birtherism

What antis get wrong about the tattoos.

I don’t think the tattoos are the biggest “clue” about the nature of Harry and Louis’ relationship simply because they exist. Because it’s true, a lot of people have a lot of nautical tattoos. And I don’t think Harry and Louis are in a relationship with the 3 billion people on planet earth who have a ship tattoo or a heart tattoo, generally speaking.

What sets Harry and Louis’ complementary tattoos apart are the intent, timing and placement of the tattoos.

Butterfly/It is What It Is

3 days after Louis began getting tattoos in earnest, Harry posted this photo of a couple’s tattoo to his instagram and said “Siiiiiick.“ He most likely found the picture, which is a picture of a computer screen, by googling “best couple tattoos” where he found a slideshow featuring this photo.

The exact same day as this instagram post, Louis reacted visibly to Harry when someone said the phrase “it is what it is” in a radio interview.

About 2 months later, Louis and Harry may have also made an inside joke about the “it is what ti is” tattoo in an interview before their American X Factor appearance.

So while they did not get the butterfly and it is what it is tattoos within hours or days of each other, this is enough to make me recognize that particular set holds some significance to Harry and Louis alone, as the others did not react the same way to the phrase. 

And while it is is true that the butterfly and “it is what it is” tattoos were from a group of 7 sheets of flash Liam Sparkes put out in 2010, the tattoos were grouped together on the same sheet in the layout in which Harry and Louis got them tattooed: it is what it is above the placement of the butterfly on their respective bodies. Also, as I noted at the time the flash sheets were discovered, several of Harry and Louis’ tattoos were taken from these same 7 pieces of flash. It was not just the butterfly and it is what it is. 

What sets those two apart is the references to Louis’ tattoos shared between Harry and Louis in the months before they got them.

Ship & Compass

They literally got these 18 hours apart at the same tattoo shop by the same artist in the same style and color. I don’t know what else you need me to say here.

Rope & Anchor

What sets these 2 apart is the placement. They did not get them close together. In fact, there were nearly 6 months between the two. But Louis got his untied rope on the top of his wrist on his right hand and Harry got his on the the top of his opposite wrist. 

On top of this, the first time we saw Harry with the anchor tattoo was 11 January 2014, the same day we first saw Louis back in England after a long stretch of MIA days and Louis was wearing a shirt with an anchor on it.

Heart & Arrow

They got these tattoos about 18 days apart. And while they got them on different continents by different artists, they are again similar in style and color. [Also, Harry was with Louis at the shop when Louis got the arrow tattoo].

Rose & Dagger

This is the most interesting one to me. They got them over a year apart, so it isn’t about the timing (in comparison to each other). It’s about the placement. Louis got his dagger on the same arm in the exact same place as Harry’s rose tattoo, after a year of fandom discussion of Louis possibly getting a dagger tattoo to match the rose.

Conclusion

Harry and Louis’ tattoos set them apart from other members of the band and crew and general population. They consistently got complementary tattoos around the same time, in the same places on their body and have made references to the tattoos explicitly and implicitly over the years. While other people have many similarly-themed tattoos as Harry and Louis’, they do not share those components. 

If Harry and Louis are so exhausted and repulsed by people thinking they are romantically involved, it would stand to reason that they would not get a series of tattoos to suggest otherwise. Louis/Liam and Harry/Zayn manage to get tattoos all the time and nobody seriously links them together, at least to the point it has to be constantly “corrected” a la Larry.

This isn’t about 1 set of tattoos. It isn’t about the “oops” and the “hi” or even the birds, which all have Larry theories behind them.

This is about the facts, which, when taken into account, indicate at the least a shared vision on some of their tattoo sets. Best friends and bandmates do get tattoos together, but they do not typically get a series of different and complementary sets that complete each other over the course of 3 years. 

1) Remember this when they suddenly claim a government issued birth certificate doesn’t actually mean anything. #LouisGotTheDagger

2) So are Larries really claiming that Briana has potentially adopted a baby or used a surrogate as part of a stunt…?

3) That Louis is prepared to legally claim to be a father because he’s been forced into it? That he’s prepared to sign onto a stunt that would involve him pretending to be a father for a weeks before abandoning it to a woman who has agreed to take on some random baby for a stunt…?

4) If any of them believe these theories are true, they need to call DCFS and report their claims right away. How is a baby being used as a stunt like this? This is child abuse.

