Photo
ughsocialjustice:

fuckyourracism:

sugoi-rudeboi:

jelizabeth41:

lyriciss:

petitfemmenoir:

THIS IS NOT NEWS

I don’t know what people expect Egyptians to be. I guess watching The 10 Commandments on ABC growing up got folks thinking they all looked like bronzed white people.

👆👆👆👆👆

BREAKING NEWS: BLACK PEOPLE ARE BLACK. THIS IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY. BLACK PEOPLE EXISTED BEFORE WE DISCOVERED THEM AND ENSLAVED THEM AND FUCKED UP THEIR LAND. WOW.

Africans in Africa? Mind blown. 

Breaking news: one bit of evidence does not prove conclusively that every single ancient Egyptian looked exactly the same! More breaking news: Egypt had loads of different races and people of various backgrounds! Even more breaking news: saying everyone in Egypt was black is just the same as whitewashing history!
-The Trans One

This is Maiherpri, an Egyptian general and advisor buried in the Valley of Kings.  He was indeed of Nubian (i.e. black African) descent.  That does not mean all Egyptians were, and in fact paintings in his tomb clearly depict him as darker-skinned than ‘typical’ Egyptians.
As a final note, that’s not ‘natural’ hair at all, but a wig… as was typical in Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiherpri

ughsocialjustice:

fuckyourracism:

sugoi-rudeboi:

jelizabeth41:

lyriciss:

petitfemmenoir:

THIS IS NOT NEWS

I don’t know what people expect Egyptians to be. I guess watching The 10 Commandments on ABC growing up got folks thinking they all looked like bronzed white people.

👆👆👆👆👆

BREAKING NEWS: BLACK PEOPLE ARE BLACK. THIS IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY. BLACK PEOPLE EXISTED BEFORE WE DISCOVERED THEM AND ENSLAVED THEM AND FUCKED UP THEIR LAND. WOW.

Africans in Africa? Mind blown. 

Breaking news: one bit of evidence does not prove conclusively that every single ancient Egyptian looked exactly the same! More breaking news: Egypt had loads of different races and people of various backgrounds! Even more breaking news: saying everyone in Egypt was black is just the same as whitewashing history!

-The Trans One

This is Maiherpri, an Egyptian general and advisor buried in the Valley of Kings.  He was indeed of Nubian (i.e. black African) descent.  That does not mean all Egyptians were, and in fact paintings in his tomb clearly depict him as darker-skinned than ‘typical’ Egyptians.

As a final note, that’s not ‘natural’ hair at all, but a wig… as was typical in Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiherpri

(Source: darvinasafo, via sjwhypocrisy)

Photo
poppypicklesticks:

everyonelovesrobots:

disneymoviesandfacts:

Bo Peep was omitted from Toy Story 3 because her surviving the incinerator was deemed highly unlikely as she was made of porcelain.

fUCK OFF

they could have just not had her present, like Barbie 
I was actually annoyed Barbie wasn’t in the final scene 

Given the manufacture of porcelain involves multiple thousand-degree temperatures, I’d think it’d be a lot more likely to survive than say… wood or plastic.  Or potato.

poppypicklesticks:

everyonelovesrobots:

disneymoviesandfacts:

Bo Peep was omitted from Toy Story 3 because her surviving the incinerator was deemed highly unlikely as she was made of porcelain.

fUCK OFF

they could have just not had her present, like Barbie 

I was actually annoyed Barbie wasn’t in the final scene 

Given the manufacture of porcelain involves multiple thousand-degree temperatures, I’d think it’d be a lot more likely to survive than say… wood or plastic.  Or potato.

(Source: imdb.com)

Text

sayakaforjustice:

Guys, apparently the whole thing about Zoe Quinn raping her ex is a rumor and I’m not sure if it’s actually true or not, since I’m hearing different things from everyone.

If she DIDN’T, then please don’t falsely accuse her. I hate her just as much as the rest of you, but accusing women of rape when it didn’t even happen is just as bad as doing it to men.

