🔥 Popular | Latest

Animals, Best Friend, and Fucking: 11 Erika Heidewald Φ Following @erikaheidewald Are you straight and considering going to #Pride2017 ? Here's a brief thread of things you should know. RETWEETS LIKES 360 463 11:00 AM- 10 Jun 2017 360 463 9 Erika Heidewald її, Ф @enkaheidewald-22h 1. Pride is about LGBTQ+ people, so you must be an ally to all kinds of queer people. It's not ok to be an ally to gays but not trans ppl 55316 Erika Heidewald її, Ф @enkaheidewald. 22h 2. LGBT people are humans celebrating being themselves, we arent zoo animals. No gawking or touching without permission. 다 26 ·235 Erika Heidewald її, Ф @enkaheidewald. 22h 3. If you're a straight man and you hit on a lesbian at Pride, you go straight to hell 57354 Erika Heidewald її, Ф @enkaheidewald. 22h 4. Pride isn't some sexual free for all with no rules. Not all LGBT people are even sexual. Don't touch people without their permission! 37272 Erika Heidewald її, Ф @enkaheidewald. 22h 5. Straight girls- gay men do not exist to be your gay best friend 582 Erika Heidewald眷. @enkaheidewald-22h 6. Pride isnt about you, so don't try and make it about you. You're a guest 34223 Erika Heidewald Ф @enkaheidewald-21h 7. Pride isn't always happy. Pride comes out of struggle & sometimes people may be angry at our cis-heteronormative world. Be ok with that Erika Heidewald İİ, Ф @enkaheidewald-21h 8. You aren't there to judge, you're there to support. Let people be themselves, for some people it's the only time of year they really can. 다 26 190 Erika Heidewald Ф @enkaheidewald-21h 9. Lesbians and bi girls are not at Pride to find straight men to have threesomes with and if you proposition t you go straight to hel 115422 Erika Heidewald Ф @enkaheidewald-21h 10. LGBT people are diverse in every way. Don't just be an ally of white male-identifying, or able-bodied LGBT people. Be intersectional Erika Heidewald眷. @enkaheidewald-21h Frida and I made a video on this topic yesterday, and there are some important thoughts in the comment section too SHOULD STRAIGHT PEOPLE GO TO PRIDE? Should straight people go to pride? LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE! @erikaandfrida on IG and Snapchat https://twitter.com/erikaandfrida erikaandfrida.tumblr. youtube.com 다 16 86 Erika Heidewald Ф @enkaheidewald-21h not trying to get in a fight this year. #Pride201 33214 And lastly, do not fucking touch people without their permission because I'm profeminist: Thread source Reblogging in anticipation of #PrideMonth2019
Save
Children, Christmas, and Cute: BBQ not n ORGY 61 Online now 7 miles away BBQ not n ORGY 61 Online now 1 7 miles away 5th annual 4th of July BBQ June 30th from1 until ? Why do 90% of u think this is an orgy? t's not t's open to all Is it because I'm on this app? I try to invite all types of people men, women, gay, bi, str8, trans doesn't matter to me. Height Weight Ethnicity Body Type 6'0" 240 lbs White Stocky Gender Man BBQ not n ORGY 7 miles away Sun, Jun 17 Hey 2:47 PM Today I'm having my annual BBQ June 30th from 1pm until? slow cook pig, chicken wings, hamburgers, fish and vegetarian meals. No cost just bring your own booze. Sodas, tea, water is provided. Please feel free to bring ur wife, partner or just a date. This party is open to men, women, families. Gay, str8, bi, and the unknown. 3:48 PM Say something i-care-to-live: culdeefell: lumbaghini: consultingdoctorwholock: loki-against-onision: libertarirynn: keyhollow: klubbhead: gaypussyretard: panzerkampfwagentigerrausfb: libertybill: cecaeliawitch: radical-f: girlsmoonsandstars: kittyit: darren-fucking-chriss: verysiriusly: legendarylangst: mnemophile: gonefashion: psyducked: heterophobiac: This is the most bizarre yet pure thing I’ve ever encountered on grindr Are you going? these guys went and said it was wholesome and fun! and look what he said https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/grindr-bbq-not-orgy?utm_term=.ur27oKlpv#.yfXpzGdkZ update: he had a thanksgiving dinner and is having a christmas dinner in case y’all missed out on the bbq!! lgb-bq :’) The guy is a registered sex offender. Kidnapping of a minor and sexual assault. http://sexoffender.ncsbi.gov/details.aspx?SRN=011019S7 a serial child rapist trying to get “families” to attend his bbq. jesus christ god damn it it was literally shady from the fact that he posted it to Grindr like of course he was trying to reach a specific audience no wonder his family doesn’t talk to him Holy fuck i used to really like this post, thought it was cute. shame. Written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan Well this took an unpleasant turn since the last time I saw it No worries @loki-against-onision , I got one Ok, so, I researched this. I read his court files. What this guy did was he let two young couples who wanted to have sex away from their parents’ eyes into his house. Here’s a “statement of the facts” from an appeal after he was convicted: “Fourteen-year-old Stephanie was dating 18 year-old Timothy Cutshall; fifteen-year-old Rachelle was dating 23 year-old Chris Hall.  