🔥 Popular | Latest

tsunderepup: randomslasher: pastel-selkie: lesbianshepard: stupid leftists and their belief in *checks notes* the intrinsic value of human life Reblog if you would burn down the statue of liberty to save a life Here’s the thing, though. If you asked a conservative “Would you let the statue of liberty burn to save one life?” they’d probably scoff and say no, it’s a national landmark, a treasure, a piece of too much historical importance to let it be destroyed for the sake of one measly life.  But if you asked, “Would you let the statue of liberty burn in order to save your child? your spouse? someone you loved a great deal?” the tune abruptly changes. At the very least, there’s a hesitation. Even if they deny it, I’m willing to bet that gun to their head, the answer would be “yes.”   The basic problem here is that people have a hard time seeing outside their own sphere of influence, and empathizing beyond the few people who are right in front of them. You’ve got your immediate family, whom you love; your friends, your acquaintances, maybe to a certain degree the people who share a status with you (your religion, your race, etc.)–but beyond that? People aren’t real. They’re theoretical.  But a national monument? That’s real. It stands for something. The value of a non-realized anonymous life that exists completely outside your sphere of influence is clearly worth less than something that represents freedom and prosperity to a whole nation, right? People who think like this lack the compassion to realize that everyone is in someone’s immediate sphere of influence–that everyone is someone’s lover, or brother, or parent. Everyone means the world to someone. And it’s the absolute height of selfishness to assume that their lives don’t have value just because they don’t mean the world to you.  P.S. I would let the statue of liberty burn to save a pigeon.  : anarchy404x 1d You must understand the weird logic of the left. To them life is priceless and should always be prioritised over property. They would literally let the statue of Liberty burn to save one person. Through inaction let one person starve? You monster, you literally murdered them. Reply Vote tsunderepup: randomslasher: pastel-selkie: lesbianshepard: stupid leftists and their belief in *checks notes* the intrinsic value of human life Reblog if you would burn down the statue of liberty to save a life Here’s the thing, though. If you asked a conservative “Would you let the statue of liberty burn to save one life?” they’d probably scoff and say no, it’s a national landmark, a treasure, a piece of too much historical importance to let it be destroyed for the sake of one measly life.  But if you asked, “Would you let the statue of liberty burn in order to save your child? your spouse? someone you loved a great deal?” the tune abruptly changes. At the very least, there’s a hesitation. Even if they deny it, I’m willing to bet that gun to their head, the answer would be “yes.”   The basic problem here is that people have a hard time seeing outside their own sphere of influence, and empathizing beyond the few people who are right in front of them. You’ve got your immediate family, whom you love; your friends, your acquaintances, maybe to a certain degree the people who share a status with you (your religion, your race, etc.)–but beyond that? People aren’t real. They’re theoretical.  But a national monument? That’s real. It stands for something. The value of a non-realized anonymous life that exists completely outside your sphere of influence is clearly worth less than something that represents freedom and prosperity to a whole nation, right? People who think like this lack the compassion to realize that everyone is in someone’s immediate sphere of influence–that everyone is someone’s lover, or brother, or parent. Everyone means the world to someone. And it’s the absolute height of selfishness to assume that their lives don’t have value just because they don’t mean the world to you.  P.S. I would let the statue of liberty burn to save a pigeon. 

tsunderepup: randomslasher: pastel-selkie: lesbianshepard: stupid leftists and their belief in *checks notes* the intrinsic value of hu...

