🔥 Popular | Latest

superunfriendlyreminder: That actually explains why we come after animals on the list of “ deaths that actually matter to white ppl” : School LibraryJournal @sljournal SLJ An Updated Look at Diversity in Children's Books ow.ly/nerj50uIXed DIVERSITY IN 8 CHILDREN'S BOOKS Percentage of books depicting characters from diverse backgrounds based on the 2018 publishing statistics compiled by the Cooperative Children's Book Center, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison: ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pcstats.asp 50% 7% 1% 5% 10% 27% +a 558 0OKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOK American Asian Pacific Islander/Asian Pacific American Latinx African/ White Animals/Other Indians/ African The CCBC Inventory includes 3,134 books published in 2018. This grophic would not hove been possible without the statistics compiled by the CCBC, ond the review and feedbock we received from Edith Compbel, Molly Beth Griffin, K. T. Horning, Debble Reese, Ebony Ellzabeth Thomas, and Modeline Tyner, Many thanks First Nations American ustration by David Huyck, in consultation with Sarah Park Dohlen Released under a Creative Commons 8Y-SA licenses https//creativecommons.org/Bicenses/by-so/4.0/ 7:30 AM Jun 20, 2019 Hootsuite Inc. 1.3K Likes 821 Retweets It is gia, hello @missgiagiagia Animals had more representation than all Black, brown and indigenous people combined. Our children deserve better. Deserve MORE SLJ SchoolLibraryJournal @sljournal 19h An Updated Look at Diversity in Children's Books ow.ly/nerj50uIXed DIVERSITY IN CHILDREN'S BOOKSZU18 Percentage of books depicting characters from diverse backgrounds based on the 2018 publishing statistics compiled by the Cooperative Children's Book Center, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison: ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pestats.asp 5% 7% 10% 27% 50% L558 BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS African White American Latinx Asian Pacific Animals/Other Indians/ Islander/Asian African 2:14 PM Jun 20, 2019 Twitt er for iPad 4.4K Likes 2.3K Retweets superunfriendlyreminder: That actually explains why we come after animals on the list of “ deaths that actually matter to white ppl”

superunfriendlyreminder: That actually explains why we come after animals on the list of “ deaths that actually matter to white ppl”

Save
superunfriendlyreminder: That actually explains why we come after animals on the list of “ deaths that actually matter to white ppl” : School LibraryJournal @sljournal SLJ An Updated Look at Diversity in Children's Books ow.ly/nerj50uIXed DIVERSITY IN 8 CHILDREN'S BOOKS Percentage of books depicting characters from diverse backgrounds based on the 2018 publishing statistics compiled by the Cooperative Children's Book Center, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison: ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pcstats.asp 50% 7% 1% 5% 10% 27% +a 558 0OKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOK American Asian Pacific Islander/Asian Pacific American Latinx African/ White Animals/Other Indians/ African The CCBC Inventory includes 3,134 books published in 2018. This grophic would not hove been possible without the statistics compiled by the CCBC, ond the review and feedbock we received from Edith Compbel, Molly Beth Griffin, K. T. Horning, Debble Reese, Ebony Ellzabeth Thomas, and Modeline Tyner, Many thanks First Nations American ustration by David Huyck, in consultation with Sarah Park Dohlen Released under a Creative Commons 8Y-SA licenses https//creativecommons.org/Bicenses/by-so/4.0/ 7:30 AM Jun 20, 2019 Hootsuite Inc. 1.3K Likes 821 Retweets It is gia, hello @missgiagiagia Animals had more representation than all Black, brown and indigenous people combined. Our children deserve better. Deserve MORE SLJ SchoolLibraryJournal @sljournal 19h An Updated Look at Diversity in Children's Books ow.ly/nerj50uIXed DIVERSITY IN CHILDREN'S BOOKSZU18 Percentage of books depicting characters from diverse backgrounds based on the 2018 publishing statistics compiled by the Cooperative Children's Book Center, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison: ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pestats.asp 5% 7% 10% 27% 50% L558 BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS African White American Latinx Asian Pacific Animals/Other Indians/ Islander/Asian African 2:14 PM Jun 20, 2019 Twitt er for iPad 4.4K Likes 2.3K Retweets superunfriendlyreminder: That actually explains why we come after animals on the list of “ deaths that actually matter to white ppl”

superunfriendlyreminder: That actually explains why we come after animals on the list of “ deaths that actually matter to white ppl”

