Traffic blockers getcriticized for interfering with innocent people and possibly alienating them. Like BLM blocking highways and airports. Same with burning down cities.

The third panel is ironic, considering how much the left was seething over the Bud Light thing.

Also, boycotts alone aren’t considered cancel culture. Harassing and ostracizing people because they don’t toe the party line is.

I also notice the comic has no actual counterarguments, it just mocks the critics and calls them racists. Which is, again, ironic.

Because I remember the countless people in 2020 who said “why are you burning down black neighbourhoods instead of going after the actual cops and government officials?”

Not to mention that many of the people against BLM would say the same things to antifa, who are stereotypically white and middle-to-upper class.

I’m a pacifist like institutionally but I’m absolutely certain that violence solves at least some problems on a much smaller level. I don’t believe in wars or nuclear weapons or military campaigns I do believe in the power of that guy who punched the nazi in the face so hard his entire media presence immediately crumbled to dust

The guy who was more or less a nobody until he got massive publicity from getting punched in the face?

the ‘nazi’ who got punched in the face had zero media presence beforehand, then was made into a martyr and an inspiration for idiots everywhere.

meanwhile WWII ended the actual nazis, and nuclear weapons prevented any further attempts at global conquest since the 50s, so you’re wrong in both direction.

The Nazi proceeded to get a gig with CNN, as well.

This is actually why you DON’T see the Extreme Right going around punching and clubbing and shooting people - they’re perfectly aware the press is not willing to carry their water, and anyone they harm will become a martyr no matter how miniscule the incident. They see that already happening to people who AREN’T Extreme Right, but who are called everything from white supremacists on down anyways… because the supply of actual white supremacists is far outstripped by the demand created by the media and Extreme Left.

After all, if they AREN’T hiding under every bed (as is so often alleged), those outlets wouldn’t have paranoiacs tuning in, and those Extremists would have a much harder time explaining their own violent excesses.

I fully understand that most sex-related studies are for obvious reasons probably not using a double blind protocol, but I have to confess that every time I see a journal headline about, say, the health benefits of oral sex or whatnot, the first question that pops into my mind is "how do you administer a placebo blowjob?"

The comments on this one...

Self defense. Oh, my bad, you didn't really want an answer.

No, thomas, I like answers. That's why I left the option to comment on my posts without having to reblog them.

I notice you didn't.

Then you have your answer. It's self defense. You know, A basic human right.

Ok no people should have guns. Fine. Have it your way.

Disarm the Government First.

So when a civil war kicks off one side hasn’t been armed by the state to suppress the other.

Which did happen and influenced the US.

>That's why I left the option to comment on my posts without having to reblog them

"I wanted people to comment on my post, but not to publicly disagree with me in reblogs. And yet I'm not actually responding to your main point to make a personal attack."

Truth is, most of the people killed with guns are suicides (which gun control supporters are rarely concerned with), most of the murders are with illegal guns, and kids cannot legally own guns.

That picture has absolutely no bearing on the meme. It's just there for emotional effect.

And finally, the odds of anyone being killed with a gun are very, very low compared to overall ownership. In fact, most years, there's more car fatalities.

Imagine being so privileged you can't comprehend that people are responsible for their own safety.

You remove a handful of US cities (which have more than a few things in common with each other), and you put the US murder rate near the bottom of the list. You can't compare the US to countries like Japan, Scandinavian nations, or countries like Poland because none have gun culture engrained into their DNA like the US does. That point is one many refuse to acknowledge because it presents a host of questions that will totally dismantle their argument.

How do you deal with the 350 million REGISTERED guns in circulation?

How do you deal with the millions of people who just won't comply and actively resist any law enforcement attempt at seizure?

Can you actually prove that drops in violent crime rate were due to gun control legislation?

How do you come to terms with the fact that the only legal precedent in the US for gun control was inherently racist?

How do you crack down on the millions of UNREGISTERED guns in the country?