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
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://celestedoodles.tumblr.com/post/133490644960">celestedoodles</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://wnyc.tumblr.com/post/133465664478">wnyc</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>A former <i>Rugrats</i> animator (and present-day <i>Studio 360 </i>staffer) got sick of seeing the internet mock-up modern-day versions of the kids (the first two images), so he went and did it himself (the third image). <br/><br/>Read his rant: </p> <p><a href="http://bit.ly/1OQfqlZ">http://bit.ly/1OQfqlZ</a><br/></p> </blockquote> <blockquote><p>” Full disclosure: I have something at stake here. I worked as a storyboard artist for the animation studio Klasky Csupo from 1999 to 2002, drawing “The Rugrats,” “The Wild Thornberrys,” “Rocket Power,” and the woefully underrated gem “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6z9bVpa3BA">As Told By Ginger</a>.” <br/></p></blockquote> <p>What’s at stake? Have you hired any of these artists to work on a variation of Rugrats? </p> <p>The artists cited here grew up as fans of the show and felt like spending some time “fondly remembering” (the reprehensible behavior of ours you cited) the cartoon we liked so much by reinterpreting it through our own artistic lens. Me? I like fashion illustration. That’s what I like to do for fun. I didn’t ask Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, Nylon, The Guardian, etc. to pick up my drawings and I certainly didn’t show up at your door and demand you accept my little drawings as your new look. What I drew resonated with people my age and I think that’s nice (the stories I came up with resonated as well, like how I imagined Chucky overcoming anxiety and depression through the art of slam poetry, but i guess to you that gets categorized as “self-confident hipsters” and I guess being self confident is bad??). What you worked on resonated with people, as evidenced by all the fan art and fond re-imaginings. I guess, though, that pisses you off? This rant operates as though we’ve all been hired by a studio to design and animate a new Rugrats show but you need to step back and see that this whole thing boils down to you being mad that young people on the internet had fun appreciating something you worked on decades ago. How terrible.</p> <p>Do you need to be coddled right now? Do I need to remind you there are seasons and seasons of the show you worked on? Funded by major animation studios? And movies? And spin off series? With tons of merchandise? And my drawings are like, “let’s spend a few minutes looking at what the Rugrats characters might look like if they were young people out walking in the streets.” Does that make you feel better? </p> <p>So throwing a temper tantrum and publicly blasting fans of a cartoon you worked on is your mode of operation. Okay. If it interests you to know how others respond I’m happy to share that Matt Groening, the creator of The Simpsons, is the one who saw my little grown up drawings and liked them enough to show them to Craig Bartlett, the creator of Hey Arnold. He sent me a really nice message saying he loved the drawings and was so pleased to see young fans grow up to carry on the love for the characters in their own way. I mean, you do you, but maybe consider protecting the legacy of your work by not bitterly picking on young people who do things for fun online. </p> </blockquote> <p>Imagine getting this pissy because someone experimented with art style. They’re cartoon characters my dude go outside.</p>: on chuckie kimi il Tomm Dil himi An Chuckie Tommy Lit Phil <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://celestedoodles.tumblr.com/post/133490644960">celestedoodles</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://wnyc.tumblr.com/post/133465664478">wnyc</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>A former <i>Rugrats</i> animator (and present-day <i>Studio 360 </i>staffer) got sick of seeing the internet mock-up modern-day versions of the kids (the first two images), so he went and did it himself (the third image). <br/><br/>Read his rant: </p> <p><a href="http://bit.ly/1OQfqlZ">http://bit.ly/1OQfqlZ</a><br/></p> </blockquote> <blockquote><p>” Full disclosure: I have something at stake here. I worked as a storyboard artist for the animation studio Klasky Csupo from 1999 to 2002, drawing “The Rugrats,” “The Wild Thornberrys,” “Rocket Power,” and the woefully underrated gem “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6z9bVpa3BA">As Told By Ginger</a>.” <br/></p></blockquote> <p>What’s at stake? Have you hired any of these artists to work on a variation of Rugrats? </p> <p>The artists cited here grew up as fans of the show and felt like spending some time “fondly remembering” (the reprehensible behavior of ours you cited) the cartoon we liked so much by reinterpreting it through our own artistic lens. Me? I like fashion illustration. That’s what I like to do for fun. I didn’t ask Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, Nylon, The Guardian, etc. to pick up my drawings and I certainly didn’t show up at your door and demand you accept my little drawings as your new look. What I drew resonated with people my age and I think that’s nice (the stories I came up with resonated as well, like how I imagined Chucky overcoming anxiety and depression through the art of slam poetry, but i guess to you that gets categorized as “self-confident hipsters” and I guess being self confident is bad??). What you worked on resonated with people, as evidenced by all the fan art and fond re-imaginings. I guess, though, that pisses you off? This rant operates as though we’ve all been hired by a studio to design and animate a new Rugrats show but you need to step back and see that this whole thing boils down to you being mad that young people on the internet had fun appreciating something you worked on decades ago. How terrible.</p> <p>Do you need to be coddled right now? Do I need to remind you there are seasons and seasons of the show you worked on? Funded by major animation studios? And movies? And spin off series? With tons of merchandise? And my drawings are like, “let’s spend a few minutes looking at what the Rugrats characters might look like if they were young people out walking in the streets.” Does that make you feel better? </p> <p>So throwing a temper tantrum and publicly blasting fans of a cartoon you worked on is your mode of operation. Okay. If it interests you to know how others respond I’m happy to share that Matt Groening, the creator of The Simpsons, is the one who saw my little grown up drawings and liked them enough to show them to Craig Bartlett, the creator of Hey Arnold. He sent me a really nice message saying he loved the drawings and was so pleased to see young fans grow up to carry on the love for the characters in their own way. I mean, you do you, but maybe consider protecting the legacy of your work by not bitterly picking on young people who do things for fun online. </p> </blockquote> <p>Imagine getting this pissy because someone experimented with art style. They’re cartoon characters my dude go outside.</p>

<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://celestedoodles.tumblr.com/post/133490644960">celestedoodles</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tum...