Save
dkafterdark: sunshinepeonies: kendrawriter: nevaehtyler: “Her fantasy novel Children of Blood and Bone, the first of a trilogy about a young girl’s battle with a prince over bringing magic back to West Africa,  is going to be released some time next year. But it’s already got a seven-figure publishing deal with Macmillan, and a massive deal with Fox Studios too, with the latter acquiring the movie rights pretty early on in the day for a book that hasn’t even been published yet.” Source (x) OH MY GOD MY SOUL JUST LEFT MY BODY. GOOD FOR HER! AND I CANNTO WAIT TO READ THESE! And you know what, all this does is inspire me. If she can do it, I can do it. We can do it.  I don’t know if it’s because I have Prime BUT the Kindle version was free for me just now (Jan. 9, 2018). GO CHECK IT OUT!! The first six chapters are available for free as a sneak peek from Amazon : The Ladies Finger THE LADIES Follow FINGER heLadiesFinger They're calling this 23-year-old novelist the next J.K. Rowling RETWEETS LIKES Seadimo Follow ] @SeadimoTlale Tomi Adeyemi. Say her name! Shes 23. Shes Black. Woman. Harvard. Shes got a 7 figure contract and movie deal for a book that's not even out! The Ladies Finger@TheLadiesFinger They're calling this 23-year-old novelist the next J.K. Rowling theladiesfinger.com/tomi-adeyemi/ RETWEETS LIKES 8,1819,104 dkafterdark: sunshinepeonies: kendrawriter: nevaehtyler: “Her fantasy novel Children of Blood and Bone, the first of a trilogy about a young girl’s battle with a prince over bringing magic back to West Africa,  is going to be released some time next year. But it’s already got a seven-figure publishing deal with Macmillan, and a massive deal with Fox Studios too, with the latter acquiring the movie rights pretty early on in the day for a book that hasn’t even been published yet.” Source (x) OH MY GOD MY SOUL JUST LEFT MY BODY. GOOD FOR HER! AND I CANNTO WAIT TO READ THESE! And you know what, all this does is inspire me. If she can do it, I can do it. We can do it.  I don’t know if it’s because I have Prime BUT the Kindle version was free for me just now (Jan. 9, 2018). GO CHECK IT OUT!! The first six chapters are available for free as a sneak peek from Amazon

dkafterdark: sunshinepeonies: kendrawriter: nevaehtyler: “Her fantasy novel Children of Blood and Bone, the first of a trilogy about...