No, "common sense" reform is not an answer. When you say "common sense" reform, it doesn't mean anything. Be specific and articulate your argument.

When antifeminist women succeed under patriarchy, they use it as proof that feminism is worthless.

When antifeminist women suffer under patriarchy, they use it as proof that feminism is worthless.

When an antifeminist woman has a successful career, particularly an intellectual career or in a male dominant field, she assumes she got there on her own talents alone and sees feminism as irrelevant. She will either believe any woman could do this if they simply worked hard enough (without a “feminist victim mindset” talking about barriers of course) or she will believe that she has exceptional abilities.

When an antifeminist woman suffers under patriarchy, she does not blame the men who abused her. She blames feminism for not protecting her. When she sees men degrade her, she says “Why do feminists hate women like me?” even while herself trampling over other women’s rights.

“When women who disagree with me succeed, they only do so because the shadowy figures who control the world let them.”

“When women who disagree with me have bad things happen to them, its their fault.”

“When a woman who disagrees with me is successful, she isn’t responsible for her own success and instead owes it all and also her permanent allegiance to my specific political movement.”

“When a woman who disagrees with me is hurt, she lacks any kind of agency and instead acts as a brainwashed agent of the shadowy figures who, just so we’re clear, have control over the minds of everyone who doesn’t think the way I do.”

“The most resource plentiful country on earth which is founded on oppressing women somehow continually fails to oppress women even in fields most dominated by men”

Or

“Feminists are retarded and keep reaching for reasons why you should pay for their degree which has no jobs”

Occams razor

WTF?

Knew it was bad but holy 🤬

You can google search all of these by name with words liked charged, indicted, or resigned, and confirm all of them, even on google. Some go back several years, but they are true and I think the intent is to illustrate that these things are not as rare as the media wants people to believe. They're happening all the goddamned time and it's the worst kept secret they've got.

And it’s BIPARTISAN. You see dems and repos on the list. The system is rotten to the core.

Note, they did all of this on the quiet, which is why so many people think nothing happened.

Rather than let you know how many important people DID get arrested.

Gee, Tumblr would probably really hate it if you shared and spread this damning article … To the surprise of absolutely none of Tumblr’s LGBTQ users, it turns out the independent NYC human rights agency Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) found that Tumblr’s ham-fisted adult content ban in December 2018 disproportionately targeted LGBTQ users. The CCHR’s investigation revealed Tumbler’s moderation algorithms is demonstrably biased against queer content. As part of the settlement, Tumblr was obligated to review their prejudicial anti-gay moderation policies. Even more mortifyingly, they’ve also had to hire an expert on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) issues and provide unconscious bias training to their moderators. I frankly doubt Tumblr has learned a thing from this humbling experience. Just recently the Tumblr algorithm flagged three ancient posts of mine as violating their terms. All three “offenders” were vintage homoerotic beefcake images (softcore by modern standards) roughly 50 – 65-years-old by Bruce of Los Angeles, Bob Mizer and Tom of Finland. (These are of course pioneering queer artists who routinely faced censorship and imprisonment in the fifties and sixties. Plus ca change!). They've been visible on my page - corrupting viewers -  for years at this point. I appealed all three immediately. Only the Tom of Finland one was approved. The other two are now hidden. So, they haven't learned much. Apparently, Tumblr – who loves to declare how hip, youthful, inclusive and progressive their values are - wants to restore trust with their queer users. I’d recommend we remember their hypocrisy when Pride rolls around and Tumblr splashes rainbow flags everywhere and attempts to pink wash their image.

In honour of Pride Month, this is worth a reblog! Don’t buy into Tumblr’s hypocritical “pink washing.” 

I think this article should be shared. But don't overlook this part:

Automattic bought tumblr, and immediately started to try to undo the mistakes of the past but are blocked by a sex-negative and LGBT-hating world.

Really I feel...skeptical

But if true. .