On the night in question, Hall and Cutshall asked the defendant to let them use his house for a liaison with the girls. The girls lied to their parents about where they were going, went to the defendant’s house, and had sex with Cutshall and Hall; the defendant never had sex with either girl. “The evidence was in conflict as to whether the defendant knew that the girls were underage.  There was no evidence that he knew they were younger enough than the men to render their otherwise consensual intercourse statutory rape.  Finally, there was no evidence that he knew that the girls did not have their parents’ permission to go to his house. Nonetheless, the defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting statutory rape, second degree kidnapping, and taking indecent liberties with children.” The person who shared his sex offender registry completely made up the “sexual assault” charge, and “kidnapping” didn’t sit right with me, so I looked into it. What actually happened was complicated. What it looks like to me is this dude, possibly under the influence of the alcohol he said ruined his life, made a stupid decision to trust these kids and had some creative prosecutors throw the book at him in every way they could think of. Wow that’s way worse. BBQ man is un-canceled. Let’s try and give him some happiness, he’s had shit luck. can we acknowledge how important CONTEXT is when we are “exposing” peoples lives, past, and especially convictions? thanks.
Save
Alive, Animals, and Apparently: flamethrowing-hurdy-gurdy: flamethrowing-hurdy-gurdy I have had this on my mind for days, someone please help: I mean, how do we see a pug and then a husky and understand that both are dogs? I'm pretty sure I've never seen a picture of a breed of dog I hadn't seen before and wondered what animal it Do you want the Big Answer or the Small Answers cos I have a feeling this is about to get intense Oooh okay are YOU gonna answer this, hang on I need to get some snacks and make sure the phone is off The short answer is "because they're statistically unlikely to be anything else The long question is "given the extreme diversity of morphology in dogs, with many subsets of dogs' bearing no visual resemblance to each other, how am 1 able to intuit that they belong to the 'dog set just by The reason that this is a Good Big Question is because we are broadly used to categorising Things as related based on resemblances. Then everyoneI have Fun Facts like "elephants are ACTUALLY closely related to rock hyraxes!! Even though they look nothing alike!!" e realized abou t genes and evolution and so on, and so now we These Fun Facts are appealing because they're not intuitive. So why is dog-sorting intuitive? Well, because if you eliminate all the other possibilities, most dogs are dogs. To process Things- whether animals, words, situations or experiences our brains categorise the most important things about them, and then compare these to our memory banks. If we've experienced the same thing before- whether first-hand or through a story then we know what's happening, and we proceed accordingly If the New Thing is completely New, then t question marks, shunts into a different track, counts up all the Similar Traits, and assigns it a provisional category based on its similarity to other Things. We then experience the Thing, exploring it further, and he brain pings up a Our brain t categorises the New based on the knowledge and traits. That is how humans experience the universe. We do our best, and we generally do it well. This is the basis of stereotyping. It behaviours (racism), some of our most challenging problems (trauma), helps us survive (stories) and sharing the ability with things that dont have it leads to some of our most whimsical creations (artificial In fact, one reason that humans are so wonderfully successful is that we can effectively gain knowledge from experiences without having experienced them personally! You dont have to eat all the berries to find the poisonous ones. You can just remember stories and descriptions of berries, and compare those to the ones you've just discovered. You can benefit from memorics that aren't your own! On the other hand, if you had a terribly traumatic experience involving say, an eagle, then your brain will try to protect you in every way possible from a similar experience. If you collect too many traumatic experiences with eagles, then your brain will not enjoy eagle-shapecd New Things. In fact, if New Things match up to too many cagle-like noise!! 