep your grubby hands off his hard earned employment.

If he’s a computer engineer who simply posts a memo stating that men and women are different and treating them the same doesn’t work, leave that man alone.

If he’s a baker who is happy to serve gay couple, but is not willing to personally cater a gay wedding, fuck off and find another bakery.

If he’s a scientist who wears a tacky shirt that was given as a gift to an interview, which of course had no bearing on his ability to do sciency things, mind your God damned business you moral busy bodies.

Okay but the chances that said people are perfectly even with everyone even the ones that they have bigoted prejudices against is pretty slim. Why should people who are trying to pay for a service be subjected to an individual like that probably unwittingly?


Of course you’re defending that fuckwad from Google like are you kidding me. Did you consider that his words created a hostile work environment but hey fuck it he’s fine leave him alone let him keep his job.


I really hate the use of thought police since no one would be complaining if they kept their bigotry to themselves in their own head and didn’t let it affect how they treated others.


Anyway at the end of the day it’s the companies deciding they don’t wanna be associated with these people. People aren’t forcing the companies to let people go they make that decision on their own.


Not to mention there’s something you’re forgetting here. Even if these people don’t let their opinions bleed into their work let’s not act like their actions and beliefs outside of work don’t contribute to systems of oppression. I would vehemently argue that if we are supposed to better as a society we need to teach people regardless of race their beliefs aren’t acceptable and if need be impose consequences so they become better human beings [unless you think racists and homophobes are good people]


Finally I’m not gonna get in trouble the way these people have while yes there are going to be people that don’t like what I say since my career is focused on social activism the organizations I’m going to be working for aren’t gonna drop me because people are mad about my work and if they do I don’t need to be working for them. Now if I do something fucked up sure I’ll might lose my job but guess what?? It’ll teach me not to do that shit again.

Okay but the chances that said people are perfectly even with everyone even the ones that they have bigoted prejudices against is pretty slim. Why should people who are trying to pay for a service be subjected to an individual like that probably unwittingly?

What are you basing these chances on? In other posts you sure love to insist on sources, so source your claim. Even if that’s true, it’s the uneven treatment that warrants discipline, NOT THE BELIEFS. It’s a pretty simple concept. 

Of course you’re defending that fuckwad from Google like are you kidding me. Did you consider that his words created a hostile work environment but hey fuck it he’s fine leave him alone let him keep his job.

Oh look, you didn’t read the memo. Damore clearly stated multiple times that no individual should be judged by the statistics that he listed, and posited many possible things Google could try to interest more women in the industry. His goal was the same as yours presumably is: more women in Silicon Valley. That’s the exact opposite of hostile environment. The people facing a hostile work environment are people who hold mainstream conservative beliefs, that can’t speak up for fear of being called “racist” or “sexist” and subsequently fired.

I really hate the use of thought police since no one would be complaining if they kept their bigotry to themselves in their own head and didn’t let it affect how they treated others.

The point is there’s a difference between expressing a view and mistreating others. You assume that anybody expressing a view that you would deem racist is in fact mistreating his/her customers/coworkers, but this is based entirely on your biased ass assumptions. Show me a trend of this happening or sit the fuck down.

Anyway at the end of the day it’s the companies deciding they don’t wanna be associated with these people. People aren’t forcing the companies to let people go they make that decision on their own.

Do you not know how the consumer-company relationship works? A large enough movement calling for the firing of an individual is DEFINITELY forcing companies to let people go. Even so, if you believe that it’s up to the company then why do you care if they DON’T fire someone for their beliefs? It’s their decision so fuck off. 

Not to mention there’s something you’re forgetting here. Even if these people don’t let their opinions bleed into their work let’s not act like their actions and beliefs outside of work don’t contribute to systems of oppression. 

Actions outside of work, in which you do not represent your company in some way and no crime has been committed, are not a valid reason to fire someone. Period. This part is really illuminating in regards to your mindset:

I would vehemently argue that if we are supposed to better as a society we need to teach people regardless of race their beliefs aren’t acceptable and if need be impose consequences…

That is literally thought policing. Your opinion is of no value to me, so fuck you thinking you can impose it on me forcefully.

so they become better human beings [unless you think racists and homophobes are good people]

No I don’t, but they have the same rights as you and I. Also, there are MANY people you would call racist or homophobic who are absolutely wonderful people, because you bandy those labels around without concern for the validity of the claims.