Save
aethelflaedladyofmercia: Ok like I think people are forgetting something very important about JKR.Namely, she did not make up this stuff after the fact. Back in the day, JKR was extremely open about the fact that there was tons of lore behind the scenes she could not address in the books. She couldn’t address it, btw, because it was a known fact in the publishing industry that young adult novels had to top out at like 250, maybe 300 pages because kids didn’t have the attention span for anything longer. And early HP was middle grade, which is the next age category down. She was only able to start addressing deeper lore halfway through the series because that’s how long it took to convince her publishers it wouldn’t scare readers away.(I distinctly remember another, long-established children’s fantasy author dedicating a book to JKR because the success of HP was the reason said author was able to negotiate an extra 100 pages into that novel.)In the mean time, she was in a ton of interviews. She was absolutely the most open author about her worldbuilding. If a fan asked her a question and the answer wasn’t a spoiler, she answered it every time. JKR was famous for this. She was worshipped for it practically. I remember on the early internet boards, when one fan had the chance to meet her in a Q&A we would all pile together and come up with as many questions as possible. Ask what year Beauxbatons was founded. Ask who the ghost of Hufflepuff is. Ask McGonagall’s age. Ask Lily’s maiden name. Were all the Marauders in Gryffindor? Which of Gilderoy Lockheart’s stories were stolen and which were flat out made up?We collected these interviews, we held them as canon, we altered our fanfic to accommodate what she revealed. And then, all of a sudden, that wasn’t what the fans wanted any more. When she finished HP, she said she was done, that she’d move on to other projects. No one wanted any of her non-HP stuff. No one cared. So she came back to build the Fantastic Beasts verse, with exactly the same policy about answering fans that we had welcomed back in the early 2000s.So, like, you don’t have to enjoy what she’s doing. The fan community has changed, and that’s fine. But JKR contributed a lot to the children’s fantasy genre and to the way fandom operated, and we should at least acknowledge that. : Only start creating a lore after you already finished half of the series and keep adding stuff a decade after finishing it Steal 90% of your deep lore from real life history and other authors to fill out your world map Create an entire universe with a bloody, theological history with hundreds of characters and dozens of devastating wars, then write a childrens book in it aethelflaedladyofmercia: Ok like I think people are forgetting something very important about JKR.Namely, she did not make up this stuff after the fact. Back in the day, JKR was extremely open about the fact that there was tons of lore behind the scenes she could not address in the books. She couldn’t address it, btw, because it was a known fact in the publishing industry that young adult novels had to top out at like 250, maybe 300 pages because kids didn’t have the attention span for anything longer. And early HP was middle grade, which is the next age category down. She was only able to start addressing deeper lore halfway through the series because that’s how long it took to convince her publishers it wouldn’t scare readers away.(I distinctly remember another, long-established children’s fantasy author dedicating a book to JKR because the success of HP was the reason said author was able to negotiate an extra 100 pages into that novel.)In the mean time, she was in a ton of interviews. She was absolutely the most open author about her worldbuilding. If a fan asked her a question and the answer wasn’t a spoiler, she answered it every time. JKR was famous for this. She was worshipped for it practically. I remember on the early internet boards, when one fan had the chance to meet her in a Q&A we would all pile together and come up with as many questions as possible. Ask what year Beauxbatons was founded. Ask who the ghost of Hufflepuff is. Ask McGonagall’s age. Ask Lily’s maiden name. Were all the Marauders in Gryffindor? Which of Gilderoy Lockheart’s stories were stolen and which were flat out made up?We collected these interviews, we held them as canon, we altered our fanfic to accommodate what she revealed. And then, all of a sudden, that wasn’t what the fans wanted any more. When she finished HP, she said she was done, that she’d move on to other projects. No one wanted any of her non-HP stuff. No one cared. So she came back to build the Fantastic Beasts verse, with exactly the same policy about answering fans that we had welcomed back in the early 2000s.So, like, you don’t have to enjoy what she’s doing. The fan community has changed, and that’s fine. But JKR contributed a lot to the children’s fantasy genre and to the way fandom operated, and we should at least acknowledge that.

aethelflaedladyofmercia: Ok like I think people are forgetting something very important about JKR.Namely, she did not make up this stuff...

Save
ediejay: luanna801: gahdamnpunk: I’m just now finding out Anne Frank was bi??? OMG Yeah okay, those edits were made by her dad, a cishet person - and also her dad, a Holocaust survivor, who would have been brutally aware that when the diary was first published in freakin’ 1947, had he included anything which people could use to demonize his daughter or tar her as some kind of “pervert”, it would prevent the message he was trying to send about the horrors of the Holocaust and the heroism of his daughter from being properly understood and accepted the way he hoped. That isn’t fair. It isn’t just. But it is reality. If Otto Frank had let this be included in the published version, there’s a large chance the homophobic backlash would have prevented the book from reaching the audience it did and spreading the message it needed to. It was NINETEEN. FORTY. SEVEN. The Holocaust had ended TWO YEARS AGO. The acceptance of LGBT identities was basically nonexistent. Otto Frank made a decision based on the time and place he was living in, about what the world at that time was and wasn’t ready to accept.  Let me say this as bluntly as I can - I am a bisexual Jewish girl and I would have made the same decision Otto Frank did. Making sure Anne Frank was unambiguously seen as sympathic and heroic was more important. Making sure people weren’t sidetracked from the main issue of the Holocaust was more important. He shouldn’t have had to make that decision, without doubt. Anne Frank’s sexuality (however she would have identified in modern terms) shouldn’t be considered relevant to her status as a hero or a sympathetic victim. But in 1947, it undoubtedly would have been. Otto Frank survived Auschwitz and lost his entire family (a wife and two teenage daughters) to the horrors of the Holocaust. He hoped that publishing his daughter’s diary would spread awareness and sympathy for the victims of the Holocaust. If he had to make sacrifices to do that - well frankly, so fucking be it. I don’t know who alive today has the right to judge him.  Thank you for that addition. We cannot blanket demonize people while ignoring context. : mango Follow @problemabbic anne frank was gay?? omg?? THE DIARY OF A YOUNG GIRI 142 I already had these kinds of feelings subconsciously before I came here, because I remember that once when I slept with girl friend I had a strong desire to kiss her, and that I did so. I could not help being terribly inquisitive about her, for had always kept it hidden from me. I asked her whether, as a proof of our friendship, refused. I go into ecstasies every time I see the naked figure of a woman, such as Venus, for example. It strikes me as s0 wonderful and exquisite that I have difficulty in stopping the tears rolling down my cheeks rou a see ho ma ger we should feel one another, but she an tel th to If only I had a girl friend! S Yours, Anne. 12:13 PM - 4 Jun 2019 3,487 Retweets 16,120 Likes 律「黙れターフ」 Follow @andreareventon Cishet folks have spent an eternity erasing queer people's stories. Anne Frank's diary was edited to remove things like this in all the original copywritten versions. mango @problemabbic anne frank was gay?? omg?? od t M4I INPS 11 in d odid e: tsk Show this thread 2:36 PM 4 Jun 2019 8,314 Retweets 20,886 Likes 律「黙れターフ」 Follow @andreareventon Every trans person is rewritten as a cis person who was either confused or "bravely challenging gender". Anyone who liked the same gender romantically or sexually are reduced to having had close bonds with those of the same gender. 2:37 PM - 4 Jun 2019 267 Retweets 1,772 Likes kat 律「黙れターフ」 Follow @andreareventon And in case you were wondering why they'd leave this out of her diary when it only adds to the danger she faced from the Nazis. Many of the countries of the "allied forces" still considered it a sinful crime to be gay at the time. It would be considered a flaw. 2:53 PM - 4 Jun 2019 172 Retweets 1,377 Likes 律「黙れターフ」 Follow @andreareventon Reminder that Anne Frank's attraction to boys was *not* removed, only her attraction to girls. Also, to answer the mentions I've gotten. Yes, I'm aware the edits were made by her dad. That doesn't make them not be edits made by cishet people. 6m In my experience in the US, the diary is generally assigned in 4th or 5th grade. Not sure why reading about another adolescent child's sexual feelings and gynecological health are appropriate at this stage. 3:30 AM -5 Jun 2019 206 Retweets 1,216 Likes ediejay: luanna801: gahdamnpunk: I’m just now finding out Anne Frank was bi??? OMG Yeah okay, those edits were made by her dad, a cishet person - and also her dad, a Holocaust survivor, who would have been brutally aware that when the diary was first published in freakin’ 1947, had he included anything which people could use to demonize his daughter or tar her as some kind of “pervert”, it would prevent the message he was trying to send about the horrors of the Holocaust and the heroism of his daughter from being properly understood and accepted the way he hoped. That isn’t fair. It isn’t just. But it is reality. If Otto Frank had let this be included in the published version, there’s a large chance the homophobic backlash would have prevented the book from reaching the audience it did and spreading the message it needed to. It was NINETEEN. FORTY. SEVEN. The Holocaust had ended TWO YEARS AGO. The acceptance of LGBT identities was basically nonexistent. Otto Frank made a decision based on the time and place he was living in, about what the world at that time was and wasn’t ready to accept.  Let me say this as bluntly as I can - I am a bisexual Jewish girl and I would have made the same decision Otto Frank did. Making sure Anne Frank was unambiguously seen as sympathic and heroic was more important. Making sure people weren’t sidetracked from the main issue of the Holocaust was more important. He shouldn’t have had to make that decision, without doubt. Anne Frank’s sexuality (however she would have identified in modern terms) shouldn’t be considered relevant to her status as a hero or a sympathetic victim. But in 1947, it undoubtedly would have been. Otto Frank survived Auschwitz and lost his entire family (a wife and two teenage daughters) to the horrors of the Holocaust. He hoped that publishing his daughter’s diary would spread awareness and sympathy for the victims of the Holocaust. If he had to make sacrifices to do that - well frankly, so fucking be it. I don’t know who alive today has the right to judge him.  Thank you for that addition. We cannot blanket demonize people while ignoring context.
Save
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Save
i-peed-so-hard-i-laughed: gaytwunky: microtear: Wig OK “IFLScience.com recently conducted a similar experiment, publishing an article titled Marijuana Contains “Alien DNA” From Outside Of Our Solar System, NASA Confirms. The article, as of now, has over 141,000 shares, and it isn’t about marijuana or alien DNA at all – it’s an experiment to see how many shares it could attract with an outrageous headline alone. IFLScience states within the post that “We here at IFLS noticed long ago that many of our followers will happily like, share, and offer an opinion on an article – all without ever reading it.” wow…..tea yikes: Marijuana Contains "Alien DNA" From Outside Of Our Solar System, NASA Confirms i-peed-so-hard-i-laughed: gaytwunky: microtear: Wig OK “IFLScience.com recently conducted a similar experiment, publishing an article titled Marijuana Contains “Alien DNA” From Outside Of Our Solar System, NASA Confirms. The article, as of now, has over 141,000 shares, and it isn’t about marijuana or alien DNA at all – it’s an experiment to see how many shares it could attract with an outrageous headline alone. IFLScience states within the post that “We here at IFLS noticed long ago that many of our followers will happily like, share, and offer an opinion on an article – all without ever reading it.” wow…..tea yikes