5) LARRIES have been the only ones mocking a real baby and pregnant/post partum woman. Anyone else who reported those things were only reporting what the noisiest part of the fandom, aka the Larries, were saying. Nobody has mocked the baby besides them. And the baby has not been exploited by anyone besides the Larries who are using him as a prop in their theories.

6) The only people who need to be ashamed about the harm they’ve been causing a real live baby are the Larries.

anonymous asked:

I didn't mean just you specifically so maybe you were the wrong person to send that message to, but just generally a huge amount of my dash is posts making fun of larries. I'm not saying you can't call out whatever offensive or stupid things they say (like being birthers), this isn't to defend larries from what they're saying but just that I think the whole thing has got somewhat of a nasty tone recently. If I saw a bunch of posts joking about how dumb anyone who believes in scientology is I +

+ guess I’d feel the same. (And I think if we are going to call larrie a cult than that’s not an unfair comparison to make). I also feel you’ve really misunderstood what I was saying about twitter. I wasn’t defending what anyone says or does there, literally all I was saying was that on tumblr it’s easy to think that larries are mostly adults because those are the people with influence, but in reality larries are mostly as young as the rest of the fandom is. The tens of thousands of people who +

+ follow the big larries aren’t all adults, they’re mostly teenagers. The point I was making about twitter is that it’s easier to tell on there how young most larries are because they don’t have a group of adults controlling the conversation and because they talk more about their lives and you’ll see a bunch of tweets talking about school or living with their parents. I know there are older people there and I know there are people saying horrible things, but that wasn’t the point I was trying +

+ to make. I was simply using at as an example to show that the group of big larries that hold the influence on tumblr aren’t reflective of the actual demographics of larries, who are mostly much younger.

Hmm…maybe I was the wrong person to send this to. I haven’t actually been doing much correcting or calling out of Larries, and I also haven’t been making that much fun of them (beyond what I discussed in my last ask). From what I have observed, my impression is that the people who are taking the time to fact check and call out inaccurate or rude Larry posts have been bombarded with aggressive Anons, and are frustrated by that and also by the fact that even when they thoroughly disprove a Larrie post, it still gets tons of traction in the Larry fandom and is believed as fact. In their frustration, they have resorted to humour, and a mocking type of humour. I have sympathy/empathy for their position, but maybe your messages will give people pause and remind them that they want to be welcoming to any Larries who are realising that they were wrong about Larry.

I’m actually very cognizant of the fact that most of the fandom (Larries, non-Larries, every ship) is made up of very young people. I used to run a (big) Larry blog, so I talked to tons of Larries on and off Anon, and most of them were quite young. I do have sympathy for those people as well, and even for some of the adults in the Larry fandom. It’s a very compelling story, and I understand how people of any age get sucked into it. But again, this is a good reminder for people who have only interacted with the big Larries and don’t realise that most fans are very young.

In particular, I would encourage everyone to ignore bloggers who are saying outrageous things for attention. If someone says something really extreme and gets a lot of pushback, then continues saying those extreme things, I think you can conclude that they enjoy the drama and fighting, so trying to reason with that particular person is probably useless. 

Personally, my favourite posts are those that debunk the factual claims that Larries make, because those are very useful and might actually convince some Larries (at least on that particular point). But I know those posts are a lot of work!

I do also want to say this. I have seen very little, and have reblogged nothing, explicitly saying that Larries are stupid. Instead, people have made parody posts based on common Larrie posts. If seeing those posts makes a Larrie feel stupid, it’s probably because they see how similar the parody is to the actual Larrie posts, and it makes them realise how ridiculous the Larrie posts are. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, actually. I think it’s good for Larries to realise how they sound to outsiders, because it can be hard to gain perspective when you are trapped in the Larry bubble.

I would encourage every Larrie to seek out Robsten blogs and posts, blogs and posts from people who believe Benedict Cumberbatch’s marriage and baby are a sham, and other blogs and posts from similar sub-fandoms. That will give them some insight into what their theories sound like to people who aren’t Larries.

Freddie's "Birth Certificate"

I never thought 1D would become birthers but here we are …

So no one seems to care that right under the InTouch logo is a statement “For Information Only. Not a legal document to establish paternity”. [EDIT: apparently it says IDENTITY.]

This is not the certificate the parents would receive. This is a copy that ANYONE can BUY from the state.

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/birthdeathmar/pages/certifiedcopiesofbirthdeathrecords.aspx

https://www.vitalchek.com/birth-certificates/california

You can even buy a them online.