I think it’s that she stated that adultery is a form of rape at some point.  So, by her own definition…

Of course, most people wouldn’t use that definition, so I think it’s more than a little overblown…

Photo
shotguntactic:

solwardenclyffe:

shotguntactic:

rtrixie:

Aaaand we’ve reached the point where feminism undermines our countries’ ability to defend themselves.

I really want feminists to respond to this.

TBH, men and women do have different ways of walking, and matching pace exactly could be troublesome.  And marching in sync is *not*, in fact, necessary for any significant military operations.

How can you seriously defend this? These women walked incorrectly, but they never talked to anyone about it before the damage was already done. And apparently they considered themselves very important, since these three women ended up costing 600000 pounds, getting a hundred thousand each, more than a wounded soldier in Afghanistan does.Sure, the police made a mistake, but so did the women, and to sue a corps who are already on an incredibly tight budget for that amount of money is beyond ridiculous.
On another note, had this been short men, would you be trying to excuse them too?

To all appearances, this particular incident was, indeed, a case of whininess.  I was responding to the ‘feminism undermines our countries ability to defend ourselves because women don’t… march in step?’.  So, I don’t know much about this particular case, but as a general issue, it seems like it *could* be valid.  I don’t think that ‘maybe, given that men and women have naturally different ways of walking, making them march in sync isn’t the greatest idea’.
But then again, given that the RAF probably has more than three females in it… they’re at least blowing things way out of proportion.
As for getting more than a soldier seriously wounded in actual combat… that’s pretty inexplicable.  I can only attribute it to having sued and won rather than the ‘voluntary’ compensation.
For the last bit, a short woman has a different hip structure and therefore different stride than a short man.

shotguntactic:

solwardenclyffe:

shotguntactic:

rtrixie:

Aaaand we’ve reached the point where feminism undermines our countries’ ability to defend themselves.

I really want feminists to respond to this.

TBH, men and women do have different ways of walking, and matching pace exactly could be troublesome.  And marching in sync is *not*, in fact, necessary for any significant military operations.

How can you seriously defend this? These women walked incorrectly, but they never talked to anyone about it before the damage was already done. And apparently they considered themselves very important, since these three women ended up costing 600000 pounds, getting a hundred thousand each, more than a wounded soldier in Afghanistan does.
Sure, the police made a mistake, but so did the women, and to sue a corps who are already on an incredibly tight budget for that amount of money is beyond ridiculous.

On another note, had this been short men, would you be trying to excuse them too?

To all appearances, this particular incident was, indeed, a case of whininess.  I was responding to the ‘feminism undermines our countries ability to defend ourselves because women don’t… march in step?’.  So, I don’t know much about this particular case, but as a general issue, it seems like it *could* be valid.  I don’t think that ‘maybe, given that men and women have naturally different ways of walking, making them march in sync isn’t the greatest idea’.

But then again, given that the RAF probably has more than three females in it… they’re at least blowing things way out of proportion.

As for getting more than a soldier seriously wounded in actual combat… that’s pretty inexplicable.  I can only attribute it to having sued and won rather than the ‘voluntary’ compensation.

For the last bit, a short woman has a different hip structure and therefore different stride than a short man.

Photo
shotguntactic:

rtrixie:

Aaaand we’ve reached the point where feminism undermines our countries’ ability to defend themselves.

I really want feminists to respond to this.

TBH, men and women do have different ways of walking, and matching pace exactly could be troublesome.  And marching in sync is *not*, in fact, necessary for any significant military operations.

shotguntactic:

rtrixie:

Aaaand we’ve reached the point where feminism undermines our countries’ ability to defend themselves.

I really want feminists to respond to this.

TBH, men and women do have different ways of walking, and matching pace exactly could be troublesome.  And marching in sync is *not*, in fact, necessary for any significant military operations.

Photo
emilys-list:

Nina Turner is running for Secretary of State in Ohio, and she’s the next Candidate to Watch. She’s a strong advocate for voting rights, and if elected would be the first African American elected to statewide office in Ohio. Check out her advice to young women, and if you like Nina, become an EMILY’s List member to help support more awesome candidates just like her! —————-> http://www.emilyslist.org/page/s/join-emilys-list

Humans don’t have wishbones.

emilys-list:

Nina Turner is running for Secretary of State in Ohio, and she’s the next Candidate to Watch. She’s a strong advocate for voting rights, and if elected would be the first African American elected to statewide office in Ohio. Check out her advice to young women, and if you like Nina, become an EMILY’s List member to help support more awesome candidates just like her! —————-> http://www.emilyslist.org/page/s/join-emilys-list

Humans don’t have wishbones.