Issue us porn ban feels crippling because so many others not have it

I’m a pacifist like institutionally but I’m absolutely certain that violence solves at least some problems on a much smaller level. I don’t believe in wars or nuclear weapons or military campaigns I do believe in the power of that guy who punched the nazi in the face so hard his entire media presence immediately crumbled to dust

The guy who was more or less a nobody until he got massive publicity from getting punched in the face?

How do people constantly believe the exact opposite of the truth in this case?

it makes a convenient story that incentivizes people to do the same

The tragic part is that anyone who believes it’s going to lead to a better world is absolutely deluding themselves. Okay, you punch a bad guy. So what? What is the end outcome of that?

Does he become a better person? Does the punch make him reconsider his ways, and think, “hmm, my views so enraged this person they were driven to violence, perhaps I am wrong”? Not flaming likely. It’s more likely that his views are (at best) unchanged or (worse) made more entrenched, now with an extra layer of martyrdom to cement them into place. “I was assaulted by those people: my hatred of them is therefore entirely justified!” If you think I’m wrong about this, consider the last time you were punched in the face and developed a more benevolent outlook as a result.

Does he retreat? He might, but is that what you want, and is it any real meaningful change? A bigot out in the open can be seen and watched for. A bigot in hiding is an unknown quantity. Sure, maybe there’s less visible bigotry where people can see it, maybe the surface gloss appears better - for the moment - but all the while the actual bigotry lurks, biding its time, teaching itself to its children out of sight where it is less likely to be contradicted.

Does violence create less violence? By throwing a punch, do you make a situation where less violence happens in the future, or do you create a world where violence can be rationalized “as long as the cause is just”? Because let me tell you: everybody thinks their own cause is just, or at the very least they can bullshit their way into a reason to act as if it is. By normalizing the idea that punching is just fine if the other guy is bad enough - not that he’s done anything in that moment, just that you think he’s immoral in some way - then you have given tacit approval for him to punch you too, if he can paint you as the villain. Remember, “the right targets” is a matter of perspective, and one day you might find yourself on the wrong side of that line. Without a principle to say that violence is wrong for all people, except in the most extreme circumstances (like immediate self-defense), what is it that protects you and your face?

Will fear create less bigotry? Will the threat of violent reprisal keep the bad people in line - or will it mean the bad people simply choose a moment to act when they have the means to retaliate against violence? Will the bad people go quiet (see above), or will the violence be prone to escalate, meaning we go from punches thrown to knives drawn to guns fired? And who has more guns?

Can you solve authoritarianism with more authoritarianism? Because that’s what punching is. Using violence says, “you will not do what I don’t like, or I will hurt you and prevent you by force”. That’s the authority of your fists, or of your gang’s fists, to bend others to conform to your rules. To impose your will on others by force is a risky game. It’s why few revolutions ever end in more freedom. How many righteous causes over history eventually turn sour and become as oppressive as the things they supposedly used force to defeat? How many tyrannies are created in the name of “the people”?

It’s also showing that you have no means to counteract his words.

Your cause is so flimsy that it needs violence to back it up. You have no argument, so you need to resort to violence.

Or at the very least, that the violent person personally thinks there’s no other recourse. Often, they get mad at the idea that anything but violence could work.

Which usually says a lot more about that person than the cause they’re opposing.

"there's no such thing as resources and people don't deserve to be paid for their work"

It really is just willing ignorance at this point. People have no idea the kind of work that goes into making their modern life possible. “Food comes from a store” and stupidity like that.

an important update:

Yes down with the pink ribbon!!!!

A good example of why you cant just take charities at face value and shouldnt allow people to shame you for not blindly supporting a group based on what they claim to support.

You feel this way @takashi0 ?

Not that you've never called for action before period but this is pretty one sided deliberate and simple. Who are these guys what have they done and why are you all on the do something they suck bandwagon

Yall do NOT hop on a cosmetic surgery hate train during an ongoing campaign against trans Healthcare I am fucking begging

Me and the homies riding the hate train choo choo freaks

Toot toot

you people have discarded critical thinking to the point where you’re now defending a billion dollar industry propped up by racist, misogynistic beauty standards and are somehow pretending that is progressive. congratulations.