。The hot Glare of the Yellow Eye CLAWS VERY BAD VERY BAD Then the brain may shunt the train of thought back into trauma, and the person will actually experience the New Thing as trauma. Even if the New Thing was something apparently unrelated, like being generally pointy, or having a hot glare. (This is an overly simplistic explanation of how triggers work, but it's the one most accessible to people.) So the answer rests in how we categorise dogs, and what "dog" means to humans. Human brains associate dogs with universal categories, such efour legs Mcat Eater e Soft friend An BORK BORK Anything we have previously experienced and learned as A Dog gets added to the memory bank. Sometimes it brings new categories along with it. So a lifetime's experience results in excellent dog-intuition And anything we experience with, say, a 90% match is officially a Dog. Brains are super good at eliminating things, too. So while the concept of physical doggo-ness is pretty nebulous, and has to include greyhounds and Pekingese and mastiffs, we know that even if an animal LOOKS like a bear, if the other categories don't match up in context (bears are not usually soft friends, they don't Bork Bork, they don't have long tails to wag) then it is statistically more likely to be a Doggo. If it occupies a dog-shaped space then it is usually a dog. So if you see someone dragging a fluffy whatnot along on a string, you will go, Mop? (Unlikely-seems to be self propelled.) ° Alien? (Unlikely-no real alien ever experienced.) Threat? (Vastly unlikely in context.) Rabbit? (No. Rabbits hop, and this appears to scurry.) (Brains are very keen on categorising movement patterns. This is why lurching zombies and bad CGl are so uncomfortable to experience, brains just go INCORRECT!! That is WRONG!" Without consciously knowing why. Anyway, very few animals move like domestic dogs!) Very fluffy cat? (Maybe-but not quite. Shares many characteristics, though!) Eldritch horror? (No, it is obviously a soft friend of unknown type) Robotic toy? (Unlikely too complex and convincing.) animal detected!!! Thi s is a good animal!! This is pleasing!! It may be appropriate to laugh at this animal, because we have just realized that it is probably a DOG!! Soft friend, alive, walks on leash. It had a low doggo-ness quotient! and a confusing Snout, but it is NOT those other Known Things, and it occupies a dog-shaped space! Hahahaha!!! It is extra funny and appealing, because it made us guess!! We love playing that game * PING! NEW CATEGORIES ADDED TO "Doggo set mopness, floof. Snout. And that's why most dogs are dogs. You're so good at identifying dog shaped spaces that they can't be anything else! The science of identifying Good Boys

The science of identifying Good Boys

Save
Chill, Love, and Tumblr: 66o grean bean @misandrism hurt by nin vs hurt by johnny cash 2018-03-27, 1:20 PM <p><a href="https://blxckchrysler.tumblr.com/post/172730079429/libertarirynn-blxckchrysler-libertarirynn" class="tumblr_blog">blxckchrysler</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/172730019279/blxckchrysler-libertarirynn-ok-but-what" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://blxckchrysler.tumblr.com/post/172729953554/libertarirynn-ok-but-what-were-not-about-to-do" class="tumblr_blog">blxckchrysler</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/172729883684/ok-but-what-were-not-about-to-do-is-pretend-that" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>OK but what we’re not about to do is pretend that Johnny Cash‘s version wasn’t superior in every way to Nine-Inch Nails. It was the last thing he recorded and it was filled with clips from his earlier career and you can literally feel the pain and love and memories in his eyes and just</p></blockquote> <p>damn ma is it that serious, all they did was put a cowboy hat on</p> </blockquote> <p>“#Chill”</p> <p>Who’s not chill? I’m not offended by the hat I just want to make it clear that Johnny Cash‘s version was better. I’m pretty sure NIN even said that.</p> </blockquote> <p>okay but <i>who</i> even said cash’s version wasn’t better, you just snapped outta nowhere</p> </blockquote><p>It’s called making a statement. It wasn’t argumentative. Nobody’s snapping at anybody.</p>

blxckchrysler: libertarirynn: blxckchrysler: libertarirynn: OK but what we’re not about to do is pretend that Johnny Cash‘s version was...