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

Quote
"We tend to think animals are lower than us, but all the scientists in the world couldn’t design and operate a bumblebee’s wing. We can’t jump or run very fast, and we can’t carry vast weights like an ant can. We can’t see in the dark and we can’t fly except crammed in a noisy tube like sardines, which doesn’t count. Humans compared to animals are almost totally deaf. We are finite and separate, and neurotic, while the consciousness of an animal is at peace and eternal. We strive and go crazy to become more important. Animals rest and sleep and enjoy the company of each other. We think we have evolved upwards from animals but we have lost almost all of their qualities and abilities. The idea that animals don’t have consciousness or that they don’t have a soul is rather crass. It shows a lack of consciousness. They talk, they have families, they feel things, they act individually or together to solve problems, they often care of their young as a tribal unit. They play, they travel, and medicate themselves when they get sick. They cry when others in the herd die, they know about us humans. Of course they have a soul, a very pristine one. We humans are only now attempting with the recent rise in consciousness to achieve the soul that animals have naturally."

Stuart Wilde (via thestylishgypsy)

We tend to think animals are lower than us, but all the scientists in the world couldn’t design and operate a bumblebee’s wing. 

Yes, they could.  And it only took a few years, rather than millions.

http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/rise-insect-drones

We can’t jump or run very fast,

On our own, no - we can only run very far compared to other animals.  But our vehicles can go faster than any animal!

and we can’t carry vast weights like an ant can.

By mass, we’re stronger (insect musculature is quite weak, relative to others).  The only reason ants and every other small creature appears so strong is because of the square-cube law.

We can’t see in the dark

True.  At least not without NVGs.

we can’t fly except crammed in a noisy tube like sardines, which doesn’t count. 

Ultralights are a thing.  Also, name an animal that can fly with 100 metric tons of payload, and/or at two times the speed of sound.

while the consciousness of an animal is at peace and eternal.

Because most animal’s minds aren’t complex enough for forethought or afterthought.

(Source: bavarde, via a-lesbillion)

Photo
I have no idea what this is, but I like it.

I have no idea what this is, but I like it.

(Source: gordeaus, via a-lesbillion)

Photo
xion1212:

rightsideofpolitics:

spillboy:

Faux News Guide to reporting about Police:  *If protester are white, police are bad guys.  *If protesters are black, police are good guys.

This is all the left has is race baiting, shameful….Which set of protesters attacked innocent people?Which set of protesters destroyed private property?Which set of protesters looted stores?Which set of protesters actually fired guns at police?Which set of protesters actually threw Molotov cocktails?
Two entirely different situations.
I feel for those who wish to exercise their 1st Amendment Rights to protest Michael Brown’s death and that are drowned out by those YOU incite.
You race baiting cowards come out from under your bed and lead those you incite and suffer the consequence alongside those you insight.

^^

At the Bundy Ranch, Cliven Bundy raised a makeshift army to protect himself from the consequences of his relatively minor crime, and then reportedly, proceeded to forcefully occupy the county, not allowing anyone in or out unless they met their approval.
In Ferguson, the Ferguson Police Department raised a makeshift army to protect themselves from the consequences of Darren Wilson’s much more severe crime.  They then proceeded to forcefully occupy the city, not allowing anyone in or out.

It’s a somewhat similar offense, it’s just that what the FPD is doing is that much worse, especially since they’re *supposed* to be the responsible ones here.  Admittedly, it’s a very ugly incident.  What started as a peaceful protest quickly drew sharks, and now it’s hard to divide what is reasonable from what is just protectionism.  Heck, because the FPD seems to be leery of letting the media get anywhere near, it’s hard to tell what exactly happened in what order.  It’s clear that rioting happened, but whether it began before or after the police broke up the original protest is… unclear.

xion1212:

rightsideofpolitics:

spillboy:

Faux News Guide to reporting about Police:
*If protester are white, police are bad guys.
*If protesters are black, police are good guys.