These are not the legal documents signed by the parents (I refer you to Trump v. The State of Hawaii). This is a form printed by the county clerk’s office to confirm that a birth was registered under those names. They are simply a record of the name given to the child, and the biological parents as reported upon admission to hospital. Frequently, adopting couples will have their name recorded on this certificate if allowed by law. I would also point out that these documents have been used by child abductors to fake credentials, fraudsters to commit identity theft, and are very easily forged. (If you are Catholic, you can get an equally “valid” baptismal certificate, which serves the same purpose: to confirm that someone with that name is believed to exist.)

Really people, a little Google goes a long way. Does no one write research papers anymore?

“My guess is that [birtherism] has little to do with actual thought, and everything to do with tribal identification—rejecting Obama as a citizen is another way of rejecting his legitimacy as president.” - Jamelle Bouie

It doesn’t matter how many facts you throw at the majority of these people. Birthers will still fester underneath reality.

[Poll: Adam J. Berinsky, Professor of Political Science at MIT; 1,000 respondents]

salon.com
Ted Cruz has a very real birther problem: The law is not settled — but the history is
By Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg

The uproar Donald Trump caused by stirring the pot over the eligibility of Canadian-born Ted Cruz to serve as president awakened constitutional scholars. With or without biases, a good many of them have suggested that the historical record is not on Cruz’s side. By the nature of the news cycle, one thing or another will remove this new “birther” controversy from public view; it really shouldn’t go away, however, because the issues are broader than what the commentators are addressing.

Most who have studied the question at hand focus on the “original intent” of the founding generation. The most obvious problem concerns the meaning of “natural born” as written into the Constitution, and whether Cruz’s birth in Calgary disqualifies him. But two equally salient issues have been ignored. The first is that Cruz’s claim to natural-born status is based on his mother, because his Cuban-born father did become a Canadian citizen, and was only naturalized as an American citizen in 2005. Rafael Cruz came to the United States on a student visa, and kept his Cuban citizenship until he became a Canadian citizen. It is a historical fact (and a fact of law) that mothers did not possess the same right fathers did to grant their children American citizenship when the child was born outside of the United States. This is important.

The founders did restrict the presidency to natural-born citizens. Ted Cruz’s status is deeply complicated

anonymous asked:

They really backed themselves into a corner by saying they were 100% sure Briana's bump was fake... they took the hardest, most convoluted route.

They cling to two photos they want to believe showed no bump during the pregnancy, even though in both photos you can actually see that she’s resting her arm on it and that she has a bump curving in front of her. 

But as they’ve decided to use both photos as proof of what they need to believe, they’re no longer capable of seeing anything in those photos but their own version of events.

If they turn around and admit she had this baby, it would mean that how they’ve been talking about her for months makes them completely disgusting, and they should be ashamed. They won’t do that as I believe they enjoy hating her, nor will they admit to being the kind of people who look to persecute women for simply having one of their male fave’s babies. 

It would also mean they’ve been utterly wrong about something they insisted was a fact of reality. I can’t remember Larries ever admitting to being wrong about anything. (Not to mention if Briana was really pregnant it means the baby is almost certainly really Louis’s….)

After the raging angry denial that’s hit them once the birth certificate came out, I don’t know how they can be trusted to hold any viable opinion on anything. When they say nothing will ever change their mind or convince them otherwise in the face of a government issued document, all their theories need to be looked at through those glasses. We can’t pretend they’re reasonable Logical™ people, we have to see them the way they admit they are: zealous fanatics immersed in their own dogma.

anonymous asked:

i think that larries are starting to kae a narrative about adoption. that HL adopted freddie. Briana's a cover. They could found woman who while being pregnant decided to put her kid for adoption. So here we are. Louis waited for the son to be born blah blah.. if smt clicks in their mind maybe just maybe they'll decide that Briana was a surrogate mum, but it's unlikely due to their previous bashing of her - drinking during pregnancy, fake bump etc

I’m trying to understand the concept that anyone can believe a real live Freddie was born on January 21st, but that Briana didn’t birth him.

Do any of them really believe Syco has managed to make it possible for a woman to come in out of nowhere to raise a surrogate’s child? Or to have had her adopt a child born from someone else? All the paperwork and millions of dollars that would involve in paying off the surrogate and in paying off Briana for the rest of her life? And the paperwork involved for Louis, who would have had to have gone through rigorous adoption tests to ensure his name would be on the form acting as his father after the birth?

