AppleButter180

this-is-cthulhu-privilege:

something-something-kyle:

This is what constitutes 60-80% of my dash

missing the male tears mug and a misandry tatoo

this-is-cthulhu-privilege:

something-something-kyle:

This is what constitutes 60-80% of my dash

missing the male tears mug and a misandry tatoo

thinksquad:

There might be something more interesting than a tennis ball in that FedEx package.

File that illicit drug revenue under “miscellaneous.”

That’s more or less the policy the shipping giant FedEx followed starting in the mid-aughts, according to a 15-count indictment filed in U.S. District Court in California on Thursday. According to prosecutors, the company knew the shipping services it provided to two Internet pharmacies ran afoul of the law.

“FedEx knew that it was delivering drugs to dealers and addicts,” said a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of California.

The company didn’t just deny the charges — it said that monitoring packages for illegal substances isn’t its job.

In another words: Don’t prosecute the messenger.

“We are a transportation company — we are not law enforcement,” said Patrick Fitzgerald, senior vice president for marketing and communications, in a written statement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/18/fedex-indicted-for-drug-dealing-not-a-delivery-guy-the-whole-company/?tid=pm_national_pop

werewolf-queen:

real-gifs:

colormebadder:

listoflifehacks:

If you like this list of life hacks, follow ListOfLifeHacks for more like it!

Yes lord

The decision to follow listoflifehacks might end up killing me but I’ll die happy so

image

(via kukutjulu01)

bootyghost:

digital-joker:

iguessilltryitout:

sjwstupidity:

Don’t ever let anyone convince you that women are the only one who have to fear meeting crazies on social networking.  This woman felt like she was so entitled to have this man travel 2 hours to visit her that she thought it made sense to start insulting him and accusing him of being afraid of women.

OKcupidCrazy - Imgur

god damn. She’s mad he doesn’t want to date her yet so he’s gay? I don’t understand how that works.

This just in, desiring feelings of comfort before meeting a stranger makes you gay.

WOW. SUCH LOGIC.

Wow fucking crazy bitch

(via privilegedenyingfeministcunt)

feminismisahatemovement:

tychohatesyoutoo:

feminismisahatemovement:

onemv:

sneferie:

is it just me or does this fuckin’ reek of “MRA” without explicitly saying “MRA”

MGTOW and the MRM are very different movements.  MGTOW pretty much step out of society altogether, refusing their gender role, choosing not to have a family, or even build wealth. The world expects men to work hard, support a family, ignore his health, well-being, and sanity for the benefit of those around them.  Frankly I don’t understand why feminists dislike the movement so much, from what I can tell these are the ideal men feminists want. Gone from their lives and holding lower positions opening more at the top for women.
THE MRM is a movement focused on shoring up areas where men are lacking in society by opening shelters, abuse lines, and attempting to hold events that talk about suicide and societies toxic view of men.
How toxic is that view? You are in your comment attempting to shame men for not adhering to their gender role, by comparing them to people who want to help men who need it. As if that is somehow shameful to do.

Yep - if you look online you’ll see there is actually quite a bit of opposition between the two camps: MRAs are, as the name implies, activists and work to improve conditions for men and boys, repeal misandric laws, open up male shelters, lobby for equal rights in the eyes of the law for men etc. Whereas MGTOWs basically just believe the male place in the present world is irredeemably fucked and so have decided to basically just drop out of society, all traditional male roles, societal expectations and responsibilities.
Neither of these positions is more correct or valid than the other, but you can easily see how those two ways of looking at the world lead to very different positions in many issues.

It is irredeemably fucked.  MGTOW is the logical response to a world that has decided that the idea of a men’s rights movement is a joke.  If they won’t let us play a fair game, they can play it without us.  Fuck them.

Right now I’m so appalled at the world I kinda agree with you. If my present relationship ended I’d probably go MGTOW too. In a world in which you are constantly demonized and scapegoated at every turn simply for being born with a Y chromosome, the social contract cannot help but break down. You have to offer men something to make them continue sacrificing themselves for society, but the past 50 years feminism has systematically stripped away all possible incentives for men to commit to marriage, chivalry, heroism, etc.
Without men committing to such things, civilization cannot help but break down quite rapidly, and maybe it should. It may be easier to start again from the rubble than fix the insane mess we’re presently imprisoned in.

feminismisahatemovement:

tychohatesyoutoo:

feminismisahatemovement:

onemv:

sneferie:

is it just me or does this fuckin’ reek of “MRA” without explicitly saying “MRA”

MGTOW and the MRM are very different movements.  MGTOW pretty much step out of society altogether, refusing their gender role, choosing not to have a family, or even build wealth. The world expects men to work hard, support a family, ignore his health, well-being, and sanity for the benefit of those around them.  Frankly I don’t understand why feminists dislike the movement so much, from what I can tell these are the ideal men feminists want. Gone from their lives and holding lower positions opening more at the top for women.