Save
Florida Middle School Teacher Removed From Class After Being Outed as White Supremacist – blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ A Florida middle school teacher was removed from her duties after school officials became aware of a white supremacist podcast she hosted under a different name. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ According to the Huffington Post, Dayanna Volitich had been hosting a podcast called “Unapologetic” under the name “Tiana Dalichov.” During the podcast, Volitich discussed her integration of white supremacy into her curriculum. She also talked about how she hid her views from school officials, as she shared anti-Semitic conspiracy theories while suggesting Muslims should be eradicated from the Earth. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Once Crystal River Middle School got word of Volitich’s hate-filled podcast, the school began to investigate. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ “On Friday, March 2, 2018, the Citrus County School District was made aware of a concerning podcast by a Huffington Post reporter. The reporter indicated they believed one of the persons participating in the podcast was a teacher at Crystal River Middle School,” the school district said in a statement of Volitich’s white supremacy. “The Human Resources department was notified and an investigation was initiated immediately. The teacher has been removed from the classroom and the investigation is ongoing. Pursuant to Florida Statute an open investigation and materials related to it are exempt from public record and cannon be discussed until the investigation is complete.” ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Also under the Dalichov pseudonym, Volitich was caught sharing and retweeting hate speech onto her social media accounts, where she claimed Islam “legitimizes” terrorist behavior, and retweeted and commented on posts by neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, and white supremacist. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ An investigation is underway.: Florida Middle School Teacher Removed From Class After Being Outed as White supremacist@balleralert Florida Middle School Teacher Removed From Class After Being Outed as White Supremacist – blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ A Florida middle school teacher was removed from her duties after school officials became aware of a white supremacist podcast she hosted under a different name. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ According to the Huffington Post, Dayanna Volitich had been hosting a podcast called “Unapologetic” under the name “Tiana Dalichov.” During the podcast, Volitich discussed her integration of white supremacy into her curriculum. She also talked about how she hid her views from school officials, as she shared anti-Semitic conspiracy theories while suggesting Muslims should be eradicated from the Earth. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Once Crystal River Middle School got word of Volitich’s hate-filled podcast, the school began to investigate. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ “On Friday, March 2, 2018, the Citrus County School District was made aware of a concerning podcast by a Huffington Post reporter. The reporter indicated they believed one of the persons participating in the podcast was a teacher at Crystal River Middle School,” the school district said in a statement of Volitich’s white supremacy. “The Human Resources department was notified and an investigation was initiated immediately. The teacher has been removed from the classroom and the investigation is ongoing. Pursuant to Florida Statute an open investigation and materials related to it are exempt from public record and cannon be discussed until the investigation is complete.” ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Also under the Dalichov pseudonym, Volitich was caught sharing and retweeting hate speech onto her social media accounts, where she claimed Islam “legitimizes” terrorist behavior, and retweeted and commented on posts by neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, and white supremacist. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ An investigation is underway.

Florida Middle School Teacher Removed From Class After Being Outed as White Supremacist – blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ A Flor...