Finally I’m not gonna get in trouble the way these people have while yes there are going to be people that don’t like what I say since my career is focused on social activism the organizations I’m going to be working for aren’t gonna drop me because people are mad about my work and if they do I don’t need to be working for them. Now if I do something fucked up sure I’ll might lose my job but guess what?? It’ll teach me not to do that shit again.

So you can’t imagine a situation in which public opinion turns against you and your org has to shut down due to lack of funds? And then you have to find a real job? And that job is run by ultraconservatives who decide to fire you for your left-wing ideals? Or what if your organization’s ideals shift so far left that even you end up too right-wing for them? It’s happened to others, you’re not immune. Christina Hoff-Sommers was basically kicked out of feminism for daring to criticize radfems. 

It must be so boring in your tiny mind.

What are you basing these chances on? In other posts you sure love to insist on sources, so source your claim. Even if that’s true, it’s the uneven treatment that warrants discipline, NOT THE BELIEFS. It’s a pretty simple concept. 

I mean it’s kind of common sense the way you feel about something is the way you are going to behave around it [degrees may vary] but sure fine let’s act like that’s not the case. I disagree with the beliefs part. If you believe x race is inferior to x race you deserve discipline so you stop thinking as such. Sure maybe other steps should be taken first but if you don’t shape up then there needs to be further action.

<!-- more -->

Oh look, you didn’t read the memo. Damore clearly stated multiple times that no individual should be judged by the statistics that he listed, and posited many possible things Google could try to interest more women in the industry. His goal was the same as yours presumably is: more women in Silicon Valley. That’s the exact opposite of hostile environment. The people facing a hostile work environment are people who hold mainstream conservative beliefs, that can’t speak up for fear of being called “racist” or “sexist” and subsequently fired.

I did read the memo?? But him saying all that doesn’t suddenly mean he didn’t make it a hostile work environment. That’s not how that works AT ALL. I honestly shouldn’t be surprised you’re here defending another bigoted asshole.

Sidenote: you can have the same goal but go about it the wrong way. So let’s say my goal is more women in silicon valley. If I tried to reach that goal by murdering all men that could qualify to get jobs there that doesn’t suddenly make it right.

If you’re a conservative and you hold bigoted views [which not all conservatives do but hey way to go with that one] and you voice them at work you deserve to get fired. If you’re a liberal and you hold bigoted views [a bunch of them do] they deserved to get fired. I don’t care what your political party is. Bigotry doesn’t know political lines.

The point is there’s a difference between expressing a view and mistreating others. You assume that anybody expressing a view that you would deem racist is in fact mistreating his/her customers/coworkers, but this is based entirely on your biased ass assumptions. Show me a trend of this happening or sit the fuck down.

You’re right there’s a difference between expressing and mistreating others but again it’s kind of common sense if I don’t like something it’s gonna affect how you treat them. For example I love fruit but I hate cantaloupe. I don’t bad mouth cantaloupe but I’m still not excited about it the same way I am about fruit. 

People might not be mistreating people they are bigoted against but they more than likely [again more common sense] aren’t treating them the same way they treat the people they aren’t bigoted against.

Not to mention people expressing their bigoted/prejudice viewpoints contribute to systems of oppression which you guessed it hurts people.  

 Do you not know how the consumer-company relationship works? A large enough movement calling for the firing of an individual is DEFINITELY forcing companies to let people go. Even so, if you believe that it’s up to the company then why do you care if they DON’T fire someone for their beliefs? It’s their decision so fuck off. 

I know exactly how a consumer-company relationship works. I use it all the time to prove my point that I have the right to demand people selling me things sell me what I want to see or I take my money elsewhere. On the flip side of that the company selling me things can choose not to do what I want and lose my money. I’m not forcing them to do anything. At the end of the day it’s their choice and lots of companies choose to ignore people who say “your employee’s a bigot fire them.”