THE MRM is a movement focused on shoring up areas where men are lacking in society by opening shelters, abuse lines, and attempting to hold events that talk about suicide and societies toxic view of men.

How toxic is that view? You are in your comment attempting to shame men for not adhering to their gender role, by comparing them to people who want to help men who need it. As if that is somehow shameful to do.

Yep - if you look online you’ll see there is actually quite a bit of opposition between the two camps: MRAs are, as the name implies, activists and work to improve conditions for men and boys, repeal misandric laws, open up male shelters, lobby for equal rights in the eyes of the law for men etc. Whereas MGTOWs basically just believe the male place in the present world is irredeemably fucked and so have decided to basically just drop out of society, all traditional male roles, societal expectations and responsibilities.

Neither of these positions is more correct or valid than the other, but you can easily see how those two ways of looking at the world lead to very different positions in many issues.

It is irredeemably fucked.  MGTOW is the logical response to a world that has decided that the idea of a men’s rights movement is a joke.  If they won’t let us play a fair game, they can play it without us.  Fuck them.

Right now I’m so appalled at the world I kinda agree with you. If my present relationship ended I’d probably go MGTOW too. In a world in which you are constantly demonized and scapegoated at every turn simply for being born with a Y chromosome, the social contract cannot help but break down. You have to offer men something to make them continue sacrificing themselves for society, but the past 50 years feminism has systematically stripped away all possible incentives for men to commit to marriage, chivalry, heroism, etc.

Without men committing to such things, civilization cannot help but break down quite rapidly, and maybe it should. It may be easier to start again from the rubble than fix the insane mess we’re presently imprisoned in.

anhonorabledemon:

the fuck is wrong with your hamster

anhonorabledemon:

the fuck is wrong with your hamster

(Source: soija, via sesshomarru)

poppypicklesticks:

ikazed:

this-is-cthulhu-privilege:

I found a thing.

The thing you found is a brilliant thing.

We are also talking about someone who needs a hundred and fifty thousand dollars and several years to make several youtube videos of herself talking 

poppypicklesticks:

ikazed:

this-is-cthulhu-privilege:

I found a thing.

The thing you found is a brilliant thing.

We are also talking about someone who needs a hundred and fifty thousand dollars and several years to make several youtube videos of herself talking 

(via privilegedenyingfeministcunt)

thinksquad:

A central Iowa Boy Scout troop just returned from a three-week trip they will likely never forget.

About 10 days into the trip, an innocent action by one of the nearly two dozen Scouts at the Canadian border into Alaska set off a chain of events that lead to a U.S. border official pointing a gun at a scout’s head.

Boy Scout Troop 111 Leader Jim Fox spelled out what happened to him and the Mid-Iowa Boy Scout Troop 111 as four van-loads of Scouts and adult volunteers tried to drive from Canada into Alaska.

Fox said one of the Scouts took a picture of a border official, which spurred agents to detain everyone in that van and search them and their belongings.

“The agent immediately confiscated his camera, informed him he would be arrested, fined possibly $10,000 and 10 years in prison,” Fox said.

Fox said he was told it is a federal offense to take a picture of a federal agent.

Not wanting things to escalate, Fox said he did not complain.

Another of the Scouts was taking luggage from the top of a van to be searched when something startling happened.

“He hears a snap of a holster, turns around, and here’s this agent, both hands on a loaded pistol, pointing at the young man’s head,” Fox explained.

Fox said that had them all in fear.

Ultimately no one was hurt or arrested, and after about four hours they were allowed to continue their trip into Alaska.


Watch video here
Read more: http://www.kcci.com/news/officer-points-gun-at-boy-scout-at-canadian-border/27078396#ixzz38KeT9srJ

thinksquad:

A central Iowa Boy Scout troop just returned from a three-week trip they will likely never forget.

About 10 days into the trip, an innocent action by one of the nearly two dozen Scouts at the Canadian border into Alaska set off a chain of events that lead to a U.S. border official pointing a gun at a scout’s head.

Boy Scout Troop 111 Leader Jim Fox spelled out what happened to him and the Mid-Iowa Boy Scout Troop 111 as four van-loads of Scouts and adult volunteers tried to drive from Canada into Alaska.

Fox said one of the Scouts took a picture of a border official, which spurred agents to detain everyone in that van and search them and their belongings.

“The agent immediately confiscated his camera, informed him he would be arrested, fined possibly $10,000 and 10 years in prison,” Fox said.

Fox said he was told it is a federal offense to take a picture of a federal agent.