Save
politicalsci: : Ro Khanna e @RoKhanna Follow The FCC is getting ready to overturn #NetNeutrality. If they succeed, ISPs will be able to split the net into packages. This means that you will no longer be able to pay one price to access any site you want. Amir AmirAminiMD The idea of forcing financially struggling families, students/school kids to choose b/w "social med/entertainment packs" & news/educational packs" is Orwellian at best. This sick country has made healthcare a question of income & is a/b to do same w/ information. #NetNuetrality You tv com $29.95 $10 $O $10 $5 Broadcast Yourself TELCO NETFUIX ADSL Your email. Your world wide web. Your imagination. includes 500 MB of free transfers to non-peering websites at full speed. Limited to 128 kbps thereafter hollywood $15 after September Includes free Huh, subscription. Enjoy exclusivecontent from your favourite networks. Google Blogger s twitter AOL, msn'!誓myspace.com YAHOO All social networks. All your friends. Includes all your dating sites. facebook AO $5 YAHOO! SEARCH WWORDPRESS.COM flickrYouTube pathfinder place for friends friendster Includes a massive extra 1000 MB the social a month to Broadcast Yourse to 256 kbps thereafter Just $5 after three months Baiate Яндекс lost.fm $5 $5 $5 Найдется осе WEB.DE emusic BBC indiatimes PANDORA Onapster. news Rhapsody Com.au international the beat Includes the top 200services from over 30 countries Listen to your favourite music. Includes three months of emusic. amazoncom (yal digg lbrxtu Jlork Üines sta msnibe CAN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL LosAngeles Cimes THE HUFFINGTON POST FOX EWS verstock.com marketplace news Save money. Shop online. All your favourite things, secure and fast. Includes Internet Banking from over 20 financial institutions. Access to services not pictured here may incur additional costs News Freak? Get your fix. Indudes free online access to your local news site. Recharge WORLD WARCRAFT STEAM Your full-speed quota wasn't enough? A massive 2000 MB for access to your company's VPN at full speed. For accessing your friends' non-peering websites at full speed. For getting your emals faster and the included limit didn't cutit. Or if you're a web designer and need some extra buffer $5 realArcade. playground recharge GAMETAP Gamer? We hear you. Unwind, relax and play hard. Whether it be the world wide web, VPN or email, we have you covered. politicalsci:

politicalsci:

Save
White Supremacists Claim Papa John's As Their Official Pizza Chain - blogged by @baetoven_ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Following PapaJohn’s CEO John Schnatter's remarks in which he blamed the company’s recent losses on NFL protests, white supremacist website the Daily Stormer declared Papa John's as the official pizza of the alt-right. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ On Thursday, the website posted a picture of a pizza with a swastika created from pepperoni. The caption said, "Papa John: Official pizza of the alt-right?" ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Papa John’s responded to the post by condemning racism in an email to the Huffington Post. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ "We do not want these individuals or groups to buy our pizza,” the pizza chain said in a statement.: White Supremacists Claim Papa John's As Their Official Pizza Chain @balleralert White Supremacists Claim Papa John's As Their Official Pizza Chain - blogged by @baetoven_ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Following PapaJohn’s CEO John Schnatter's remarks in which he blamed the company’s recent losses on NFL protests, white supremacist website the Daily Stormer declared Papa John's as the official pizza of the alt-right. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ On Thursday, the website posted a picture of a pizza with a swastika created from pepperoni. The caption said, "Papa John: Official pizza of the alt-right?" ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Papa John’s responded to the post by condemning racism in an email to the Huffington Post. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ "We do not want these individuals or groups to buy our pizza,” the pizza chain said in a statement.

White Supremacists Claim Papa John's As Their Official Pizza Chain - blogged by @baetoven_ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Following PapaJohn’s CEO John...