Two things can be true at the same time. Cosmetic surgery can be medically necessary (cleft pallets can sometimes be considered by insurance as cosmetic and not reconstructive, not everything labeled cosmetic is akin to boob job) and the cosmetic surgery industry can prey upon mostly women and injure them for life. If you demand that we cannot be critical of it for medical necessity, then you're saying people who are harmed by the industry can't speak out and can't demand change for the better.

Do people not understand that surgery is not a magic wand, and even medically necessary ones can be fucked up? Are you really saying trans people who had a doctor mess them up for life and leave them high and dry cannot speak out? Because believe me, it does happen. No industry is perfect and has a 100% success rate.

So maybe you should stop and think that holding the cosmetic industry accountable is one way to protect trans people from predatory doctors. Because you can believe I think that people should have access to these surgeries if they need them, and I want them to be safe and successful.

I mean...

Cosmetic surgery includes rebuilding someone's face after suffering burns. It includes rebuilding breasts after cancer mastectomies. It includes teeth in some places.

Cosmetic surgery is complicated.

Bodily autonomy means people can make choices about their bodies that you think are bad.

Sorry!

If you want to stop women from using cosmetic surgeries to fix their insecurities. Fix the culture that created those insecurities. Blaming the existence of surgical procedures is stupid, solves nothing, and hurts a lot of people along the way.

Do y'all think there's a clear difference between a medically necessary and cosmetic surgery all the time? If a firefighter gets half his face burned off saving someone from a house fire, a plastic surgeon can help reconstruct them. Don't y'all think the happiness and self-esteem of that person is a major reason for the surgery?

Sure a doctor could be like "Ehh, the firefighter can still eat and talk all right, so it doesn't matter what they look like. They only feel bad about having their face half burned off because of negative social stigma." And you know what, it's true, it probably is because of negative social stigma. But if the firefighter wants to have reconstructive surgery and is informed about the risks, it's important health care and probably gonna improve his life.

"Well, having your face burned off is obviously different!" All right, what if you're born with it? I have a congenital condition called pectus carinatum (or "pigeon chest") that causes my sternum to jut out. The internet calls it a deformity, but I think that's a little bit rude. Quick, would correcting this be "cosmetic" or not?

Turns out it's not quite that simple, and whether or not a condition needs treatment has a lot to do with how the person feels about it. As it should be!

It's impossible to be "against cosmetic surgery" because "cosmetic surgery" is not clearly, unambiguously defined.

How about somebody who wants a breast reduction because of their back pain? How about somebody who gets a double mastectomy because breast cancer runs in their family? What about someone who is sick and tired of having big breasts for reasons that are their own? What about a breast cancer patient who wants breast implants after a double mastectomy? What about someone who wants breast implants because they want bigger breasts? What about someone who wants a hysterectomy because of their endometriosis? What about someone who wants a tubal ligation? Which of these people have a legitimate medically necessary concern and which are being manipulated by an evil misogynistic medical establishment?

Why assume that any particular person who alters their body is insecure or being manipulated, anyway? Capitalism is horrible towards women for making them feel their bodies are repulsive, but body modification is a hell of a lot older and it's damn near universal among human cultures. Go outside and you'll walk past people all over the place who have lip piercings, tongue piercings, eyebrow piercings, just all kinds of holes punched in them. People dye their hair all kinds of colors and get tattoos of everything from flaming skulls to Tweety Bird. In a perfect world, some people would want to alter their bodies just because it's possible to do it.

Why do people get breast implants? I don't know, why do people get tattoos or ride horses or have children or go to the Moon or jump out of planes or devote their lives to accruing the world's largest collection of belly button lint? Why DID people in the 80's think those hairstyles looked good?

If a woman is getting cosmetic surgery because misogynistic society has made her hate her body, the problem is misogyny, not the fact that surgeries that alter your appearance are medically possible.