Not wanting things to escalate, Fox said he did not complain.

Another of the Scouts was taking luggage from the top of a van to be searched when something startling happened.

“He hears a snap of a holster, turns around, and here’s this agent, both hands on a loaded pistol, pointing at the young man’s head,” Fox explained.

Fox said that had them all in fear.

Ultimately no one was hurt or arrested, and after about four hours they were allowed to continue their trip into Alaska.


Watch video here
Read more: http://www.kcci.com/news/officer-points-gun-at-boy-scout-at-canadian-border/27078396#ixzz38KeT9srJ

thetomska:

giddytf2:

the-last-teabender:

Robin Thicke is unapologetic about how rapey ‘Blurred Lines’ is, meanwhile the dude who parodied it issues a public apology for one word.

And that is just one reason why I love Weird Al.

It’s great that he’s addressed this but are we really supposed to believe that NO ONE during the extremely lengthy processes of writing a song, recording it, mastering it and animating the music video wouldn’t have brought it up?

Whom is that offensive to and how?

thetomska:

giddytf2:

the-last-teabender:

Robin Thicke is unapologetic about how rapey ‘Blurred Lines’ is, meanwhile the dude who parodied it issues a public apology for one word.

And that is just one reason why I love Weird Al.

It’s great that he’s addressed this but are we really supposed to believe that NO ONE during the extremely lengthy processes of writing a song, recording it, mastering it and animating the music video wouldn’t have brought it up?

Whom is that offensive to and how?

(via )

A white girl wore a bindi at Coachella. And, then my social media feeds went berserk. Hashtagging the term “cultural appropriation” follows the outrage and seems to justify it at the same time. Except that it doesn’t.

Cultural appropriation is the adoption of a specific part of one culture by another cultural group. As I (an Indian) sit here, eating my sushi dinner (Japanese) and drinking tea (Chinese), wearing denim jeans (American), and overhearing Brahm’s Lullaby (German) from the baby’s room, I can’t help but think what’s the big deal?

The big deal with cultural appropriation is when the new adoption is void of the significance that it was supposed to have — it strips the religious, historical and cultural context of something and makes it mass-marketable. That’s pretty offensive. The truth is, I wouldn’t be on this side of the debate if we were talking about Native American headdresses, or tattoos of Polynesian tribal iconography, Chinese characters or Celtic bands.

Why shouldn’t the bindi warrant the same kind of response as the other cultural symbols I’ve listed, you ask? Because most South Asians won’t be able to tell you the religious significance of a bindi. Of my informal survey of 50 Hindu women, not one could accurately explain it’s history, religious or spiritual significance. I had to Google it myself, and I’ve been wearing one since before I could walk.

We can’t accuse non-Hindus of turning the bindi into a fashion accessory with little religious meaning because, well, we’ve already done that. We did it long before Vanessa Hudgens in Coachella 2014, long before Selena Gomez at the MTV Awards in 2013, and even before Gwen Stefani in the mid-90s.

Indian statesman Rajan Zed justifies the opposing view as he explains, “[The bindi] is an auspicious religious and spiritual symbol… It is not meant to be thrown around loosely for seductive effects or as a fashion accessory…” If us Indians had preserved the sanctity and holiness of the bindi, Zed’s argument for cultural appropriation would have been airtight. But, the reality is, we haven’t.

The 5,000 year old tradition of adorning my forehead with kumkum just doesn’t seem to align with the current bindi collection in my dresser — the 10-pack, crystal-encrusted, multi-colored stick-on bindis that have been designed to perfectly compliment my outfit. I didn’t happen to pick up these modern-day bindis at a hyper-hipster spot near my new home in California. No. This lot was brought from the motherland itself.

And, that’s just it. Culture evolves. Indians appreciated the beauty of a bindi and brought it into the world of fashion several decades ago. The single red dot that once was, transformed into a multitude of colors and shapes embellished with all the glitz and glamor that is inherent in Bollywood. I don’t recall an uproar when Indian actress Madhuri Dixit’s bindi was no longer a traditional one. Hindus accepted the evolution of this cultural symbol then. And, as the bindi makes it’s way to the foreheads of non-South Asians, we should accept — even celebrate — the continued evolution of this cultural symbol. Not only has it managed to transcend religion and class in a sea of one-billion brown faces, it will now adorn the faces of many more races. And that’s nothing short of amazing.

So, you won’t find this Hindu posting a flaming tweet accusing a white girl of #culturalappropriation. I will say that I’m glad you find this aspect of my culture beautiful. I do too.

Why a Bindi Is NOT an Example of Culture Appropriation 

by Anjali Joshi

(via breannekiele)

(Source: breannetakespictures, via privilegedenyingfeministcunt)