Save
Alive, Anaconda, and Apparently: Barber: "what you want?" Him: "give me the most dystopian shit possible" Barber: "got ya fam" LifeNews com LifeNews.com @LifeNewsHQ Follow British Govt Encouraging Women to Give Birth to Disabled Babies to Harvest Thei Organs buff.ly/2Fuaepo <p><a href="http://krungle.tumblr.com/post/171933983002/libertarirynn-matt-ruins-your-shit" class="tumblr_blog">krungle</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171933218134/matt-ruins-your-shit-kajiosblog-this" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://matt-ruins-your-shit.tumblr.com/post/171925993106/kajiosblog-this-articles-title-is-rather" class="tumblr_blog">matt-ruins-your-shit</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kajiosblog.tumblr.com/post/171917720473/this-articles-title-is-rather-misleading-they" class="tumblr_blog">kajiosblog</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>This article’s title is rather misleading.  They aren’t encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs or something like that.  They aren’t encouraging anything.</p> <p>The truth of the matter is that expecting mothers who find out that their baby will be born with fatal defects will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early, in order to allow for organ donation.  Note this this is simply an option, and there is no incentive or penalty for either choice.</p> <p>Source: <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth">https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth</a></p> </blockquote> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="200" data-orig-width="370" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5oc0lNajE1si8t7m_540.gif"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5p3fvAsQ11rw09tq_540.gif" data-orig-height="200" data-orig-width="370" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5oc0lNajE1si8t7m_540.gif"/></figure><p>I don’t think a single other person read that headline and thought they were “encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs.” That’s not why people find it incredibly disturbing and I’m astounded those were the conclusions you drew and thought it needed to be corrected. No seriously where did you get the idea that it was being claimed that mothers were being told to disable unborn children so they could be harvested? That makes no sense, that’s like the logic of Ricky from Trailer Park Boys who thinks that as long as you drag stolen goods down to the curb it becomes garbage and it’s not illegal to steal garbage. The very idea of a baby needing to be disabled in order to justify harvesting it’s organs should be offensive, it implies disabled people have less right to be alive and have their organs inside their own fucking bodies. The article title wasn’t misleading your terribly needless strawman explanation of the title was misleading. This is the exact reason I hate “fact checkers” you need fact checkers for the fact checkers they can be so bogged down in spin and semantics and dumb bullshit like this. The problem is with the harvesting of organs from disabled babies full stop. I didn’t think this needed to be explained but here goes.</p> <p>First of all it turns human life into a commodity, and not just a commodity but a commodity that would be controlled by the medical system of an increasingly fascist socialist government. What could go wrong?</p> <p>Like for example it hasn’t even happened yet and already there seems to be confusion about what exactly constitutes fatal defects. A system that always is going to want more organs is going to determine for themselves what is disabled enough? And what level of disabled is enough that you should be determined as scrap parts instead of a person? How do you know the baby will die? Doctors tell people their kids will be born dead or will die soon all the time that live full lives. One of my best friends parents were told he wouldn’t make it past a few weeks and he’s in his late twenties now. Really glad this wasn’t the policy back then.</p> <p>“will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early” No, carrying out the pregnancy has always been an option it’s the harvesting of organs that would be the new factor here. If it’s as you said that they are being given the option to carry out the pregnancy does that mean that right now women are being forced to have abortions? No giving birth is and always has been the default option. I find it gross that you think the only thing people do when they find out a baby will have serious defects is just abort it. These fatal defects represent a percentage chance of survival not a guarantee, so while yes a lot of people just say fuck it and abort at any sign of a problem there are also lots of people that take the risk give birth because worst case scenario the baby dies naturally best case scenario it survives. Medium case scenario it survives but raising it is costly and they have a lower quality of life…but it’s still a life and it should be up to a person to decide if their quality of life is low enough that they would rather not have it at all. <br/></p> <p>The horrifying part is they are not talking about stillborns, they’re not talking about babies that died in the womb. They’re talking about babies they believe will die eventually after being born. Who makes that determination? You trust the NHS… a system so shitty they amputate the wrong limbs on people to decide what babies are basically done for before they’re even born. Especially when they will benefit from every single baby a parent decides to allow be harvested. If there is room for corruption there will be corruption.