Wow the notes are 90% terfs and 10% disabled people explaining how the surgery that stopped them from suffering in agony was considered "cosmetic"

Small correction: The TERFs are actually mostly regular Nazis whoops. The third reblogger is a TERF but the first two are Nazis

I swear, these days the only way to tell them apart is if the blog's background is pink or not

??? uncle-mohav isnt a nazi?

Please look at who they reblog from

??? Why does who matter? Did he say nazi stuff or not?

They blocked me

Toot Toot

yer rebloggn from the nazzis now?

We mourn. We remember.  We stand with the LGBTQ community against hate and violence.

>A surprisingly large number of people each year are killed by unarmed attackers. (That’s “Personal Weapons” on that table)

>“Horrifying moment Asian woman, 44, is body slammed to the ground by robber who followed her 23 MILES from Houston ATM - leaving her PARALYZED after damaging her spine”

Ironically, AOC is assuming her target audience is a bunch of gullible NPCs.

I also love how these people always leave out “-for my life”. The phrase is “in fear for my life”. 

Also ironically, treating people like they’re faultless angels just because they’re victims is dehumanizing. I’m also pretty sure AOC knows the subway dude was not killed on purpose.

One of the things that actual self defense experts teach is methods to de-escalate a situation before it becomes a fight. Even if you’re in great shape and could fight like an MMA champ, you do not want to get into fights with strangers. You slug a guy and he goes down and smacks his head off anything on the way down, you might have just killed a man over something stupid. No one wants that.

Human beings are fragile. It’s not that hard to kill someone and it’s not that hard for someone to kill you, either. This is not to say that someone shouldn’t fight back against someone trying to kill them, but it’s such an obnoxiously sheltered point of view to believe that the only way anyone is going to die in a violent confrontation is if one of them has a gun. Like it’s so fucking easy to just not get killed when someone is stomping on your skull or ground-and-pounding you like a caveman.

“Real men uses their fists!” says the person who has never been punched in the face, let alone been in any sort of life or death situation. If you pull a gun on someone and they still try to attack you, that’s the final line to cross. They are willing to, even under threat of death, try to inflict harm upon you at all costs. That’s a very real threat.

I want to say only idiots with little fight experience think bare hands aren’t deadly, but I’ve seen anti-gun people who claimed to have taken martial arts courses.

It’s also absolutely bizarre for AOC to go “an unarmed person isn’t a threat!” about a situation where an unarmed man killed someone. By accident, but he still did it.

All of the Very Upset™️ individuals on this app who are appalled by the activists who threw soup at a Van Gogh painting can rest easy knowing the painting remains unharmed thanks to the protective glass it is kept behind.

Perhaps they will rest less easy as our world collapses around us and billions die from dehydration, starvation, and natural disasters caused by climate change.

If you found their form of protest distasteful you are probably from a wealthy privileged country and have been largely insulated from the effects of climate change thus far. I can assure you that that will change. As the droughts and food shortages worsen and climate events increase in severity and frequency every single person on the planet will feel the impact. Even the wealthiest among us who’ve convinced themselves that their money will save them.

The fact that I’ve seen more headlines and social media activity surrounding an unharmed painting than I’ve seen about the worst drought in humans history in China and the 40 billion people displaced in Pakistan is disgusting. And it only highlights how necessary their action was.

If you are outraged by this protest I’d suggest reassessing your priorities. Before it’s too late.

Ummm I'm not outraged they threw soup at art but I am kinda fucking outraged that so called climate activists are accepting funding from oil barons.

Do you think the whole soup bullshit was any more effective then idk throwing money behind local politician committed to converting their community to renewables, funding legislation for emissions caps, giving mining unions capital to pay their workers to re-train for jobs in the green energy sector?

Cause the Gettys and all the other rich fucks sure as shit could fund a whole new world order based on green energy and doing good, but instead they're throwing a few mill at climate protesters who throw soup, and probably getting tax cuts for "charitable donations".