It is their decision but again I can still flex my monetary worth so that the person that’s a bigot realizes their bigotry has consequences. I don’t have to fuck off. I’m well within my rights to do what I’m doing.

Actions outside of work, in which you do not represent your company in some way and no crime has been committed, are not a valid reason to fire someone. Period. This part is really illuminating in regards to your mindset:

That’s actually a lie. When you get a job you now represent that company that you work for and if you do something fucked up even if it’s not a crime and it can reflect negatively on your company that company is well within its rights to fire you because they have a right to not be associated with someone that did what you did. I genuinely feel like you are either oblivious to the world or you just like lying.

I would vehemently argue that if we are supposed to better as a society we need to teach people regardless of race their beliefs aren’t acceptable and if need be impose consequences…

That is literally thought policing. Your opinion is of no value to me, so fuck you thinking you can impose it on me forcefully.

I don’t agree that’s thought policing but even if it is I don’t actually care. There are so many instances in society of people working to tell others your beliefs are unacceptable [Civil Rights, fighting against Nazism etc] and you need to change. Same thing applies here. You can say that’s not the case but you be a liar and ahistorical. 

No I don’t, but they have the same rights as you and I. Also, there are MANY people you would call racist or homophobic who are absolutely wonderful people, because you bandy those labels around without concern for the validity of the claims.

What rights are being denied them? Rights as in they can’t be taken away? Also I agree sometimes people misuse the words. It’s the honest to god truth and that needs to be worked on but at the end of the day if your wonderful people say/do racist homophobic things they aren’t wonderful and if you think otherwise that’s a moral failing on your part.

Sidenote: I think part of the problem with people calling others racist/homophobic is that sometimes people don’t know what they are doing is racist/homophobic. There have been times I’ve said “hey that’s racist.” and it was in fact racist and the person didn’t know. There needs to be more education on both sides.

So you can’t imagine a situation in which public opinion turns against you and your org has to shut down due to lack of funds? And then you have to find a real job? And that job is run by ultraconservatives who decide to fire you for your left-wing ideals? Or what if your organization’s ideals shift so far left that even you end up too right-wing for them? It’s happened to others, you’re not immune. Christina Hoff-Sommers was basically kicked out of feminism for daring to criticize radfems. 

It must be so boring in your tiny mind.

First off social activism through businesses and non profits is a real job but it’s nice to see you have such intense biases that you would say otherwise.

Second there’s this really cool thing called researching the places you want to work. My PR degree gives me versatility and my PR experience means I can shop around and find a business while it might not be social activism it’ll still be more aligned with my personal/political values

Third I didn’t really think about the org just myself because the reality of the situation is that’s always been the case for social activism organizations. No one has to do anything fucked up for people to try and turn against us and get us shut down. It’s a sad fact that America isn’t pro-social activism. It’s something we live with all the time. I’ve been working with a social activist non-profit for 3 years. It’s just something I’ve come to terms with.  

 I mean if my mind was tiny it probably would be boring but as it stands its not. There are entire fantasy worlds being created. Creative Nonfiction pieces being worked on sure there’s the occasional down side with random bout of depression and suicidal ideation but what are you gonna do? Gotta take the good with the bad  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But you know I’m sure you have a splendid time in that mind of your supporting bigoted assholes and not caring about systematic oppression.

1705 7e1d 500

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

pickupyourgun:

becauseithrewgasandamatchonher:

unknown1858:

Be consistent, 66% of gun deaths are suicide

Blacks kill 95% of black in the US

Non Whites commit more murders than whites

Blacks are 13% of the population but commit 55% of the crimes

Blacks on average rape 1500 white women every year

Whites rape about 2 Black women a year

In homicide bombings it’s the bomber but in shootings it’s the gun

CRIMINALS ARE THE PROBLEM, TAKE AWAY THE CRIMINALS THE GUN PROBLEM GOES AWAY.

1. This is a conversation about mass shootings. Not bringing up suicides isn’t being inconsistent it’s staying on topic.


2. I don’t think that number is that high but I could be wrong. Also whites kill more whites. Most crime is intra racial.