</p> <p> So what happens once those babies are born and they’re alive? Do they start up a daycare center thats whole purpose is to wait for babies to die so they can be harvested? I’m sure the care there would be super humane and hospitable. What do they do with the ones that survive? By that point they would have become property of the NHS because they’re not babies they’re just living organ donations that haven’t had the courtesy to die naturally yet. Do they call up the mother and say hey so remember when you told us we could harvest your dead baby…well can you come by and pick up your two year old… that fucker is being really stubborn about not dying like we promised. Or much more likely they’ll just kill the babies immediately to avoid that burden and complication and not give them the chance to survive. I’ve already heard the term post birth abortion or as someone with a soul left would call it baby murder. </p> <p>They try to get around this by claiming the harvesting wont be an option until they are told the mother wants to have an abortion. What a great failsafe right? Well except that they can tell the mother whatever they want to get her to say she wants an abortion. They can tell her that her baby will definitely die when it might have a good chance of living. Which happens already without the added incentive of wanting to harvest the organs.</p> <p>Where would the oversight be. The NHS is already overwhelmed you think there’s going to be someone checking to make sure nobody is telling mothers their babies have fetal defects when they don’t? You think the system is going to check every single case, especially when every single case is going to benefit them? What fairy tale world do you live in. It’s the setup for a system where you give a doctor the power to say to himself this baby has a 10-60% chance of survival this mother is being a real bitch…and we’re in need of organs right now…maybe I tell her the lowest number in that estimate. Which is all it will be…fucking estimates. I have a member of my family that was pronounced dead four times and lived another twenty years. These people can’t even figure out when a person is dead and you want to give them 100% authority to determine who will die. Fuck that, fuck this. If they do this there will be horror stories rolling out within the week.</p> </blockquote> <p>Imagine fucking reading this and being like “no guys you don’t understand nobody’s asking the mother’s to disable the babies, just to give birth to disabled babies instead of murdering them in the womb so we can chop them up for parts! Because that’s so much better!”</p> </blockquote> <p style=""> “ babies diagnosed with fatal illnesses “</p> <p>That is a pretty high bar if you ask me. The kid will die anyway, sometimes destroying the organs in the process and often involving massive pain while being kept alive for enormous sums of money on machines. At least in this way the poor kid doesn’t have to suffer and some other kid gets a chance to end their suffering, as well, when they receive their transplants.</p> <p>The entire conversation on this started with fetuses that developed with no brain.</p> <p>You all that say this is wrong because of ‘compassion’ are showing no compassion for either the pain and suffering of the baby or the pain and suffering of the kids who will be able to live a much more normal and longer life once they get transplants. It isn’t ‘compassion’ you are showing but a strict adherence to a moral code and be damned how much pain and suffering it causes others.</p> <p>You people would show more compassion for your dog than you would for another human being.<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>“No YOU guys are actually the cruel ones for not wanting to murder sick babies to harvest them for parts!“</p><p>Are you fucking serious? First of all apparently it’s no longer possible to harvest organs after natural death despite the fact that it’s done all the time? “They’re going to die eventually anyway“ I’ve got a newsflash for you pal, so are you. I like how you think this is completely justified based on your assumption that all babies born with fatal illnesses are in constant pain and should therefore be exterminated for their own sake. This is post is a hot mess in every way.</p>
Save