Fuck the Gettys, fuck performance protests, and fuck soup!

Please please please stop spreading the disinformation about JSO being funded by the fossil fuel industry. That is completely false.

Climate Emergency Fund was co-founded by Aileen Getty who is the granddaughter of the founder of Getty Oil Company. But she has publicly disavowed her family's industry and dedicated much of her life to environmental activism. The idea that trying to fix the problems her family helped create is somehow hypocritical or even a fossil fuel industry psyop is misinformation designed to undermine public support for climate activism.

This "JSO is funded by big oil" story is very much in line with the Merchants of Doubt PR strategy we see used over and over to plant just enough doubt about an issue to keep the general public disengaged and uninterested in taking action. Please don't take it upon yourself to do the work of spreading this story.

Obviously I don't know the extent of Getty's philanthropy or lobbying and I agree it would be fantastic if she directly funded the things you mentioned, but the fact that she may not is no reason to oppose the things we know she does fund. There is plenty of room to debate what climate action is the most effective or most deserving of funding, but diversity of tactics and theories of change in a movement is normal and good actually. Getting mad because someone isn't doing activism exactly how you want is a waste of time. Writing off performative protest entirely is myopic and out of touch with the very basics of social movements in history. Protests need to be a performance. If you have a protest and no one is there to hear or see it, you didn't have a protest.

Okay then all i can say to this is okay.

And that throwing soup (vegan or otherwise) at the Van Gough is a really piss poor target.

He's too beloved and too tragic, it's almost like they were punching down. Sure, it gets the desired level of attention but honestly a more controversial figure (and there are plenty) would have likely garnered just as much attention without the anger from the liberal side.

When your "action" is indistinguishable from something you would do if you were funded by the fossil fuel industry, you're not actually a climate activist regardless.

"Okay, so in order to fight climate change, we need to change the behavior of people from wealthy, privileged countries. What can we do?"

"How about...we do something that people from wealthy, privileged countries will find distasteful, and tie our message to that?"

"Genius!"

Like, I don't want the world to burn either, but there is such a thing as counterproductive protest.

A lot of protests have focused in on this idea of "we have to challenge and offend people".

But if you offend people, they can also decide to resist you and refuse to help you in any way.

And Some Painting has nothing to do with climate change. This isn't exactly putting soup on Shell's headquarters.

A lot of protests seem to be trying to get attention by any means whatsoever, regardless of whether those means are any good or whether the attention has anything to do with what they ostensibly want to call attention to.

My two cents: there is a relevant distinction between the gravity (or severity) of an act and the uncertainty of an act.

"but climate change is going to be worse" appeals to the gravity of an act.

Most of the factors in climate change, though, have enormous uncertainty around them because of the immense benefits that people gain from having access to electricity and oil products, and then there's other stupid fuckery like so many environmentalists in opposing nuclear power and acting like they're in it to reduce electricity access rather than reduce climate change. The range of uncertainty around climate change may include zero.

The greenie activists who go around throwing tomato soup on a Van Gogh exhibit, pouring milk on the floor at grocery stores, blocking people's access to public transport, et cetera, have almost no uncertainty. They are uncomplicatedly evil. As said above, they might have gone for Shell HQ, or an oil pipeline where some civilians might have suffered as collateral damage. They chose to fuck up useful and/or beautiful civilian things where civilian bystanders became the primary victims. It was a small evil they did, but it was a definite evil. That's why they get so much hate, and that's why appealing to the allegedly graver wrongs of climate change is an ineffective objection.

It's worth noting that the OP here is someone who thinks that we are facing actual human extinction, that the generation alive today is the last generation, etc.

And therefore this justifies an action no matter how repugnant...

But it somehow doesn't mean an action needs to be chosen for effectiveness.

OP, acting like a buffoonish clown causing problems will make the issues you are pushing look like buffoonish clown problems. There IS such a thing as bad publicity.

Disavow dipshits in your movements or you will watch them destroy your efforts in real time.