Save
<p><a href="http://supercorprise.tumblr.com/post/165621652670/gayacediscourse-libertarirynn-you-are-not" class="tumblr_blog">supercorprise</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://gayacediscourse.tumblr.com/post/165609944544/libertarirynn-you-are-not-fucking-owed-any" class="tumblr_blog">gayacediscourse</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/165601142414/you-are-not-fucking-owed-any-fucking-information" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>You are not fucking owed any fucking information on someone’s fucking sexuality you fucking freaks.</p></blockquote> <p>anyways kill huffpost kill the whole site</p> </blockquote> <p>Straight people: why do LGBT people always come out and tell everyone their sexuality? Nobody cares</p><p>Also straight people: why won’t this celebrity just tell us what their sexuality is?</p></blockquote> <p>This is literally from Huffington post queer voices. I&rsquo;m not sure what straight people have to do with anything.</p>: HuffPost Queer Voices 22 hrs Like Page If the pop star is willing to be so open about other parts of her life, why not this? Demi Lovato's Reason For Refusing To Talk About Her Sexuality Is Total Bulls**t <p><a href="http://supercorprise.tumblr.com/post/165621652670/gayacediscourse-libertarirynn-you-are-not" class="tumblr_blog">supercorprise</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://gayacediscourse.tumblr.com/post/165609944544/libertarirynn-you-are-not-fucking-owed-any" class="tumblr_blog">gayacediscourse</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/165601142414/you-are-not-fucking-owed-any-fucking-information" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>You are not fucking owed any fucking information on someone’s fucking sexuality you fucking freaks.</p></blockquote> <p>anyways kill huffpost kill the whole site</p> </blockquote> <p>Straight people: why do LGBT people always come out and tell everyone their sexuality? Nobody cares</p><p>Also straight people: why won’t this celebrity just tell us what their sexuality is?</p></blockquote> <p>This is literally from Huffington post queer voices. I&rsquo;m not sure what straight people have to do with anything.</p>
Save
I don't know if I've ever called Trevor Noah out, but I've never seen a more cringe political page in my life... as biased as it gets. trevornoah trumplife starterpack trumpmemes liberals libbys democraps liberallogic liberal maga conservative constitution presidenttrump resist thetypicalliberal typicalliberal merica america stupiddemocrats donaldtrump trump2016 patriot trump yeeyee presidentdonaldtrump draintheswamp makeamericagreatagain trumptrain triggered CHECK OUT MY WEBSITE AND STORE!🌐 thetypicalliberal.net-store 🥇Join our closed group on Facebook. For top fans only: Right Wing Savages🥇 Add me on Snapchat and get to know me. Don't be a stranger: thetypicallibby Partners: @theunapologeticpatriot 🇺🇸 @too_savage_for_democrats 🐍 @thelastgreatstand 🇺🇸 @always.right 🐘 @keepamerica.usa ☠️ @republicangirlapparel 🎀 @drunkenrepublican 🍺 TURN ON POST NOTIFICATIONS! Make sure to check out our joint Facebook - Right Wing Savages Joint Instagram - @rightwingsavages: mustbebecauseyoureracistand watch FOx News 24 hoursaday"Starterpack cCUPY Here are my sources: DEMOCRATS THE DAILY HUFFINGTON .POST squawkkkk Imore talking noints] squawkkkk THE BC 를 VICE Other98 DBERAL VANITY FAIR NEWS BuzzFeeD N W NOWTHIS Audience: Yes Master Uygur, we unquestionably believe everything you say ALO Vex I don't know if I've ever called Trevor Noah out, but I've never seen a more cringe political page in my life... as biased as it gets. trevornoah trumplife starterpack trumpmemes liberals libbys democraps liberallogic liberal maga conservative constitution presidenttrump resist thetypicalliberal typicalliberal merica america stupiddemocrats donaldtrump trump2016 patriot trump yeeyee presidentdonaldtrump draintheswamp makeamericagreatagain trumptrain triggered CHECK OUT MY WEBSITE AND STORE!🌐 thetypicalliberal.net-store 🥇Join our closed group on Facebook. For top fans only: Right Wing Savages🥇 Add me on Snapchat and get to know me. Don't be a stranger: thetypicallibby Partners: @theunapologeticpatriot 🇺🇸 @too_savage_for_democrats 🐍 @thelastgreatstand 🇺🇸 @always.right 🐘 @keepamerica.usa ☠️ @republicangirlapparel 🎀 @drunkenrepublican 🍺 TURN ON POST NOTIFICATIONS! Make sure to check out our joint Facebook - Right Wing Savages Joint Instagram - @rightwingsavages

I don't know if I've ever called Trevor Noah out, but I've never seen a more cringe political page in my life... as biased as it gets. tr...

Save
yourfriendlyneighbourhoodbutt: antignorants: queerinthesheets: lyricswithoutthelesson: thecharlemagnecatastrophe: Transgender Teenage Couple Transition Together (via The Huffington Post) A pair of teenagers from Oklahoma might seem like your typical young couple, but their love story is unlike many others. The transgender couple actually transitioned together. Just two years ago, Arin Andrews and Katie Hill hadn’t transitioned yet. The two had struggled with their identities throughout childhood; Hill had struggled with bullying. Then one day they met at a trans support group, after each had begun the transitioning process, and they fell in love. Found this ridiculously sweet story today and wanted to share it with my followers. SCREAMS LOUD ENOUGH TO BREAK WINDOWS I am super surprised that this story blew up on Facebook. Pretty sweet i love this story, so glad its on my dash : yourfriendlyneighbourhoodbutt: antignorants: queerinthesheets: lyricswithoutthelesson: thecharlemagnecatastrophe: Transgender Teenage Couple Transition Together (via The Huffington Post) A pair of teenagers from Oklahoma might seem like your typical young couple, but their love story is unlike many others. The transgender couple actually transitioned together. Just two years ago, Arin Andrews and Katie Hill hadn’t transitioned yet. The two had struggled with their identities throughout childhood; Hill had struggled with bullying. Then one day they met at a trans support group, after each had begun the transitioning process, and they fell in love. Found this ridiculously sweet story today and wanted to share it with my followers. SCREAMS LOUD ENOUGH TO BREAK WINDOWS I am super surprised that this story blew up on Facebook. Pretty sweet i love this story, so glad its on my dash
Save