This is all the left has is race baiting, shameful….
Which set of protesters attacked innocent people?
Which set of protesters destroyed private property?
Which set of protesters looted stores?
Which set of protesters actually fired guns at police?
Which set of protesters actually threw Molotov cocktails?


Two entirely different situations.

I feel for those who wish to exercise their 1st Amendment Rights to protest Michael Brown’s death and that are drowned out by those YOU incite.

You race baiting cowards come out from under your bed and lead those you incite and suffer the consequence alongside those you insight.

^^

At the Bundy Ranch, Cliven Bundy raised a makeshift army to protect himself from the consequences of his relatively minor crime, and then reportedly, proceeded to forcefully occupy the county, not allowing anyone in or out unless they met their approval.

In Ferguson, the Ferguson Police Department raised a makeshift army to protect themselves from the consequences of Darren Wilson’s much more severe crime.  They then proceeded to forcefully occupy the city, not allowing anyone in or out.

It’s a somewhat similar offense, it’s just that what the FPD is doing is that much worse, especially since they’re *supposed* to be the responsible ones here.  Admittedly, it’s a very ugly incident.  What started as a peaceful protest quickly drew sharks, and now it’s hard to divide what is reasonable from what is just protectionism.  Heck, because the FPD seems to be leery of letting the media get anywhere near, it’s hard to tell what exactly happened in what order.  It’s clear that rioting happened, but whether it began before or after the police broke up the original protest is… unclear.

(via dontneedfeminism)

Photoset

siryouarebeingmocked:

dickardcain:

siryouarebeingmocked:

otheranonymous:

stylepersonified:

More fantastic ads

Holy shit they just kept getting more intense/real

Isn’t the Kinder surprise ban widely considered kinda stupid? Much less Red Riding Hood, which hasn’t been banned for over 20 years, and even then only in two areas?

Also, “assault weapons” has no legal meaning. It’s an emotive, political term that has been chosen for the the ominous associations it will raise in America’s enemies military connotations it will raise in the America’s public, much like the “War on Drugs” or “War on Women”. Even when there was a Federal Assault Weapons ban, the definition was arbitrary, and included features that didn’t significantly increase a weapon’s lethality, if at all.

And as long as were talking about futures, why not the fact that boys are less likely than girls to finish high school and college, yet most gendered scholarships are for girls?

One of the common things people seem to overlook is that we had columbine occur right smack dab in the middle of the assault weapon ban. With weapons that were illegal under the ban’s language.

And then even as the ban expired, gun deaths by homicide kept going down. 

The vast majority of gun deaths in the United States is by suicide. A fact many people don’t seem to understand or acknowledge.

Here’s a fun fact, and I’m hoping this little bit of information gets traction cause I think it’s a valid point.

Many people will say that guns are meant  to kill people, which is why they are inherently wrong or evil and need to be heavily restricted.

However…

In 2010 roughly 33,000 people died as a result of traffic accidents. These are accidental deaths from automobiles that include drunk driving, but they involve a car.

There are 250 million cars in the United States.

In 2010, there were about 29,000 deaths via firearm, with only 9,000 of them being from homicides.

There are over 300 million guns in the US at that time and even more now. 

This means that even with a 50 million unit difference, cars are deadlier than guns. Tell me again how the intent of an object’s design matters?

>Many people will say that guns are meant  to kill people,

I’d just like to point out that many, many guns are made to shoot animals, not people. Some are entirely for target practice. Heck, Taser makes a Taser shotgun, the XREP.

I have seen people say something like “guns were invented for killing” with the implication that that makes them bad. Of course, by that logic, the Internet should really be used only for communication in the event of a nuclear attack, or academic purposes. And we might as well ban bows too. And yo-yos, because according to some folks they were invented as weapons. And some go “guns are made for killing” sneakily leaving out the part where many are, again, made to kill animals, not humans.

/rant

It’s also worth noting that while guns may be legal, they are not intended for children.  Unlike, say, Kinder Eggs.  Or swimming pools, which are one of the most dangerous things to have in your home.

(Source: stylepersonified)