Funny how in the notes, someone's saying 'this group isn't funded by oil money, it's being funded by the money from an oil heiress!'

Like, I do get the difference, but you're not exactly arguing the point properly. Which ironically brings me right to the point I'd discuss, the concept of 'Optics'!

A few months ago, a socialist Grifter called Vaush decided that the best way to deal with JK Rawling's TERF viewpoints by... Telling her that she and all women need to shut up, and to openly state he'll be a sexist asshole towards any woman who disagrees with him. This is BECAUSE he's a life-long feminist, or at least he claims to be one now.

This, of course, goes along with his position of knowing everything about poverty and crime, despite being from an upper middle class family, and his other various 'no bad tactics only bad targets' behaviors.

This, of course, did not win him friends. What it DID do, however, was point out how little he really gets about the concept of the public's perspective of him. He went right from socialist darling of twitch dipshits to 'that sexist asshole' in short order, at least in the public perspective.

And managing what the public thinks of you, being aware of it and positioning yourself to look good while pushing your message, is a concept called 'Optics'. Because it is often all about what kind of face you present. PETA cares about animals (to a certain, barbaric and cruel degree) but they have the public position of being 'those freaks who think that chickens and holocausts victims are equal'.

Of course, I'm not quite surprised that OP might not grasp the concept of optics, considering that they talked about 40 BILLION refugees from floods in Pakistan (which, they didn't actually state it was about the flooding, did they?), which not only is hideously, laughably wrong, but also even if you assume they meant Million, they're still off by... fucking what, 500 percent?

It's a thing where one of the worst optics is telling people easily falsifiable things.

Real shit, if your first instinct to being corrected is to tell someone to die and you "hope their dead get no rest", you need help.

Genuinely. Get therapy.

Immediately threatening someone is not normal. I do not care what people on the Internet seem to think. It isn't healthy. It's disturbing.

This is the kind of thing that gets you fired from jobs and can get you arrested. (Cause, y'know, verbal harassment. Assault, depending on jurisdiction.) It's not how adults act in the real world.

Before anyone says "yeah, but I only do that on Tumblr," I want to ask: do you? Is it limited to Tumblr? Because I can guarantee that the longer you act like an ass, the more likely you are to let it slip out in real life. I've seen it happen. I've watched friends get really into Reddit (and 4chan, unfortunately) and how they started mocking everything (they're no longer friends). You're reprogramming your brain to think "insulting someone=getting kudos from other similarly fucked up people=serotonin." You can't spend hours attacking someone on the Internet and just leave it online. It doesn't work that way.

If you see yourself doing this, regardless of who you are, whether you're the TERF I'm vagueblogging about or an actual feminist, you need to consider if your reactions to stuff is normal. If your first response is to tell someone to fuck off or die or kill themselves, why is that? Why are you so angry? And why are you willingly exposing yourself to things that make you angry?

Taking time off from social media is good. Even taking like, thirty seconds to breathe before replying, is really, really helpful. Therapy and psychiatry, even more so. Needing those isn't shameful.

Take care of yourselves.

Excerpts from Andrea Dworkin's speech titled "Prostitution and Male Supremacy" in 1992. I highly recommend everyone reads it.

Oh, yeah, Andrea Dworkin is such a great role model and someone to emulate.

Hell yea she is

At least you admit you're a psycho

Wasn't she the pedophile for young boys?

Curious

“Wasn’t this the radical gender theorist who was a pedophile?”

Let's get some excerpts from dworkin's book "woman hating" to see how she's someone to emulate.

Here's her stumping for pedophilia. Let's see what's next

Incest is best, when you live like a feminist. How dare they say I can't fuck my sister, thank you feminism for fighting for my rights to fuck my family.

what's next

just in case we have people that are fussy about wording, here's dworkin again

I can see why radfems love her so much, at least the pedophilia and incest loving one's who are also into bestiality.

DRAG IS NO LONGER BANNED IN TENNESSEE ✨✨