3. Prove it


4. 55% of violent crimes. Not all crimes. Come on don’t misrepresent statistics.


5. Prove it


6. Prove it


7. We already regulate majority of components needed for bombs not all of them but there’s still regulation so of course when it comes to shootings where’s the little to no regulation it’s gonna be a conversation about the shooter AND the guns.


8. Crime is never going to go away you can’t get rid of it so you need to regulate other stuff.

You are 125 times more likely to die from an accidental fall than from being shot by a rifle in the US.

And why does japan have essentially no firearms but a greater suicide rate?

It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points but went in another direction.


Being more likely to die one way [a way you can’t possibly regulate what the fuck??] doesn’t mean nothing else should be regulated what kind of illogical nonsense??


How is Japan’s suicide rates relevant? Also their suicide rate is probably that high because of the structure of their society but again how is that relevant to a conversation about gun control??

“It’s really fun that you didn’t bother proving any of your points…”

What point did you need me to prove.

Japan’s suicide rate is relevant because gun-grabberlike to throw those deaths into gun violence statistics claiming that they would drop with gun-control. Japan is proof there is no corellation.

They use a similar argument saying murders in the US Would drop with more gun-control.

Are you blind??? Do the words prove it mean nothing to you or…???? Everything you’ve said in this damn thread is devoid of sources and one of them I know it flat out wrong.


Also can you not read or something this is CLEARLY talking about gun violence as it relates to mass shootings. It’s right there in the first damn tweet. We are talking about a very specific type of gun violence here and you throwing suicide and shit around isn’t proving anything it’s getting off fucking topic and just shows you have no damn argument as to why we shouldn’t have gun control to curb MASS SHOOTINGS which is the topic at hand.


Japan is a perfect example of gun control minimizing MASS SHOOTINGS which is something we as a country need to work on.

Which one do you “know” to be a lie? I’ll show you the data? The 125x more likely to die from an accidental fall part?

According to the CDC there are 32,000 deaths from accidental falls per year.

According to the FBI there were 248 deaths from ALL rifles in 2014 (the last reported year).

What is 248 x 125, 31,000?

Oh! You were correct, I was wrong. Let me correct myself…

You are 129x’s more likely to die from an accidental fall than from a rifle in the US…

If you just count AR/Ak’s it’s more like 160x more likely to die from a fall.

Shit, you’re 170x’s more likely to die from poisoning in the us than die from a rifle…

If you need me to help you with any of this math just let me know.

Plus, it’s already been proven that guns save more lives than they take. Do you need me to show you the proof of that too?

@becauseithrewgasandamatchonher

I don’t know if you’re just a fucking moron or you’re doing this on purpose but do you recall the very first thing you posted on this post was a list of information.


I responded and told you to prove a number of your as it stands unsubstantiated opinions and the thing you are most definitely lying about is Black people committing 55% of crime. It’s violent crime. [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43]

Not crime overall. If you can’t back up your fucking opinions then stop fucking talking.


YES source your shit or shut the fuck up?? Your opinion doesn’t mean shit unless you source it!


Now let’s go off the premise that guns save more people than they hurt. [i feel like it could be both but thats a feeling not a fact] That’s great and all and would be relevant if I was arguing for a gun BAN and not gun CONTROL but as it stands something needs to be done about the mass shootings in America and as far as I’m concerned Japan’s done something great in regards to curbing MASS SHOOTINGS.


The fact that you’re more likely to die from something else doesn’t suddenly mean shit should be left alone. I’m more likely to die in a car accident does that suddenly mean we should deregulate the safety regulations when it comes to building/flying planes? You keep thinking showing us what we are more likely to die from is proving something when it just shows you have a very shallow grasp on logic.

@pickupyourgun so I know what the problem is. I thought you were OP. I thought @unknown1858 was you so that’s where that’s come from. I’m sorry about that.


However that doesn’t change the more likely bit of this conversation or the source it or shut up part.

I sourced it. Those “underlined” words are links to the “internet” with sources…

I meant the thing you didn’t source. That guns help more than they hurt.


Also address the fact that your “you’re more likely…” argument doesn’t mean shit in this conversation. It doesn’t change anything. It’s off topic.

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl