You’ll find a large portion of gun owners on tumblr agree with this sentiment
Yup.
Did she really post this thinking we don’t encourage women to defend themselves with guns?
If someone is trying to rape you shoot them wherever you’d like.
I can get behind this movement
Don’t use guns from Wal-Mart though, their gun selection is shit.
Guns from walmart tend to be not that great. Go buy from a Gunstore.
I love this post because OP thought they had a fantastic gotcha but half the notes are people saying “we absolutely agree” and the other half is people saying “we absolutely agree, but aim for center mass because it’s a better target and fatal.”
Yeah anyone who attempts rape has no right to complain about catching a round in the dick, or the twat for that matter, but aiming for it is likely to miss.
learning about 11 dead on the first night of channukah in australia stings far worse when the ones i learn it from are some random israeli officials and other zionists. not a peep from any of the people whose politics i nominally agree with.
there really needs to be a reckoning with how we treat antisemitism while also unapologetically advocating for palestine. i shouldn't have to feel like i cant truly grieve and anger over an attack on jewish people without ceding ground to these awful pro genicide fucks.
Hey, go fuck yourself. The antisemitism of your movement is the core feature, not a bug, and if there's a genocidal party in this fight, it's not the Israeli government--it's Hamas, according to their own statements and charter and actions. Meanwhile, if Israel was intent on committing genocide, there wouldn't be any Palestinians left alive.
Yeah, so it turns out that the reason Israeli officials and other Zionists are speaking about these attacks is that we think they're (a) horrific, and (b) part of a serious, systemic problem that the Australian government needs to stop ignoring, and the reason the people whose politics you nominally agree with aren't speaking up is because they don't think that.
If saying "it's bad to gun down Jews for publicly celebrating a 2000 year old holiday (about the importance of Jewish sovereignty in Israel and Judea)" feels like ceding ground, maybe that says something about your politics.
*2190 years. The cleansing of the Temple by the (temporarily) victorious Maccebeans was in 164 BC, though full independence from the Seleucids wasn’t till 30 years later.
“Oh the authors of the Second Amendment couldn’t imagine 30-round rifles!”
Babycakes, this 30-round rifled musket fires roughly the same kind of round as the French muskets used in the French and Indian Wars, which have a muzzle energy of roughly 1500 joules—the low end for M16s.
And its design was patented in 1640, 21 years after Jamestown, forget the US Constitution. (They were first fielded in 1659, 40 years after Jamestown.)
I’m kinda being facetious, but can we really assume the UK has a lower rate of violence committed by Islamists, than Iran does?
Communism and Multiculturalism are the two biggest failed experiments in human history. Agree? Disagree?
Tentatively agree. I think, even though it didn't last very long, we can throw Nazism in there too just because of how much damaged it caused in such a short period of time.
Those are pretty much all Marxism. I’d say Communism, Islam, and whatever you’d call the “Inca” state. Neoconfucianism is pretty bad too but they don’t always ruin ordinary people’s lives for no good reason, unlike the other three.
can i interest u in a box of friend??
it’s him…… the Grey Earl…………..
A most honored guest at the royal ball!
Fandom Problem #12,083:
When a piece of media has religious themes as confirmed by the author, but then some antithiests show up and INSISTS that the work is NOT RELIGIOUS AT ALL, it can't POSSIBLY be based on that ICKY RELIGION.
I saw this happen with a cute little Vocaloid song about Noah's Arc from the perspective of the dove. The person in question believed Japan had no Christians.
I've oddly even seen people do this with Narnia. NARNIA. HOW THE FRICK DO YOU THINK NARNIA ISN'T RELIGIOUS!?
Japan has very few Christians but even if it did have none, like…Christians make stuff based on Greek mythology? Does this person think Bibles are illegal there?
I doubt the people who wrote Demonbane are Christian, what with it originally having been a porn game and all, but it uses its Christian motifs better than many actual Christian creators do.
"The Greek of the Iliad is an exhilarating blend of regal solemnity and grim realism. For a rough English analogue, consider Shakespeare’s Richard II, driven to helpless impotence by Henry Bolingbroke, pleading with his straggling followers in thudding monosyllables to recognize his humanity: “I live with bread like you, feel want, / Taste grief, need friends. Subjected thus, / How can you say to me I am a king?” Plain language used as a vehicle for high drama: that’s what any translator of Homer should aim for.
[Emily] Wilson is interested in the plain language, but she sniffs at the high drama. Like Shakespeare, she writes in iambic pentameter, which she rightly considers the best approximation for Homer’s loping dactylic hexameter. The ten-syllable English pentameter matches the six-foot lines of the Greek in that it comes trailing associations of epic splendor. It’s the meter of Milton’s Paradise Lost and Tennyson’s “Ulysses.” Yet Wilson wants to gainsay those associations and deliver an Iliad shorn of glamor: “I hope that most readers of this translation do not realize how deeply I love Shakespeare, let alone Milton,” she writes. This is heroic verse without the heroism.
In an 1861 essay “On Translating Homer,” the great critic Matthew Arnold wrote that “in spite of [the] perfect plainness and directness of Homer’s style, in spite of [the] perfect plainness and directness of his ideas, he is eminently noble; he works as entirely in the grand style.” In the introduction to her Odyssey, though, Wilson objects that “Homer is…very often not ‘noble’: the language is not colloquial, and it avoids obscenity, but it is not bombastic or grandiloquent.” Her assumption seems to be that nobility is synonymous with bombast and grandiloquence. That’s a misunderstanding of both Arnold and Homer, whose language is dignified without ever becoming pompous."
— Spencer A. Klavan: "Homer Without Heroes"
We need someone steeped in Japanese pop culture to do a Homer translation. The same game features a living spellbook saying to a giant robot, “I am the Book of the Laws of the Dead, the Book of the Things That Cry Out in the Night. By my name I charge thee, name thyself. ‘Demonbane’? Ah! A good name. You interest me.” and a guy describing the luxuries of a mansion as “They can put as much butter and jam on their toast as they like!”
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a grown woman has no business policing other grown adult's love lives.
It's disturbing to me how accepted that term has become in just a few short years: I don't think I'd ever even heard it ten years ago. To a large number of people it sounds reasonable, not realizing that by mindlessly regurgitating it they've ceded vitally important territory to some faceless, anonymous authority over their own and others' personal sovereignty, instead of just saying "If two grown-ups of any age find each other and fall in love, that's a rare and beautiful thing: more power to them. Their private lives are their business, not mine."
That should be the only publicly acceptable opinion on this matter.
In the audio you can clearly hear an agent give her a lawful order—get out of the vehicle. She chose violence.
I think most people largely agree on the facts even as they disagree intensely with the implications of those facts (excluding Trump and his cronies of course who are making up entirely new facts).
should a government agent be allowed to execute someone on the spot for non-compliance? and would the overall death toll rise or fall if they were not carrying guns? it might make them more circumspect, if nothing else.
it's weird when the defacto leader of the anti-government movement is the president I gotta say.
should a government agent be allowed to execute someone on the spot for non-compliance?
whenever you say this, there is a 100% guarantee that you are skipping over the entire discussion and the entire discussion is "does this actually and accurately describe the event that happened"
because i have not seen a single person say "a government agent should be allowed to execute someone on the spot for non-compliance" and I have seen people say "a government agent should be allowed to shoot at a person who is currently and actively attempting to kill them" and when you characterize the debate as about the former question you are a liar and you know that you are a liar so stop lying.
yeah that's bullshit though isn't it, there are so many examples of situations where a cop shoots someone -- occasionally legally justified and occasionally not -- where if they didn't have a gun it would have been absolutely fine, because the shooting was driven by miscommunication or misunderstanding or sometimes malicious desire to punish perceived disrespect, but the victim was ultimately found to be unarmed or attempting to flee or not even realising the cop was there because they were deaf or distracted or whatever it was.
now of course this is America, many people are armed, I'm sure there must be situations where cops make a split second decision to shoot someone and it avoids an outcome where someone else would have been shot, like it would strain credulity if that never happened, but "cop escalates harmless situation into justified shooting in a matter of seconds" is a regular occurrence too and it kinda sucks.
The fact that you do not believe something does not mean other people cannot believe it.
Even if you think that it is obvious this person was not actively attempting to kill the cop, you are lying when you say the debate is over "should a government agent be able to execute someone on the spot for non-compliance?" And not "was this agent acting in self-defense?"
That was a lie, you told the lie, you knew it was a lie, and you chose to tell that lie. Just say you are sorry for lying and move on.
that's just dumb, at no point does someone shoot at the driver of a car in self-defence unless it's speeding towards a checkpoint and believed to be a suicide bomber or something like that, and even in those cases a number of confused innocents have been gunned down unnecessarily.
the agent might be legally justified in what they did but it's laughable to call it self-defence; the only thing they did by firing their gun was make the situation significantly more dangerous and also kill someone, if they had no gun on them nothing bad would have happened.
The fact that you do not believe something does not mean other people cannot believe it.
Even if you think that it is obvious this person was not actively attempting to kill the cop, you are lying when you say the debate is over "should a government agent be able to execute someone on the spot for non-compliance?" And not "was this agent acting in self-defense?"
That was a lie, you told the lie, you knew it was a lie, and you chose to tell that lie. Just say you are sorry for lying and move on.
Golly, let's ignore the fact that vehicles have been increasingly used as weapons. A vehicle doesn't have to be "speeding towards a checkpoint" or "driven by a suicide bomber" to be a threat. And what criteria are you using to define a "regular occurrence?" Where are the hard stats on "cop escalates harmless situation into justified shooting in a matter of seconds" being such a regular occurrence? Oh, and I'd like to see the stats on how many shootings truly involve "confused innocents" who have been "gunned down unnecessarily." Your whole argument is entirely disingenuous and clearly rooted in antipathy toward law enforcement.
It’s argumate. He’s a subhumanly stupid bigot. Why are you dignifying these animal noises with debate?
I'm sorry I just found out that the chef from the little mermaid was played by Rene Auberjonois??? Like dude was in space and also just assassinating Sebastian the crab????
Sebastian's voice actor was the original Mufasa on the broadway version of Lion King
Rene Auberjonois is also the skeleton in The Last Unicorn.
Because if there’s one thing an organization cofounded by Josef Stalin didn’t used to tolerate, it’s sexual violence during conflict!
Brie Larson: “Haha I love animal crossing.”
Internet: “Fucking b*tch.”
Ezra: [Attacks multiple civilians in Hawaii & potentially groomed a teenage girl]
Internet: “Haha Barry, you really screwed up the timeline this time! That Ezra is a real nut!”
invent a guy in your head, get mad at that guy, then blame a bunch of other people for the nonexistent actions of the guy you made up
I have never seen a single person defend Ezra Miller and neither have you
The only thing I've seen people say about Ezra Miller is that the cops need to get his ass.
#It's always nice when a shitpost blog decides to try and get up on a soapbox#And almost everyone agrees to break it from under their feet and tell them to shut the fuck up#Stick to the funny; OP
One, of course he’s friendly with Snyder, Snyder is by all accounts a peach to work with. Pity he has no talent whatsoever and makes Paul Verhoeven look like Alfred Hitchcock.
Two, the only people defending Miller, none of whom that I know of still are, did so because he was nOnBiNaRy or whatever.