i-peed-so-hard-i-laughed: gaytwunky: microtear: Wig OK “IFLScience.com recently conducted a similar experiment, publishing an article t...

Save
Not really sure who was more surprised here: Laura I'd like to take you up on getting coffee, by the way Mon, Jul 24, 2017, 12.00 AM Ahh I'm sorry for leaving you hanging. I might've dismissed the notification or something half asleep... But coffee would be great Stil being unemployed means Fhave free time in excess and a super flexible So just let me know when might work best for you Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 12-32 AM Wed, Aug 2,2017, 32 PM Hey Laura I know it can take forever agonizing over the perfect response, but the coffee is starting to get cold I've taken the liberty of preparing a few response choices for you, to help speed things along. Choose any letter choice you'd like to send A: I'm free to grab coffee this week i'li send you my number so we can coordinate a meet up B This week is kinda busy for me, but next week for surel I'i give you my number so we could coordinate a meet- C: I would like to grab coffee eventually but rm not quite sure when. 'll give you my number so we can figure out the when on a better platform D: Sorryi don't think I'm up for coffee anymore... you're just too intimidatingly attractive and intelligent for me. I'u still give you my number though, maybe we could meet up some time soon: Fri Aug 11, 2017, 324 AM Atter popular demand, we've decided to add a bonus answer choice, See the amendment in its entirety below E: I'd like more time to choose among options A-D, please bear with mel Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 12:26 AM While you decide among choices A-E I've written a limerick to pass the time There once was a match who's named Laura Who jammed to Chopin on Pandora, When she said she'd meet Drew For a hot Java brew She first had to grow coffee fora. Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 1:08 PM Limerícks are boring, lambic pentameter or bust Beneath the churning froth of pick-up ines, The sexting, whirling cesspool of regret, An empty cave extends like twisting mines The ghosts of voices echo in duet A conversation stalled for thirty days Still sometimes he'd return if memry served He'd rack his mind for further clever ways, To keep the chat that time forgot preserved, But life moves fast indeed for life in prime, From seeds to sprouts to trees to leaves wind-blown And so, our Laura ever lost to time And Drew forever in Starbucks alone 32017, all rights reserved Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 4:46 PM Ok I've contacted Amazon about publishing the book I wrote about this conversation, they said it could be online in three weeks ifi could slim it down 800 pages or so, I'll keep you posted through the editing process Mon, Sep 25, 2017,10:01 PM The book is finally supposed to be online tomorrow, and this bit of breaking news just published online thought you might want to see: Wed, Now 8.2017. 1137 PM We have a problem Laura the Weinsteirn Company was our sole investor the movie's in shambles now and there's no going back Today 8:15 PM Oh my god Oh my god GIF Not really sure who was more surprised here

Not really sure who was more surprised here

Save