Do they think Syco is capable of a scheme like this???? That there’s any company capable of doing this????? For what purpose????

That they would force a woman to raise a random child that belongs to someone else just to closet a male celebrity for a couple of months before he denies it’s his?

And that they’d have to agree that Louis is absolute scum if he’s agreed to this? Louis is actually a disgusting immoral piece of shit of a person? To claim this child who apparently was only birthed as some crazy closeting scheme, only because he wants the public’s sympathy when he rejects him in a few weeks? Abandoning him to some woman who’s only raising him for money?

How is this even remotely feasible to the Big Larries or that Aaron Butterfield guy? How is it ever plausible Briana could be forced into raising someone else’s child just for a stunt, and that Louis agreed to it only because he wants to get rid of it in a couple of weeks?

Someone explain this to me……???????

Louisiana Republican Literally Runs Out Of Interview To Avoid Explaining Why She's A Birther

Louisiana Republican Literally Runs Out Of Interview To Avoid Explaining Why She’s A Birther

External image

Lenar Whitney being interviewed by David Wasserman, via Lenar Whitney’s Facebook page

Journalist David Wasserman has made a career of interviewing hundreds of politicians – this is the first time one has fled his office to avoid answering one of his questions.

The distinction goes to conservative Louisiana state Rep. Lenar Whitney. In a state that is known for being veryconservative, Whitney has…

View On WordPress

anonymous asked:

What does "birthers" mean?

Birthers are a group of conspiracy theorists who doubt the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency because they don’t believe he was born in the US. They refuse to believe despite the fact that they have been presented legal copies of his birth certificate that prove he is indeed a natural born citizen.

So Larries have essentially positioned themselves as this fandom’s very own version of “birthers”. Even after having been presented with a certified copy of Freddie’s birth certificate, they are still denying he’s Louis’ son. Some are still denying he even exists in the first place.

Hillary Clinton: No, Morons, I Did Not Start The Birther Movement, And Trump Is A Paranoid Bigot

Hillary Clinton: No, Morons, I Did Not Start The Birther Movement, And Trump Is A Paranoid Bigot

External image

Lately, Republicans — including GOP frontrunner Donald Trump — have been crediting Hillary Clinton with starting the ridiculous paranoia regarding President Obama’s so-called birth certificate. After one of Trump’s racist supporters questioned not only the President’s religion but whether or not he was born in the United States in his query regarding how Trump plans to “get rid” of all the…

View On WordPress

thinkprogress.org
Romney Silent on Trump's Birtherism, Even Though He Made Rick Perry Repudiate The Pastor Who Criticized Mormonism!!!

Mitt Romney refused to directly repudiate Donald Trump’s claims that President Obama was born in Kenya just hours before he is scheduled to appear with the reality T.V. star for a fund raiser in Las Vegas, NV. “A candidate can’t be responsible for everything that their supporters say,” Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom told CNN on Friday, before insisting that the former Massachusetts governor “accepts the fact that [Obama] was born in Hawaii.”

But Romney has previously demanded that his political opponents publicly rebuke supporters who make false accusations about Mormonism. In October, Romney aggressively confronted evangelical pastor and Rick Perry backer Robert Jeffress, who claimed that Romney is not Christian and is part of a Mormon cult. Romney called on Perry to denounce Jeffress:

“Gov. Perry selected an individual to introduce him who then used religion as a basis for which he said he would endorse Gov. Perry and a reason to not support me. Gov. Perry then said that introduction just hit it out of the park,” Romney said.

“I just don’t believe that that kind of divisiveness based upon religion has a place in this country. I believe in the spirit of the founders, when they suggested in crafting this country that we would be a nation that tolerated other people, different faiths — that we’d be a place of religious diversity,” Romney continued.

He concluded, “I would call upon Gov. Perry to repudiate the sentiment and the remarks made by that pastor.”

Ironically, Perry spokesman Mark Miner responded to Romney’s outrage with the same sentiment that Romney is now expressing towards those who have called on him to directly repudiate Trump. “The governor does not agree with every single issue of people that endorsed him or people that he meets,” Miner said. “This political rhetoric from Gov. Romney isn’t going to create one new job or help the economy. He’s playing a game of deflection and the people of this country know this.”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ® — a Romney surrogate and potential Vice Presidential nominee — also condemned Perry, saying, that any candidate that would associate with such comments “is beneath the office of president of the United States.”